Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226

At

) 04:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has actually once merged 2 CfD discussions, I think that this case is different - TonyTheTiger expressed a support for one of these discussions which has no expression in the other. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't support the other expressly because I thought they should be merged. The nominator said on his talk page that he did not know who to do a multiple nom merge. I have done multiple noms, but have forgotten (If I ever knew) how to merge noms once created. I'll support the other if that formality makes the merger more proper.--

WP:FOUR

) 11:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Since they cover the same three templates under two different headers, I've merged the discussions. --RL0919 (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to propose a community ban of
  talk
  ) 12:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban - I hate to see it come to this, but I agree that the time has come. I have been one of the editors who have over and over discussed the concepts of
  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is incredible. As Dougweller says, things have escalated recently, and patience has run out. LadyofShalott
  13:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I'm seeing discussion, but no formal attempts at lesser enforcement. No blocks, and more to the point Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drnhawkins is a red link. I'd suggest that an attempt at wider discussion at RFC/U should be attempted before we jump straight to site ban.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Have you read his comments at the AfD and MfD pages? If so, why do you think an RfC/U would be effective, or do you suggest it for some other reason?
    talk
    ) 13:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

An RFC/U allows an individual to see that it's not just individual editors that have issue with their edits, that the general community agrees that they're not meeting WP policy. It also puts them on formal notice that they must bring themselves into compliance or sanctions will follow. I believe some formal DR is appropriate in a situation like this. If they then still chose to act counter to policy then further steps can be taken knowing that we've made that formal attempt to educate the user.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If I've counted right, 7 editors have !voted to delete on the current MfDs and he still argues that he is right and Wikipedia is wrong. I understand your point, but this seems to only prolong the agony and waste more time. AfDs and MfDs should also be educational in my opinion, and the issues are clearly put forward and his response is likewise clear.

talk

) 14:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Full community bans are serious enough that they should not be handed out too quickly or when other options are available. If after formal DR he still fails to learn, would a topic ban serve the puropse, allowing him to perhaps come to learn policy if he so chose? Maybe yes, maybe no, but that's the sort of thing that could be discussed outside of an MFD, inside the DR process before we lay down the wiki death penalty. This isn't a vandal, this isn't an abusive sockpupeteer, this isn't someone making threats of violence, this is someone who after a pair of MFD's in 2 weeks of editing after a 2 year break hasn't accepted WP:OR. We can take the time to do this right IMHO.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You meant should not be, I take it... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I did miss a 'not' in there. Thanks, I've added it in so that first sentence makes sense.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Cube Lurker. It is unacceptable that bans be enacted by ad-hoc mobs on a noticeboard before even a whiff of
  dispute resolution is in the air. causa sui (talk
  ) 17:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose'I support the position of User:Cube lurker. I've read enough to sympathize with those who must be frustrated trying to converse with User:Drnhawkins. However, I see no blocks, no examples of discussion at ANI, no Rfcs, and one warning, issued over two years ago. We have a process for escalation of disputes, While there might be some examples where process should be ignored, I see no reason that this should be one of the exceptions. Has the community ever imposed a ban on someone with a clean block log, no ArbCom involvement and no warnings in over two years?SPhilbrickT 17:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose on grounds that there are other dispute resolution methods still available. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The next step would appear to be WP:Mediation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'd certainly be open to mediation. LadyofShalott 02:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn

OK, I'll withdraw the request. I would however like help from those who opposed it wording the RfC/U as it is the editor's difficulty in understanding our policies and guidelines which drew me here, and asking him to abide by something he doesn't understand is not likely to work.

) 18:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Now created at

talk

) 14:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

So what is an acceptable solution

What solution can you offer that allows some discussion (in main space) about who was the Pharaoh contemporary with Abraham, Joseph, Moses (and also the Isralites who were in Egypt for 430 years and grew from 70 to 2 million in that time). I understand about what you say about original research and reliable sources but your policies put Christianity at a disadvantage because you do not accept the Bible as a reliable source of Historical information.--Drnhawkins (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nor do we accept the Torah, the Qur’an, or any other religious text as a reliable source of historical information. – ukexpat (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact is the solution may not be 'acceptable'. I understand the disadvantage, but without having the information published outside the bible in some sort of secondary reliable source, It may very well be that Wikipedia is not the right place for this to be presented.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no solution which simultaneously meets our standards and yours, since you insist on rejecting our non-waivable requirements. After all your time here, this should have become clear by now. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a solution. If you have adequate evidence to support your views, arrange to have them published in a Reliable Source. If you can get them published, they can be reported here. If you cannot get them published, we cannot use them here.SPhilbrickT 17:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, write about notable opinions on this topic. Find modern sources that describe the debate. Don't engage in it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that I can recommend this either. Editors working on natural science and history articles are usually familiar with the Wedge strategy, which is what that would look like. causa sui (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

See

Teach the controversy" still presents both sides in of the debate, it does not go to the meta-level (which would be a sociological, not a biology topic). --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 18:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to echo what others have said here. Wikipedia content follows the opinion of the professional researchers doing history: therefore, if you want Biblical accounts to be included in Wikipedia, you will need to start by getting them included in peer reviewed literature. causa sui (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

However, there is a perfectly good section, not long enough to be an article, on the

Pharaoh of the Exodus; as there ought to be. Modern interpretation of ancient texts is perfectly encyclopedic; we should discuss a primary source from Ezra's time under Egyptology when the Egyptologists do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

23:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content review is rather backlogged, and there are at present a number of files that have been under discussion for weeks if not months (e.g. this one). In the interest of closing some of the longer-term discussions, the page could probably benefit from fresh administrator attention. I may see about performing some of the simpler closures myself. SuperMarioMan 23:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have a vested interest in one of the discussions, but administrators should take care to ensure fairness in their closures. If a discussion has been open for months without discussion or movement then consider the possibility of closing it as stale rather than surprising the uploader with a deletion of their file based substantively on remarks left months ago. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Would an administrator please move User:Doncram/New Era Building to New Era Building. --doncram 14:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you also have drafts for the other articles in userspace? Barring that, it's a disambiguation that leads to one article. -

Aaron Brenneman (talk

) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like some feedback on what our normal approach is in this situation. When there are two actual articles, it makes sense to use a hatnote, but if one or both are redlinks, hatnotes do not appear to make sense. That's why there was a dab with two redlinks. I'm not all that big a fan of redlinks, but that's not my call to make. If redlinks are allowed for plausible articles, (and an NRHP location qualifies as a plausible article), how should it be handled? I do not think it is reasonable to expect the editor creating the dab to have draft articles in progress. That would be nice, but I don't see it as required. I'm inclined to make the move (as requested here), but I'd like to see what others think, in case there are rules I'm missing, or a better solution.--SPhilbrickT 14:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is disambiguation policy and practice that disambiguation pages differentiate among topics and can contain redlink items, as long as each one provides a supporting bluelink to an article that shows the same redlink in context. More specifics at

MOS:DABRL. From time to time it seems surprising to an editor, but it is further acceptable for a dab page to consist entirely of such redlinks (with supporting bluelinks), as has been determined in discussions among disambiguation-focussed editors at WikiProject Disambiguation talk. This dab page existed properly in mainspace for a long time. Recently it was deleted once by Sphilbrick, was recreated by me, was moved to current userspace location twice by SarekOfVulcan, and then a new page (which I moved to New Era Building (New York City)) was created in the mainspace location by Station1. The disambiguation page is needed, appropriate. It now takes an administrator to move it back. I suppose it would further be appropriate to have the previous edit history of the article restored. --doncram

15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I've now asked at Wikiproject talk Disambiguation for comment here. --doncram 15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See, now I'm cranky. When there is history to an action, and that history can reasonably interpreted as contentious, it's a bit uncool to drop a one-line "please do this." It sure makes it look like you were trying to slip something in under the radar. -

Aaron Brenneman (talk

) 15:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that making the request on one of the most trafficed noticeboards on WP, rather than using {{

Bencherlite^Talk

15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A non-controversial move of a disambiguation usually gets done in thirty seconds when you put in on this page. The relevant facts weren't given by the requester, and there was clearly a good reason to give that background, see above and below. -

Aaron Brenneman (talk

) 15:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my asking here was meant to convey there exists some issue, but I was hoping for simple resolution. It should indeed be non-controversial, and would not be except for SarekOfVulcan's determined and uninformed-in-my-view intervention on the article. I asked here rather than at

wp:RM as some editors here are familiar with SarekOfVulcan's involvement with my editing, which is adding up towards repeated instances of pretty apparent edit-warring mentality (tho 3RR not reached this time). The last time SarekOfVulcan tangled with me here, regarding a page where he reached 4RR, he was blocked 40 hours and i was blocked 3 weeks. I don't want to have to go into all of that. I simply asked and do ask for the dab page to be restored, and hoped that someone informed about previous history would just make a sensible judgment on this situation alone and fix this situation. In effect I was/am asking for a simple override SarekOfVulcan's judgment that it is not a valid dab page, because it is a valid dab page. Is it possible to ask for a simple fix, without going into a big discussion about other stuff? --doncram

16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that userfying the article was not what was originally asked for.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That is an misleading statement by SarekOfVulcan, to link to a non-compliant version. As i explained to SarekOfVulcan, i was seeking restoration of the original article, not that version. The original article, as in copy provided by Sphilbrick at his Talk upon my request, included MOSDAB-compliant supporting bluelinks, and also a cross-wiki link to the German wikipedia version of this dab page. --doncram 16:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that OP's posting has the effect of ratcheting up the cranky meter, even if not intended. However, I take the point that asking here is not really slipping it under the radar, but the exact opposite. I also suggest that edit summaries using the word "attack" or "pressure" do not help, even if they were valid (and I don't think they are valid in this case). Can we concentrate on settling whether the dab is warranted?--SPhilbrickT 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No arguments against the dab being presented here, and positive ones having been presented (i.e. that the dab is valid and compliant with all policies) could an administrator please make the move and restore the dab? --doncram 19:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Doncram has asked me on his talk page to comment here. The chronology is roughly: 1. Sphilbrick deletes, correctly imo, New Era Building, at the time a two entry dab page where both entries are redlinks with a bluelink to a list article with minimal info about each topic (other than pages created by doncram, I believe such dab pages are extremely unusual and have always been subject to speedy deletion). 2. Doncram requests undeletion on Sphilbrick's talk page. 3. Without waiting, doncram creates a new dab page with two redlinks and no bluelinks whatsoever. 4. I request speedy deletion using {{db-disambig}}. 5. SarekOfVulcan userfies rather than deletes. 6. Doncram adds back original bluelinks and moves it back to mainspace. 7. SarekOfVulcan userfies again. 8. I Google "New Era Building" and seeing nothing about the two redlinked buildings, create a short article with several refs about a NYC building. 9. Doncram moves it to

) 21:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Over years, I have dealt with wave after wave of editors newly arriving at disambiguation pages and being unaware of policy or not accepting consensus. Consensus on exactly the no-redlinks-being-okay issue has been established previously, Station1's assertion to the contrary, and I refreshed Station1 about that already. Sphilbrick's deletion was wrong because all-redlink dab pages are in fact okay. However, now there is a bluelink article, the new one created by Station1, and there are three items on the dab page, getting by Sphilbrick's preference (not policy) for hatnotes only when just 2 items have the same name. Station1's assertion that the article name is "needed" by the new one is not valid; it obviously can be at New Era Building (New York City). Station1, could you please clarify that a) you would now agree that the disambiguation page should exist (albeit i think you think it should exist at New Era Building (disambiguation). Sphilbrick could you please clarify that you think the disambiguation page should exist, now that there are 3 anyhow. The only new issue is whether the New York City one should be wp:PRIMARYUSAGE or not a question properly settled in a Requested Move on the disambiguation page, after it is restored. I happen to think the non-nrhp NYC one is not primaryusage as the 2 NRHP-listed ones are definitely notable and as notable it their areas as the New York City one is in its area, and there is no world-wide primaryusage--face it no one has ever heard of any "New Era Building"; Station1 happens to think it does meet primaryusage. That subquestion should not require wp:AN attention, IMO. I suggest that the original request, to move User:Doncram/New Era Building to New Era Building be implemented. That would provide the necessary reversal of SarekOfVulcan's incorrect userfying of the valid dab page (important enough for wp:AN, and most properly covered here). Then let Station1 open a Requested Move at the Talk page of that, relating to his new article, created only after all this was already going on, if he wishes. --doncram 21:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If wave after wave of editors don't accept your notion of consensus, is it possible it's not the consensus at all? To answer your request for clarification, I've already said at your talk page, I think clearly, that no dab page need exist unless and until three articles exist, at which time

WP:TWODABS. Station1 (talk

) 22:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No, they all have different, conflicting, uninformed views. 99% agree with reasonable treatment, once explained. Now, that is a whopper of an assertion, that you agree a dab page is warranted, but not until the other articles are created, i.e. you defy disambiguation policy that redlink items are okay. That is completely unreasonable. Other editors observing here might say, well why not just create the other 2 articles. I could do that for this one case, but am balancing concerns of many NRHP editors and others who strongly dislike the creation of short stub articles. I myself would not mind having a bot run to create all the 50,000 missing NRHP articles, to end this kind of repetitive discussion with Station1 (informed) and with uninformed other new editors arriving. It is simply unreasonable to acknowledge that "New Era Building" is a valid dab topic, but assert it cannot exist. Just re-create the damn dab by moving it back into place. --doncram 23:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Two uninvolved editors have now created

) 02:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A disambiguation page appears to be the right way to go here. Even if the structure in NYC is the most notable, there are multiple examples, and hatnotes are less desirable in such cases. See

Disambiguation pages with only two entries. In addition to the three "New Era Buildings" listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, there are other uses of "New Era Building" that may or may not be sufficiently notable to warrant articles. E.g., buildings called the "New Era Building" in Chicago (on Blue Island Avenue dating at least to the 1890s), Johannesburg (12 De Villiers St.), and San Francisco, as well as the New Era Building & Loan Association in Philadelphia and the modular home builder New Era Building Systems. A disambiguation page services the 3 existing articles and leaves room to accommodate additional uses. Cbl62 (talk

) 04:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Cbl62. Would an administrator please move User:Doncram/New Era Building to New Era Building. To do so, please move the new article currently occupying the place to New Era Building (New York City) (which now redirects to the main topic). Station1 can open a wp:RM to move the dab to "New Era Building (Disambiguation)" if he sincerely believes the New York one meets wp:PRIMARYUSAGE, which I believe it does not. Station1, thank you for commenting promptly above, responding to my request. --doncram 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course I'm not going to open a RM. WP needs less disruption, not more. When this discussion is over, an admin will move things around or leave them as they are, mark this section resolved, and we'll all (hopefully including doncram) gladly move on to more productive endeavors. Station1 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like that. --doncram 13:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Would an administrator please move User:Doncram/New Era Building to New Era Building. To do so, please move the new article currently occupying the place to New Era Building (New York City) (which now redirects to the main topic). This in effect would override administrator SarekOfVulcan's twice moving the dab page to my userspace, and now it can only be moved back by an administrator. --doncram 11:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

. --doncram 18:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty please. --doncram 14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point the disambiguation page is ready for mainspace. However, it's clear that moving New Era Building to New Era Building (New York City) is not an uncontroversial move, so I'm not willing to do that without a proper RM. I'm willing to move User:Doncram/New Era Building to New Era Building (disambiguation) if you're willing to accept that for now and open an RM for any additional changes you want. Thoughts? 28bytes (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable solution to me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

28bytes, thanks for replying. If you put the dab page at the alternative name, then that gives the new NYC article the status quo, incorrectly, in a RM process. IMO, the dab should be put at the New Era Building name, undoing the effect of administrative actions that should not have been taken. I opened this wp:AN to ask for remedy of incorrect administrative actions. Review: The New York City page was only created after this started, upon Station1 noticing disagreement ensuing on the topic and investigating. There was long a dab page. Then first there was a void at the topic name only because administrator Sphilbrick deleted it without notice I believe, and without AFD. Then I put in a replacement dab page while asking Sphilbrick to restore original. Then Station1 commented about topic at my Talk page which SarekOfVulcan noticed, and SarekOfVulcan again deleted the dab, i think twice, by userfying. Then Station1 created NYC page at the main topic name, and moved it back after I once moved it away. It is the move of the New York City one to the general topic name that should be considered a controversial move, relative to the previous status. IMO, the administrative actions that removed the dab page were the mistakes, which should be undone by administrative action.

28bytes, Station1 already indicated that he would tend to abide by an administrator's decision about whether NYC one is primaryusage or not. I suggest if you actually judge it is wp:PRIMARYUSAGE (which you have not stated) then you make the move to the alternative name. If you judge the NYC one is not primary usage, or if you do not want to judge on that, then you should restore the previous status pre any moves, by implementing my request. --doncram 18:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think AN is a poor venue for determining whether the New York location is the primary topic. Moving your userspace DAB to mainspace while not disturbing the existing articles – without prejudice against a subsequent move request to settle the primary topic issue – is the best I can offer. If that's not acceptable, that's fine, perhaps another admin will be willing to make the specific moves you are requesting. 28bytes (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the first sentence. Would another administrator, then, please move User:Doncram/New Era Building to New Era Building. To do so, please move the new article currently occupying the place to New Era Building (New York City) (which now redirects to the main topic). This would undo the effect of previous administrative actions. Then anyone can propose a normal RM if primaryusage on the new article is asserted. I would hope that administrators as a group would hope a) to do no harm, and b) to undo harm from administrative actions where possible. This is a straightforward request to get back to something like the status quo before. --doncram 13:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Isn't this what

) 14:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@Doncram -- how many editors need to explain a) that the move you want is not uncontroversial; b) that this is not the forum for discussing or a requesting move? older ≠ wiser 14:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I was asking the "regular admins" to undo the action taken by one of them, to restore a needed, valid dab page. A normal RM could be started, or not, about the controversial potential move of the dab page in favor of a new article started after this began. The new article does not change the fact that the original administrative action was wrong. And that administrative action to move the dab would be the best way to fix the current situation.

However, I will take it that no administrator wants pass any judgment about the other administrator, and to fix the situation. I'll move the article myself to the alternative name and open a RM. Thanks for nothing really. :) --doncram 19:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Doncram attacks

While we're on the subject, can we agree that "start article supporting architect article that is under some attack" is not an appropriate edit summary on a whole bunch of levels? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The New Era Building situation is yet another where SarekOfVulcan seemed to me to be edit warring, by nature of rapid, undiscussed too-strong edits, with terse edit summaries at best. I requested nicely enough that SarekOfVulcan read up on the subject and fix the situation by moving the dab page back. He did not, so eventually i ask here for others to fix this. It's an example of SarekOfVulcan edit warring, IMHO. See edit history and discussion, such as it was. Countering by trying to raise a new issue seems off-track. Just move the dab page back, please. --doncram 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

'add to article created to support architect article, which is under some "pressure"' is not an improvement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

In this AN discussion, I ask for simple resolution of one dab page issue. --doncram 16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's nice. Stop making insinuations in your edit summaries. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As (what I assume to be) an uninvolved editor, Doncram your commentary in this thread is pushing the borders of civility and tone. I know you've been warned previously about this so take this viewpoint as a friendly suggestion that you take a few minutes and consider your tone. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Some prefer less, some prefer more clarification of the actual context here. I am somewhat cranky, too. --doncram 21:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

another dab removed by SarekOfVulcan

I agree that explicit discussion at Talk pages is far better than carrying on with edit-war style reversions and insinuations or assertions in edit summaries. Such as this, this and the series of edits by which SarekOfVulcan kept removing the page, and did not properly discuss. Edit summaries just invoked an irrelevant essay Wikipedia:Write the article first, not convincing and not relevant to the development of disambiguation as here. I am again troubled by S's attention, but simultaneous unwillingness to actually discuss things, as in my comments in S's recent re-RFA, which I opposed.

Reviewing SarekOfVulcan's contributions now, I further see this edit, in which SarekOfVulcan removes another disambiguation page by redirecting it. The edit summary suggests that he now believes that a dab page having just one main bluelink should be removed, until a second one is created. That is contrary to policy and practice and even further contrary to reason than deleting dab pages that have valid topics but no main bluelink. I will restore that disambiguation page once now. I imagine SarekOfVulcan or another editor will now choose to redirect it. Please do discuss here. --doncram 23:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

In reviewing the Downtown Main Street Historic District history it is interesting to note that you created it Feb 23, 2010. It was redirected 2 days later. It stayed that way until July 20, 2011 when you reverted as "incorrectly redirected". And then the back and forth today.

Bluntly: As per

MOS:DABRL

is sound, but only if a dab page is needed. A single potential "other" article does not a dab page need. Nor a hatnote at this point.

- J Greb (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not so. Removal of a dab page is not called for. The dab page, and others like it, have served purpose of helping clear name conflicts in NRHP list-articles which used to separately point to the dab topic. Putting the first-to-be-created article at the general name, rather than at the more specific, proper, final name including (City, State) disambiguation, often causes error and more future work resolving conflict between the future article creators and the first article creator who will tend to have ownership and in effect assert primaryusage. When only one of two known-to-be-valid and pretty-clearly-neither-primaryusage topics have an article already, it is not possible to set up hatnotes (I am sure that if you set up a hatnote from the one existing article to a redlink, that many editors would object and remove it). What is possible and makes sense is to create the dab, which is not disallowed by any policy and which obviously serves the need. This has been done for many hundreds of cases, and there is no problem with it. It would defy logic in developing the wikipedia to prohibit just creating the known-to-be-needed dab, which serves readers and editors right away who could be looking for either item and want to know whether or not articles exist, and if not, would like to see the redlink suggesting the topic is valid for them to go ahead and start the article. --doncram 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it is also worth noting that TWODABS as written points to the hatnote currently on New Era Building as sufficient unless consensus shows that none of the 3 building is the "primary" topic. - J Greb (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that none of the 3 buildings is the primary topic, but "TWODABS" does not state the disambiguation page should not exist, it just at best suggests the dab page might not be absolutely necessary, if all of two or three articles exist and one is primary. Since there are likely further entries to be added in the future, and since cluttering all three current New Era Building pages with hatnotes pointing to the other seems excessive, the best thing editorially is to have the dab page. It is not prohibited, and it is best. --doncram 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

MOS on "Disambiguation pages with only two entries" is slightly more explicit. To quote

Disambiguation pages with only two entries: "Some disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary topic. In such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless. The recommended practice in these situations is to place a hatnote on the primary topic article to link directly to the secondary topic. The {{for}} and {{redirect

}} templates are useful. If neither of the two meanings is primary, then a normal disambiguation page is used at the base name."

And, obviously if only one of two valid topics has an article, hatnotes won't work, so the dab page is in fact strictly necessary. Knock on wood, there has been no change on the restored dab page Downtown Main Street Historic District, so i am thinking this part of the discussion is resolved well enough. --doncram 18:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I did not state TWODABS states a dab page should not exist, just that a hatnote is sufficient.

Second, yes, if there are likely to be more articles using the same name then a dab page becomes plausible. But that is an if, as in guessing about future content.

Next, you are arguing to put the cart in front of the horse. TWODABS should be looked at first. then, if a dab page is needed, the MoS on dab pages comes into play.

Arguing that the dab page is "harmless" in such cases rings hollow - an unneeded page is an unneeded page. If you prefer it can be posted to AfD and redirected consensus, but that smack of being obstructive rather than constructive. That is unless you care to produce the article for the redlink.

Last, I wouldn't call Downtown Main Street Historic District resolved at this point, not by a long chalk. The existence of the page is questionable, at best and this is a discussion in an attempt to avoid escalating an edit war that could look like a bad case of

WP:OWN

.

- J Greb (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, better to discuss than edit war I agree. J Greb, FYI, I adapt following passage from a previous discussion, to explain more context about why there are many NRHP dab pages that have redlinks. It basically has to do with conflict between some NRHP editors vs. some disambiguation-focused editors; i have tried to mediate between. Some NRHP editors criticize short articles and don't want stubs created; some dab-focused editors try to remove all redlinks or prevent dab pages from existing. This is all about clearly wikipedia-notable topics of NRHP-listed places, for which articles will be created eventually (in fact they could all be created within a few weeks by running a bot to create them). Anyhow here is an adapted passage from previous explanation here (in "small"):

Upon encountering a mostly-redlink or all-redlink dab page, many editors have first reaction that disambiguation is to distinguish among existing articles only. So all redlink entries should be deleted? In the past many have started ahead deleting them. Many have started deleting any dab page that has all redlinks (whether or not there are supporting bluelinks establishing context and notability of the topic). Many have started to redirect dab pages that have just one bluelink. There are, over time, dozens of persons, some quite determined, who start to tear down disambiguation that I have set up. It takes time to convince the new arrivals that in fact the dab pages comply with policy (and it also takes a lot of time to get the Disambiguation policy updated for some matters). The Disambiguation policy is about topics, and Wikipedia-notable topics need disambiguation. Given a system of 85,000 NRHP-listed places in lists, with many sharing the same name, it is necessary to resolve article name conflicts so editors can proceed, and so that readers can discover whether a local NRHP they are looking for has an article or not. See User:Doncram/NRHP disambiguation for some reading, not recently updated. One pivotal past discussion with dab-focused editors was what is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation? in 2008.

Dealing with the Disambiguation editors in 2008, negotiating for the NRHP editors, the best I could do was to get consensus that a dab page could exist if at least one article existed. So, I created a stub article each time necessary, probably a few hundred. It had to be done. I worked at getting the policy changed, because NRHP editors like Elkman and Dudemanfellabra really disliked the stub articles, but it took a year or two or more to do so. Meanwhile I gave courtesy notice to Elkman if I created a stub in Minnesota and I gave courtesy notice to User:Niagara if I created a stub in Pennsylvania, as they preferred to be notified and would improve them. Finally sometime I completed out the creation of all dab pages needed for 2 or more NRHP places of the same name; there are 3,686 articles with one or more NRHP entries in Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles now.

Hope this helps some. Would it help to get some NRHP editors to testify that they don't like short stub articles created? What else might help you see that the present dab is helpful, stable, best. --doncram 22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: the "conflict" between the NRHP editors who "criticize short articles and don't want stubs created" and the dab-focused editors who "try to remove all redlinks or prevent dab pages from existing." A very practical solution to this supposed conflict has been suggested before... but I will suggest it again now: Work on both articles and related dab pages in User space until they can satisfy both parties. You can still notify other editors from the project so they can help you out. Wait until the ambiguous group (or at least most it) are more than a "short stub-of-a-stub"... then copy them over into Article space, along with the relevant dab page. Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In theory a 'nice' suggestion, but in reality contra-productive. Red-links are there to point to articles that should exist. It does not matter if that is in an article or on a dabpage (even a hatnote). All too often looking at actors playing in films of my era (at least the era I like watching) I find links pointing to totally wrong entries. If you find a redlink dab at the target pages you at least can point the link in question to its correct target. Funny, there are even pages that sort such redlinks my the number of incoming links - to identfy important subjects. Agathoclea (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Agathoclea. To Blueboar, about dabs your suggestion "develop dabs in Userspace" was one made by one or two others previously, back in Fall 2009 or 2010 i dunno which, when the system of dabs covering non-unique NRHP-listed placenames was being completed. That system was completed out then: all the missing dabs were then created, with approving consensus of those who were involved then. There was explicit discussion then about the principles covered in wp:TWODABS, and there was general agreement the system of dabs should be completed out. For a while there were a couple hundred dab pages in draft form included in a cleanup category. You could have argued then that the draft dab pages should have been in userspace until cleaned up. But all the new dabs were promptly brought up to MOSDAB standards, i.e. to have a properly compliant supporting bluelink for every redlink item, so it is moot. The system of dabs has been serving extremely well, if I do say so myself. It has allowedUser:dispenser's Dablinks tool to be applied to all or most of the NRHP list-articles, so now there are very few remaining links to ambiguous topics from the NRHP list system. It allows me and others who create new articles on architects and builders, to quickly fix up lists of their works. And so on.

What this subsection is about, is that I recently discovered the redirection/removal of the Downtown dab, a rare exception to the general completion of needed dabs, and I restored it. SarekOfVulcan removed it by redirecting it again, and i restored it and opened this discussion here. SarekOfVulcan has not further asserted the dab should not exist. We're all done in this subsection, IMO, but i am willing to explain this further if there are further questions. The only remaining thing needed is, in above first section, for an admin to restore the deleted New Era Building dab. --doncram 18:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus that dab pages that disambiguate fewer than two articles should exist. Station1 (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, based on previous explicit discussion at WikiProject Disambiguation's Talk page. I invited you to open a new discussion there if you wish to challenge the previous consensus; it is not a matter for wp:AN to change that. However, there do exist hundreds or thousands of current dab pages having only one or even zero primary bluelinks, while disambiguating among multiple valid wikipedia article topics that each have proper support (i.e. each primary redlink having a proper supporting bluelink). --doncram 14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is a TWODABS situation, why not make a hatnote on the existing page to point to the list of NRHP places by county that lists the second page? I thought we had those lists for every county that has NRHP places. bd2412 T 20:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are referring to supporting bluelinks in a dab page. For NRHP items in a dab page where the main item is a redlink, yes it is appropriate to include a supporting bluelink to the corresponding NRHP county or city list that shows the same item in context. That is practice, that is done systematically. Thanks for commenting. --doncram 14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should users be allowed to remove current block notices? and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require all new articles to contain at least one source? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Spent a lot of time reading, but closed the first (

BWilkins ←track

) 17:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the first discussion, which was a difficult debate. Also, thank you, HJ Mitchell, for reviewing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a thought: quit it! Why in the world you guys want to stifle discussion I don't know, but I wish that you'd just leave these things alone. Very, very few discussions on the Village Pump require "closing". Why (at least two of) you think they do is beyond me. If you're not interested in participating in the discussion than do something else.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your condescension on this board, from the comment here to the comment to Gwen Gale below, is unhelpful.

I ask admins to close RfCs listed at Template:Centralized discussion so that the participants will understand the consensuses in their discussions. Some of the closes result in guideline or policy changes. Some result in no consensus being achieved. The closes are necessary to ensure that the proposals and discussions are not wasted because no one has assessed the consensus.

I generally ask for an RfC closure after at least 30 days of discussion or if discussion has stalled and the RfC has been archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Cunard (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, sure. Nothing about either of these discussions that you've linked to here requires "closure". Removal from CENT is fine, but attempting to shut down further discussion on the issues is wrongheaded, and slightly disruptive, in my opinion. I find it troubling that you seem to believe it necessary to force "participants [to] understand the consensuses". You clearly fail to understand the concept of consensus, based on this comment. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We're not a court, nor are we legislators. If you feel stung by my comments, I suggest that it is probably due to the fact that you're slightly out of touch with the culture here (not that I'm an expert myself, but at least I don't run around trying to force others to accept my views with a rational that it is "consensus").
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment but will disengage from further discussion with you. Cunard (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Whilst WP is not, among very many other things, a democracy or a court or a debating society it may well be borne in mind that you are the only editor who is complaining about (a) discussion(s) being closed with a overview of the apparent consensus at that time.

One thing WP is not, is a soapbox. If it seems that most people have accepted the outcome, then please accept it for the time being and perhaps raise the issue(s) at some later date. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 21:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking for other people to speak up, I'll do so. I have serious reservations about this close. Upon reading the discussion, it seems clear to me that there is either no consensus, or consensus in the other direction. To claim a consensus exists for this result, and to use it to change a guideline, seems unfair. I would not have closed it myself, because I have an opinion, and because I'm not sure a definitive closure was needed. If I thought it was just a matter of consensus being against me, I'd suck it up and move on, but I really don't think it was. I also note that others have objected to the close on BMW's talk page, and there's been some edit warring on the policy page in the last couple of days, also indicating it isn't just Ohm's Law stirring up trouble. I also find it irksome that HJM's {{closing}} template was over-ridden. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He'd probably begun closing before I put the template there, but I had intended to close it with the opposite result. I've made my issues with the close known on BW's talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I reverted the change to Wikipedia:User pages (twice now) and started a section on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Removal of current block notices. Since I've already been accused of soapboxing here I'll withdraw from any further editing of the policy page, but I'd hope that several of you who are interested in this (many of you who are administrators) will be willing to abide to our expectations with respect to edit warring and discuss this on the talk page.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If anything it would be a no-consensus close, definitely not a consensus to allow. And since the discussion was to remove where it said to not allow the removal of the block notices that would default to pretty much the same decision that he closed to so is there really a need to argue about it? -DJSasso (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that about two thirds of administrators (the people who will have to clean up when somebody starts an edit war by having the nerve to remove a message for them form their own talk page) were in favour of allowing users to remove block notices. Once you eliminate the people who clearly don't know what the purpose of a block notice is, the consensus is clealry in agreement with those admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

But that isn't a valid way to close a discussion ranking admin and non-admin. Ohms law made a good suggestion in the discussion he links to that maybe we should word it in a way that says there are some instances that it is appropriate to make them stay. Instead of a blanket yes or no situation. -DJSasso (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly valid. I'm the last person who would ever suggest that admins have some kind of special status, but it makes sense to give greater weight to the opinions of the people this is going to affect. This will affect blocked users (who don't have the right or the ability to edit) and admins, so giving extra weight to admins makes sense here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, as consensus shows at another similar discussion at VPP, we don't say anything and treat things on a case-by-case basis. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the "say nothing" approach, but there seems to be sufficient interest, which is apparently motivated by a desire to define and understand this aspect of our "culture" here, to justify saying something. I'd hope that said something is more along the lines of "it depends on the situation" than saying either "don't ever do this" or "it's always allowed", but that's what talk pages are for.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it is better to say something, the RfC does not appear to have produced a consensus on what to say. I've posted on BWilkins' talk page to encourage them to change the close to "no consensus" and restore the language of the section to this version that was in place prior to the changes that triggered the RfC. The old language does not address block notices specifically, which is probably how it should stay until consensus is forged for some other wording. --RL0919 (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that version does actually mention block notices by saying "sanctions currently in effect" which are clearly blocks. -DJSasso (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You might infer that, but it doesn't say 'block notices', which was the reasoning behind this edit that helped trigger the RfC. --RL0919 (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus there. As an aside, I don't think blocked users should have to carry that badge in their talk space if they don't want to, a block note comes up when one looks at a blocked user's contribs either way. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, no; it is that sort of reasoning and mentality (of trying to give extra weight to admins) which led to some of the foolishness at AE, ANI, etc. which led to two arbitrations within this year alone. In fact, in a way, editors are often in a better position to see how easily some admins can miss things, when things are being done as intended and when those things are going too far, and how desysops have so far worked in practice when things aren't up to scratch. Tools are given by the Community and the rules governing those tools are also set by the Community - extra weight is not (and will not be) given to admins opinions, and for as long as my watch is ticking, that will not change.

If there is disagreement over whether it should be allowed or not, more thought is needed. There can be some compromise between the concept that users have maximum freedom in their userspace, while addressing the concerns about how single-purpose-disruptive-users are treating the gap in policy (and how editors needed to adopt special measures to force admins to do something). DJSasso has echoed (above) a good suggestion which is capable of putting the issue to rest by considering both perspectives; hopefully that sort of thing can bring some resolution. Some users have refused to look for a middle ground, or to acknowledge the alternative proposals which have been raised, and I think it's a shame that those users are potentially going to force more escalation in lieu of resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, active block notices + unblock requests related to active blocks, as well as warnings given within the past X hours (say, 72?) should stay. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  The "warnings given within the past X hours" bit is new. Would you mind posting that thought (with a bit more of a rational, hopefully) at: Wikipedia talk:User pages#Removal of current block notices?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Recalling previous discussions on the matter of removing any notices -- for blocks, warnings, etc. -- over the last :::mummble::: years, ISTR that the consensus was something along the lines of "people shouldn't do it, but making them not do it leads to more WikiDrama than it's worth." Yes, these notices should stay permanently on some people's user pages, but anyone who is persistent enough & sufficiently civil enough can talk their way to getting rid of them. -- llywrch (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• You know, the best solution would be to turn the block log into a pseudo-talk page. In other words, make the block log a regular page, with controlled edit access (fully protected by default?)... then administrators could add notes, and adjust the record of blocks and unblocks. It'd be cool to build in a "request unblock" thing that the user who's page it is could use at any time, of course (or that could just stay on the talk page as is, but whatever). If that were implemented then it could be used for all sorts of other notes as well (checkuser stuff springs immediately to mind). We'd have to develop some community standards for it's use of course, but getting the technical ability done is the first step.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Find a sympathetic dev to get that written up, but for now, let's all stop arguing over something so petty as a block notice and get back to building an encyclopedia, shall we? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I didn't think we were arguing. And, the dev would be me (if I can ever manage to find the time...), but there are also plenty of administrators here who know PHP and could work on it. I just wanted to put the idea out there, in a place where it was topical. No need to get snippy about it.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of transparency and allowing the rest of the Community to put in their input please can we bring the discussion back to the original talk page. Plus, if for whatever reason it does ever need to be closed, I suggest an editor who doesnt have a COI by virtue of being one that goes to an inordinate number of blocks and seems to say "no" to 99% of all reviews.Camelbinky (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This user I initially ran into because of an incident where they were given rollback, but it was revoked, and as a result they started to cause widespread disruption, including misusing Twinkle and bothering people on their talk pages, as well as on IRC. They were indef blocked by

), as well as a countless number of users on IRC, which resulted in his bans on IRC being extended, and his restrictions on enwp being tightened. Just today, it has come to my attention that this is not the first account this user has had, and they have basically been wasting everyone's time over the past few months, including mine. They are an indef blocked user from the past, with over 30 previous accounts dating back to 2006. A list of some of the old accounts are below:

• Thehelpinghand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Surajsamant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Surajdsamant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sdsamant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bbcradio5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thisipwasrecentlyusedbyvndl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Surajsamantrules1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marksandspecer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (not blocked)
• Sdsmb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two were uncovered today, one being an announced account, the other is a  Likely sock which has not edited, as advised by a check user.

• Graveselliot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thepoliticalma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I feel that he has exhausted the community's patience. I assumed at first he was a new user who made mistakes and was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, even though he continued to annoy people on IRC and other Wikimedia wikis, but enough is enough. I propose his indef block be formally made a community ban.

04:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support (as already de facto banned block evader). By the way, you forgot
  • Surasaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - which appears to be the first one. It was the one that Surajsamant was tagged with.

How unfortunate, you worked really hard and put a lot of time into trying to salvage an editor only to have him admit to you that he's a blocked sock. Thanks for trying so hard and for notifying the community when you found out.--

talk • contribs

) 10:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. User is clearly, clearly not here to be productive, in any of his incarnations, and plays the "but, but" game too well to give him any more rope. His IRC behavior, while not sanctionable on-wiki, gives clear indication that he enjoys playing the ends against the middle and will weasel through any openings left to him both on-wiki and off. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Bounced around between a stack of projects, causing problems wherever they find themselves. (I'll notify the sister projects: simplewiki, enwiktionary, ensource and commons of this thread). —Tom Morris (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support No other viable or sensible option. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Obviously obvious. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Obviously it's obviously obvious.
  Wha?
  21:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

enough under the following "Sings of disruptive editing" to merit a topic ban.

• 1. Is tendentious:
  • ie. continues editing an article pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposing consensus from other editors.
• 2. Does not engage in consensus building:

• ie. repeatedly disregards other editors input, biased solely on his personal prejudices.
• ie. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

3.* Rejects or ignores community input

• ie. resists his own requests for comment, and continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors, biased on his personal prejudices.

Foxe's has a desire to push the POV that any "Mormon" who dose legitimate scientific research done, any news story written, or any Wikipedia edit made by a "Mormons" must be biased and therefore must be suspect, flawed and removed. Foxe also is using flawed (since not all the editors are Mormon) and prejudice view that any Mormons editor must be working together to build consensus against him, in order to ignore any consensus he dosn't like. This is flawed since one editor, Gandydancer, is not "Mormon" nor I am not LDS (the brand of Mormonism he is referring to when he says "Mormon", which is irrelevant anyway. However, the real issue is Foxe's edits are in fact

and he refuses to see that an consensus has been reached. For example the following statements and edit have been made Repeatedly:

• Mormons have worked in lockstep to defeat every compromise I've tried.--John Foxe (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• It's time to take this controversy to a forum where we can get some non-Mormon opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm a patient guy, and until non-Mormons agree that I'm wrong, I'll continue to take this point up the Wikipedia ladder of dispute resolution unless we can agree on a compromise.--John Foxe (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

At first I assumed he was willing to listen to the community and gave him the benefit of the doubt for quite a while, even though he continued to attack people biased strictly on religious prejudices, but enough is enough. Foxe has ignore and will continue to ignore the current consensus opposed to including his POV statements. Numberous statments made by Foxe on

shows his. I feel that Foxe has exhausted the community's patience.
I therefore propose a one month

topic ban be formally implement on John Foxe under Wikipedia:Banning_policy

of the following:

• The entire
  No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith
  page.
• Any edit related to the
  Y-DNA testing of geneticist Ugo A. Perego, the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation
  , as it related to Joseph Smith and possible children.

--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read the notice at the top of the page:

You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion.

I've done it for you. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I was actually working posting it as you posted here. I was taken away from my computer for a moment, which caused the delay. It was not my intention to not notify him and I sincerely apologize for the delay.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sorry; I'd figured that you would have done it as soon as you finished writing what's above section if you'd remembered. Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You are 100% correct that I should have one it as "as soon as you finished writing" which is why I am sincerely apologize for the delay. It was unintentional, but I see that it looked bad. Next time I will make sure nothing prevents me from posting the notice immediately.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs)

• Why aren't you following the course of action given under
  WP:DR? tedder (talk
  ) 18:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought we did:

• We can't "Ask for a third opinion", since there are a total of 5 editors in this dispute.
• We
  Ask about the subject
  , which is actually how I got involved. I was uninvolved "Ask about the subject" editor that was requested.
• We
  Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard here
  (which he ironically opened) which was completely ignored even though the comments made by a "Non-Mormon" were in response the the ANI, as he demanded.

As to mediation it say "Mediation cannot take place if all parties are not willing to take part." I will admit I am not willing to "take part" since I feel this issue is strictly an editor trying to push the POV that any Wikipedia edit made by a "Mormons" must be biased and therefore must be suspect, flawed. Additionally I believe that he would not be willing to "take part", in any real way, since he already refused to except the results of the ANI and the "Non-Mormon" said exactly what all other editor are. He has repeatedly said, in so many word, that any edit he doesn't like is going to be undone, no matter what. I therefore see no point.

Therefore the next step is Arbitration or this, and I choose this since I'm sure a Arbitration request would be "declined".

If I'm wrong about this I will immediately withdraw this, but after several months of this I'm just tired of it happening. This is a case of an edit who has personal prejudices who is unwiling to work with anyone who as an opposing viewpoint.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of steps of dispute resolution that haven't been tried, such as request for comments and informal and formal mediation. I think ARTEST4ECHO is attempting to ban me because in my last post on the article talk page I wrote, "I'm a patient guy, and until non-Mormons agree that I'm wrong, I'll continue to take this point up the Wikipedia ladder of dispute resolution unless we can agree on a compromise." Banning me from the page is the only way he can avoid having the question resolved through the normal dispute resolution process. In other words, he's afraid he'll lose.--John Foxe (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have listed my reason above, fear has nothing to do with it. You are an editor who has a personal prejudices who is unwilling to work with anyone who as an opposing viewpoint. This is no different then if the four editor who have come to a consensus were black and you posted "I'm a patient guy, and until [white people] agree that I'm wrong, I'll continue...". Your are using your personal prejudices to demand your way.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to seek compromise through the normal Wikipedia dispute resolution process. Why aren't you?--John Foxe (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You say that but you are unwilling to compromise yet

• You refuse to except the results of your "normal Wikipedia dispute resolution process", ie your own Noticeboard post.
• You wont even even except Non-Mormon disagreeing with you. You fail to realize I AM NO MORMON in the way your refer it. Two Non-Mormon and three Mormons Make a consensus.
• You say you are willing to compromise, yet I see that you undid the page again not only adding back his religion, you added back the statements already agreed on to remove in the past.

You say you are willing to compromise by your actions prove otherwise. I have chosen this route becuse of it and you religious intolerance.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to seek compromise through the normal Wikipedia dispute resolution process. Why aren't you?--John Foxe (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It is clear than not all DR avenues have been exhausted. I don't think anyone is about to consider a band until that has been demonstrated.--SPhilbrickT 21:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Decide

It is clear that John Foxe and I disagree with who is willing to compromise and weather his demands are appropriate and correct, or bigoted religiously motivated discrimination. I will therefore give John Foxe the "last word" above and ask those in the community to decide.

• Strongly Support ban--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose ban - I'm not seeing any diffs here, let alone anything bad enough to warrant a site ban. To be blunt, trying to get someone banned in order to win a content dispute is... well... just a poor showing on your character.
  Wha?
  21:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. Forcing a quick decision to squelch discussion (128 minutes after the initial AN post), making personal jabs against the editor on an article talk page, asking for the 'right' version to be protected, these are all hallmarks of a heated content dispute, with impropriety on both sides. tedder (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: 1) John seems agreeable to methods of WP:DR 2) This is not even close to being ripe enough for such a discussion. 3) I'm actually seeing a bit of
   ? 
  21:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn

I will withdraw this request. HOWEVER, I only ask for a chance to point out that I do not view this as a "Content" dispute, and my intent is not to win a content dispute. I view this as a Personal attack. According to [[WP:NPA#WHATIS|What is considered to be a personal attack?] # 2 "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." or his religiously motivated discrimination biased on allowing only "Non-Mormons" to decide Mormon topic is a 'personal attack. This is why I opened this which is why I didn't think they were needed here they are below, not that it matters. I also admit that I asking for the 'right' version to be protected, but as I pointed out I didn't know that was wrong and I will NEVER do it again.

I only ask that you assume good faith that I am telling the truth here about this. How would you feel if I told you that because you where "Black" you couldn't reach a consensus on "Black subject". That is what he is doing. That is why I considered this a "a personal attack and disruptive editing.

That is what I see here I am just sick and tired of the Personal attacks he posts. However, I will eat my crow and withdraw this request.

However, if you are willing I would appropriate some help stopping this. It's absolutely not fair to demand that NON-Mormons "make the call".--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

These are examples where John Foxe re-added his POV religiously bias viewpoint going against the consensus that against adding them is POV pushing.

• 1st: [1]
• 2nd: [2]
• 3rd: [3]
• 4th: [4]
• 5th: [5]
• 6th: [6]
• 7th: [7]
• 8th: [8]
• 9th: [9]
• 10th: [10]
• 11th: [11]
• 12ht: [12]

-- Above list is also by ARTEST4ECHO.

I'm not seeing any personal attacks. I am seeing a slow burning edit war, which would get both of you into trouble, but nothing else out of the ordinary.

22:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, According to [[WP:NPA#WHATIS|What is considered to be a personal attack?] # 2 "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.". How is saying only NON-Mormons input valid not a personal attack? --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs)

It's an indication that editors with no POV, COI, or axes to grind are necessary, not an attack when it's on a page about that religion. If I worked for IBM and was discussing something IBM had done, my current or former status with IBM would be relevant to the discussion. tedder (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

But I'm not Mormon, nor is at least one other editor, and his edit are blatantly POVish against the Mormons. Evey edit is being dismisses a "Mormons" or supporters of Mormons.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs)

However, are you willing to at minimum agree that comments like the one below are inappropriate

• It's time to take this controversy to a forum where we can get some non-Mormon opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Mormons have worked in lockstep to defeat every compromise I've tried. We need to move to a different forum where we can get non-Mormon opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• until non-Mormons agree that I'm wrong, I'll continue to take this point up the Wikipedia ladder of dispute resolution unless we can agree on a compromise.--John Foxe (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I have withdrawn my request, and I admit would have lost, I am going to take a self imposed break to cool off, so I will not be reading this or anything else for the weekend. I only ask that you take the time to consider how you would feel if your comments were immediately dismissed and all our edit reverts just because you are a Catholic, Muslim, etc, or whatever your religon is, before you decided to reply to my post.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 22:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I am more than slightly concerned that an editor declares "undisclosed COI" upon any account that does not agree with them, and then uses that supposed tainting to ignore or refute any comment that they do not care for. Even if made in good faith or even correct, it does call into question whether the "open editing environment" that WP espouses is being subverted. I would suggest that the best option would be to open an RfC on the issues relating to the article and whether the supposed relationship between the subject and some editors is being used inappropriately to influence the determination of NPOV. Simply, it is not disallowed for editors with a potential COI to edit an article - provided that they follow WP editing policies and preferably acknowledge any relationship - but it is wrong to discriminate against holders of a certain viewpoint in their editing of an article. None of the above is to say that there is not or is COI editing by those connected with an articles subject, but only that there are processes that can be used to determine how best to neutrally portray that subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• The usual thing to do with an editor who is being disruptive and
  unable to believe that other people legitimately disagree with him is to have a discussion about the editor's behavior (e.g., declaring that anyone who disagrees with him is a Mormon and that Mormons' opinions don't count the same as anyone else's) through WP:Requests for comment/User conduct. WhatamIdoing (talk
  ) 23:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

CAT:PER

There are currently 32 requests at

02:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did one. Will try to do some more if possible. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

All the rest are edits to templates, except one which seems to be a request to edit the WikEd js. Man, I could screw those up so badly. I suspect this is why it's backlogged - needs a techie admin to do the edits. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Morning, everyone. Letting sleeping dogs lie is in the front of my mind right now, but considering the fact that at least one user left a message on my talk page about this last night I figured that I should say something. I don't quite understand how right now, but I obviously miscommunicated here somehow, which is something that always bothers me since one of the few things that I take a little pride in is an ability to communicate clearly. Skimming back over things above, I see that mixing unnecessary and really unrelated stuff about a certain specific administrator probably muddled what I was trying to say to the point that the message was lost. Still, from my perspective I see a hyper-defensive reaction here, which is a bit of a different topic but may be worth thinking about. I certainly don't buy in to any conspiracy theories about this, personally, but the willingness (eagerness?) to assign a conspiracy theory motive here makes me wonder. Anyway, I'm sorry for so obviously failing to communicate well here. Happy editing.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to note: I believe that I was the first to use the expression "conspiracy theory" in this discussion, and since I am not an admin, that cannot have been a "hyper-defensive reaction." It was, in point of fact, a response from a rank-and-file editor to your posting, which indicated an (apparent?) unwillingness to accept a straightforward explanation of the situation. As I said at the time, such a stance didn't become you, and I'm glad to hear that it was not your personal belief. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

- moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#How_to_deal_with_tendentious_editing.3F - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong and Thisthat2011 are two contributors who have been arguing tendentiously across numerous India-related articles, at the India project, at the Article Titles project, here at ANI, at NPOVN ... and probably in other forums also. A third contributor in this loose group is Yogesh Khandke but s/he is currently on a one week block.

How do we deal with a situation as ridiculous as, say, the goings-on at:

• Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_45#Need_some_opinions_on_Talk:Kurmi.23Undue_weight_on_.27Shudra.27_varna
• Talk:Kurmi#Source_for_Shudra
• Talk:Nair#Lede_section
• Talk:Sudheendra_Kulkarni#Overlinking (this was Yogesh Khandke alone)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Please_look

In their attempts to either censor Wikipedia (by, for example, objecting to inclusion of shudra in the Kurmi article per the above thread), or push an India-centric POV over Wikipedia's NPOV ethos (as in threads regarding article renamings for Ganges and Gandhi), they are raising the same issues time and time again but rarely have a policy-based argument to substantiate their positions. Indeed, they appear often to misunderstand policy but are fluent in the systemic bias argument. I acknowledge that there is such bias, by the way, but that is a wider problem & will not be resolved by going round in circles on a few articles here and there.

Edits such as this one demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of policy and guidelines, seemingly in an attempt to wriggle out of having to acknowledge the list of 15 sources presented to support a statement that MangoWong objected to.

There have also been examples of rather poor advice such as this being given to relatively new contributors, and various instances of undermining the integrity of the project.

This is occurring on a daily basis and it is wearing people out. Well, it is certainly wearing me out. There are surely far better things to do than run round in circles dealing with people who rarely present sources to support their opinions, wikilawyer to an extreme but in a way that totally misrepresents policy, and simply will not drop the bone, How does one deal with this situation? The list of examples of the tendentious repetitive disruption would be truly massive & the idea that I would have to compile the thing is daunting.

I've gotten so confused and hassled dealing with these contributors that I've been making errors of my own, btw. Eg: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Need_comments_on_Hindu_Jatis_related_discussion. Keeping track of all the repetition etc is a nightmare, but feel free to boomerang me. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This issue is still being discussed at India Related Topics. I would suggest to excuse the shortcut that Sitush has taken to take the topic on this noticeboard before discussions elsewhere are done with, before issues can have chance as suggested by Sitush to boomrang. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I should have brought in an ANI on Sitush for wasting phenomenal amount of my time with unnecessary arguments, accusations, proposing things which he is not serious about, edit warring on minor issues, claiming policy says x, when it does not, putting up unnecessary warnings on my talk page, trying to revert my edits by inserting garbage sources, claiming myself agreed to things when I did not, etc. etc. etc.-MangoWong (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that despite having unsuccessfully tried before to get support at ANI and other places for a perception that there is admin "incompetence" etc, Thisthat2011 is still persisting in the trend even after receiving a notice for this discussion - see here. TT is entitled to the opinion but it is counterproductive to keep carping on about something that has already been reviewed by numerous independent observers at ANI. Mind you, since they would mostly also have been admins I guess that this is a part of the Big Conspiracy. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The only Big Conspiracy I see is the Big Bang. The rest are details. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have just found an example of Yogesh Khandke's recent disruption on a FAQ page, although I note that he subsequently self-reverted. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, this discussion should be taking place at

WP:ANI, not here. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

18:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Boing! said Zebedee thought this would be the best venue when I asked a while ago. Can I just copy/paste the entire thread? - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, cut and paste this thread there. I'll add my bit there as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Copied over there at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#How_to_deal_with_tendentious_editing.3F. I have not cut this because there are several notices on user talk pages linking to this. Would it be best to close the thread here, leaving the link? I have made a hash of this, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I proposed the sanction.

[14] on ANI - the ClaudioSantos / Jabbsworth mutual bans on the topic of Euthanasia and each other. Seem to have generated unanimous support from non-parties, and a lot of heat and light from parties. It's now going on 5 days old, if an uninvolved admin can make a determination whatever way...

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, being one of the 109 administrators on the unblock list, I feel it fair that every person gets some kind of response (unless they don't need one, like a banned trolling sock). We get 10-20 requests per day, and i'm ok handling most of them per day, but there are some I just don't have the time or experience to handle. I have emailed a separate thread of (for tonight) 5 requests that have been from the past two days that I would like some assistance with. Thanks guys, --

04:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• For the third or fourth time, I recommend moving the list to OTRS or another ticket-based system. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree, it would make mine and you lives a lot easier. --

(t) (e)

16:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

But OTRS would require identification to the foundation, for the record. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Henrik's stats tool is down again, and has been for about a week. Unfortunately Henrik himself appears to be away at the moment and has not edited since late March. It has always seemed to me rather unsatisfactory that such a heavily-used tool should only be supported by one person. Is there no possibility that the tool could be supported by a group of people or perhaps Wikipedia's developers, so that outages can be resolved quickly and we would no longer need to rely on one person for everything? Prioryman (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The tool is working fine for me right now, and I have used it on other occasions in the past week. Could the problems you are experiencing be due to a proxy or something on your end? --Orlady (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, see Henrik's user talk page - but in any case it's fixed now so the immediate problem is resolved. Prioryman (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that it wasn't working for about a week, but is working now. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 17#Category:Companies of China? It will fall off the DRV log soon. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, John. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A user at Talk: Jonathon Sharkey has requested that an admin restore the revision visibility for the older version of the page (the one that was speedily deleted before being re-created this year). Difluoroethene (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Done per request. The article was deleted under A7 after surviving two different AFDs; articles that are kept at AFD aren't eligible for speedy deletion, except in cases of newly-discovered copyvio, so the deletion was quite out of process. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I type en.wikipedia.org into my browser I get diverted to www.inforewardsurvey.com. This only happens with this site so I suspect the problem is with your server and not my browser. NB I finally got here through Google. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's working fine for me; you need to check for viruses immediately, since a virus might be set up to mess up only certain websites' URLs. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Check the spelling of the URL.

I think you might be going to "Wikiepdia.org" - note the "ie" - instead of "wikipedia.org".

I read about that one on one of the mailing lists; someone registering this kind of mistyping, to trick people. If your machine already has the wrong spelling in the predictive text, it'll keep changing to that website.  Chzz  ►  12:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's definitely typosquatting. Typing "en.wikiepdia.org" takes me to "www.inforewardsurvey.com". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And if it's taking you there, chances are a spyware scan is needed in case the site downloaded something on your system. I've had sites come up as blocked by my browser (even a safe site) because of some past reported attack within 90 days. CycloneGU (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - you were right, I made a typo. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

All the more reason to use the Wikipedia:Secure server. -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, it's like typing in "goggle.com" instead of "google.com", which you shouldn't do without wearing something that is made out of lead. –MuZemike 17:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

When a user is blocked indefinitely, even by their own request, what is the expectation of how that editor's talk page will be used? I ask because following mbz1's request at User_talk:Rd232/archive9#Question_2 to be indef'ed in exchange for a rev-deletion of her last block log entry (Even though IMO a recent ANI found consensus to remove a 1-second "clarification block" and leave this editor's block log, edit summaries and all, intact), mbz1 is still using the talk page to attack editors she has had past conflict with. Today we have this commentary, with illustrations, and then a little extra to make sure the message is delivered.

This didn't seem to be an incident per se, more of a question of if blocked editors are usually granted talk page access but if someone feels it is better suited to ANI, feel free to relocate. Tarc (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Since Mbz1's claims of leaving Wikipedia have proven to be false, I think the RevDel of her unblock by Gwen Gale should be un-RevDel'ed. Mbz1's ludicrous Arbcom case and bad behavior at Gwen's page were awful enough, but when she finally found a sympathetic admin who RevDel'd the (entirely appropriate) unblock notice, part of that was because she had promised to leave. Since she obviously was sticking around, I think that block log should be reinstated. Dayewalker (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. If you say you're leaving, just leave; don't stick around posting crap and expect everyone to let you do it. CycloneGU (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I never saw a backlog this long. And my request is near the top of it. For 15 days and counting. My Q to admins is: what can I do? (I have 12 sandboxes filled with sandcastles, waiting to go ahead afterwards). -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You might have better luck directly notifying an admin who you know has the necessary skills to understand what you are asking for. Only a small fraction of admins have the deep knowledge of templates needed to confidently edit protected ones. Looie496 (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How an advice. My admin friends must be on holiday. Didn't know you need admin friends here. Wrong site? btw, while I was waiting the list was 33. Better try to become an admin myself then. Will never need anyone anymore. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not? You've got more than enough edits and experience cross project, skills in a vital and neglected area and a need for the tools. If you can just explain your block back in 2009 and show you've learned from it/hasn't happened since/whatever, you could probably pass an rfa--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I was joking: "being an admin so I can do everything on my own" -- hey, how come you didn't get that. The bit did bite you, didn't it? Why no cooperation. I'd say, I just put a request up, and someone comes along who likes it. Of course, anyone anytime in those two weeks could have touched my talkpage (which would be more helpful than checking my blocklog. Was it really only 2009?). -DePiep (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't generally work with protected edit requests, so I never noticed the backlog. However, I've taken care of the oldest one, which was easy: DePiep wrote the entire code in a sandbox and simply requested that it be copied to the live template. Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar enough with templates to work several of the requests. There are some complex ones, including a couple of requests to MediaWiki interface pages, that should be addressed by someone more versed in the code for those particular pages. Alternatively, a non-admin could sandbox the exact changes they want and get a consensus for them on the talk page, so that a less-familiar admin could be comfortable making the change by copy/page. --RL0919 (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As I say, DePiep did that with the one template that I worked with: I simply deleted the entire code of the current revision, copy/pasted the entire code of a sandbox on top of it, and saved. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I made a request for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Backlog of template and interface edit requests, hoping that venue will have more code-savvy watchers than this one. --RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems to have done the trick. At this moment there is only one outstanding request for editing a full-protected page, and it is less than a day old. Thanks to everyone who helped! --RL0919 (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute (edit war) at

also has been involved.

I believe that the article needs to be stripped back to a bare-bones version (such as the last version I edited, which was reverted by Doncram 2 minutes later) and full-protected in hopes that a civil discussion can occur. Full-protection will not prevent Sarek or me from editing it (we both are administrators), but I believe both of us can restrain ourselves from editing if the protected version is not as embarrassing to Wikipedia as the current version is. --Orlady (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that there needs to be a wp:AN discussion here, except perhaps to enjoin interested editors to actually discuss their vision for the article at the Talk page of the article. The article mentioned is indeed another article that I have been developing, and that editors SarekOfVulcan and Orlady have followed me to. The article's topic, as I had envisioned it, was the broad topic of an important group of architects (important in Arkansas' architectural history, anyhow) and its works. If there is a content dispute about whether it must be split into separate articles, that should be proposed and discussed at the Talk page or in an RFC about the content.

I disagree that the article needs to be "stripped down"; it should be developed along lines started already. I am willing to discuss other editor's views for the article. But that is best for a discussion at the article.

I resent the accusation of

wp:OWN behavior. I do not own articles; I have started many articles and seek for other editors to help develop them positively. There is a significant difference that reasonable people can see, between edits tearing down an article needlessly, vs. edits that further develop positively. If other editors wish to comment here, please pay attention to the principal source available about the architectural group and its work, this 51 page Thematic Resources document published by the National Park Service

and pay attention to content edits actually made in the article's history.

I can't participate in long discussion today, so I apologize in advance if others make charges that I don't refute promptly here. Please, others, look at the facts, and I basically request remand of this discussion to the Talk page of the article. --doncram 13:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not bring this here to start a long discussion. I brought it here to solicit the intervention of an uninvolved administrator. I believe that the article needs to be stripped down to get rid of the theory that an article titled as a biography of Mr. Thompson is actually about "an architectural group that has worked in Arkansas since the late 1800s and continues to this day, now as Cromwell Architects Engineers, Inc.", to suppress self-referential statements like "This article is about...", and to eliminate inappropriate quotations like this one:

The group built structures "ranging from grand public buildings and mansions to functional commercial buildings and small houses. Charles L. Thompson was the constant motivating force behind the firm's immense productivity and influence upon the state's built environment. Today the firm he established continues this legacy." --Orlady (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the need to eliminate the liberal use of boldface in the article text and the long "laundry list" of nearly raw output from the NRIS database. The scope of any list that gets included in the article needs to be discussed, and I have a notion that lists should be properly punctuated and formatted, should not include duplicate entries, etc. --Orlady (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with Orlady that "self-referential" statements should not be included in the article. As I have just commented at the Talk page, I included such a statement to clarify the purpose of the article under development, and I myself would want that edited/modified as part of normal editing. However, the purpose of the article seemed to be under dispute at least implicitly by an editor's removal of the entire list of works of the architectural group, which has operated under several names.

The use of boldface in the article text, by me anyhow, has been only for indicating which firm names and architect names are redirected to the article, and to clarify that this is the wikipedia article covering those topics. If/when separate articles are split out, it would be appropriate to unbold those. Orlady did not raise any objection to bold-facing before. Why not discuss formatting matters reasonably at the talk page of the article.

The list of works is not a "laundry list"; it is a list of works of the group and is appropriate to include in an article about the group, as an integral part. There are just a few architect firm articles in wikipedia that have such a list removed, that I am aware of, and that is only to split out when an article is too large. The article is not ready to split and there has been no proposal to split it.

I happen to have somewhat revised the usage of quotations in the article from what Orlady comments about above. But it is highly appropriate, and other editors have agreed, to include quotes from NRHP documents explaining the importance and reason for NRHP listing of works. There is no blanket injunction not to use quotes in articles. If there is a credible claim of plagiarism or copyvio about this article, I don't see it. Again i have commented some at the Talk page of the article, where content of the article should be discussed. --doncram 13:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You claim not to like "long discussions," but your contributions here illustrate why it is that so many of the discussions you are involved with are lengthy ones!

Regarding quotations, the closure of the May-June AN discussion stated (in part):

• There is a consensus that Doncram's excessive use of verbatim quotes, which routinely constitutes a significant portion of the stubs at issue, is unacceptable, especially as it implicates
  WP:NFC (Another question regarding consensus on article quality
  ).
• Users encountering Doncram-created content that is defined in this discussion as unacceptable may delete that content from the article...

Charles L. Thompson is one of the problematic articles I have listed at User:Orlady/List. It is one of several from which I "commented out" quotations that I considered to be inappropriate. --Orlady (talk

) 13:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment: You say that you have somewhat revised the usage of quotations. That is true, but mostly you split some multi-sentence quotations into a series of one-sentence quotations. Also, I acknowledge that as of yesterday, the quotations were even longer (The study "represents the work of the most prolific architectural firm, practicing in Arkansas in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. This grouping is based on a collection, of original drawings by Charles L. Thompson, Fred J. H. Rickon, Thomas Harding Jr., Theo Sanders, and Frank Ginocchio. The collection contains drawings of 2500 properties representing a wide range of types and styles geographically distributed over the entire state of Arkansas. The 143 structures selected for nomination exemplify the firm's remarkable versatility and productivity from 1896 through 1931."). --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the history, I believe that before a reasonable discussion can occur, we need for an uninvolved administrator to (1) trim the article to an inoffensive version and (2) protect it. --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As the list still includes items that are unrelated to the article topic, however that's defined, I just removed it again, per the close of the previous Doncram discussion here. Also, I have inquired on the NRHP and Architecture WikiProjects, where Doncram is the only person supporting freely mixing architects and firms in the articles about each. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That is

wp:POINTY editing. This version

is a reasonable article, with sources and list of works, about the architectural group. It could use rename to "Charles L. Thompson and associates", following usage in the Thematic Resources document referred to above, for which 143 separate works of the group were listed on the National Register. If you want the article to be about just one person, why don't you propose split and discuss like a reasonable editor, at the Talk page. Drastically cutting the article so that it is not about the group, doesn't seem to be a civil way to discuss what the article should be about.

I noted

wp:FORUMSHOP apparent in SarekOfVulcan opening multiple discussions. There are obviously many articles in Wikipedia about architectural groups. --doncram

15:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

--doncram 15:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering all this commitment to civil discussion on the article talk page, what I am supposed to make of the fact that the only response to my comment at

Charles L. Thompson#Long verbatim quotation removed from article was reversion of my edits to the article? --Orlady (talk

) 16:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) My impression is that the article (including an appropriate list of works) is a valuable contribution. Thompson appears to be one of the most important architects in Arkansas history. The beef appears to be largely about naming of the article. Some feel that an article titled "Charles L. Thompson" should be limited to works that are specifically attributed to that person. Doncram believes it can include works designed by the architectural firm founded and led by Thompson. Doncram notes that Source 2 is an NRHP nomination form for the Charles L. Thompson Thematic Group. That form goes on at some length explaining the basis for the thematic group and it's connection to Thompson. On the other hand, Sarek suggests that an article discussing the broader grouping should have a title that reflects the broader scope, i.e., "Charles L. Thompson Thematic Group." There doesn't appear to be anything unreasonable in either position. Rather, this appears to be a good faith content dispute, and I'm not sure this is the appropriate forum to resolve it. As the architecture WikiProject may have established a policy on dealing with this situation, they should be consulted. If there is no established policy, then frankly either position seems reasonable to me. That is, all the thematically connected information could be collected under either "Charles L. Thompson" or "Charles L. Thompson architectural group." On balance, though, I would probably opt for a title that denotes the breadth of its coverage, i.e., "Charles L. Thompson architectural group." Cbl62 (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree - the article title should give a clear indication as to the content of the article. That leaves 3 options really:

1. Restrict the content of the article to the bio of the person and keep the current title;
2. Restrict the content to the history of the organization and move the article to Charles L. Thompson architectural group or what ever its official designation is; or
3. Split the article.

Personally, I'd go with splitting. Yes, there is going to be a degree of overlap, but neither article should repeat or rephrase in full the content of the other.

- J Greb (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Good analysis, J Greb. In this instance, I believe it makes sense to restrict the Charles L. Thompson article to his life, work, and influence, which does include discussing the work of his partners and successors. However, discussions of topics like the lives and independent works of his partners and the history of his firm in the 70+ years since he retired belong in separate articles -- and split articles should not be created unless and until there is an actual solid basis for writing the articles.
For the record, there is/was no "Charles L. Thompson architectural group," but rather a variety of different sole proprietorships and partnerships during Thompson's career and after his retirement and death, including but probably not limited to Bartlett and Thompson; Thompson and Harding Architects; Cromwell Architects Engineers, Inc.; Thompson, Sanders and Ginocchio; and Cromwell, Neyland, Truemper, Levy, and Gatchell. Also, the list of "works" in the article has at various times included independent works by partners and works credited in the database to a "C.L. Thompson" who is likely to be an entirely different person (or multiple people). --Orlady (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

...and at least one Thompson who doesn't share the same first name or state.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, this is at wp:AN because you have repeatedly removed the entire list of works, without explanation, and after i asked for you to explain and you did not, i restored the list. And repeat. I suspect you know, or think you know, of one item in the list that you question, but you won't say which one it is. In the Arkansas section of the list, there was indeed accidentally one Connecticut item which did not belong there, and I previously removed it. Is that what this wp:AN is about, that you detected a probable error, then repeatedly remove everything and refuse to explain. I think it was removed, prior to you last removal of all items. Please do tell, if there is yet a different item that you have some reason to question. This is more than ridiculous. --doncram 22:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, I started this WP:AN discussion, not SarekOfVulcan, but I suppose that being ignored is less offensive than some other responses I have had form you. I was less concerned about the list than I am about the creation of "articles" by means of stringing together direct quotations. However, I thought the last version of the article that you had created and restored prior to the start of this discussion was a ridiculous mess of hurriedly patched-together snippets (including but not limited to the list), and I deemed it best to cut it back to a minimal article that would at least not be grossly embarrassing to look at. This is at WP:AN because you pitched a fit when other editors attempted to address issues in an article you started -- and you began engaging in war-like behavior to protect it an article about which you clearly feel a strong ownership interest. --Orlady (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Doncram, it is more than ridiculous that you dump stuff into articles without making any attempt to confirm that they relate to the topic of the article. If you can't be bothered to read your own list and figure out what doesn't belong there, you shouldn't be putting it back in the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being clear, that you will not identify any problem. What is in the article is sourced, and is good faith effort in development on a wikipedia-notable topic. I'll pause for other comments, but am expecting to restore the list and continue developing the article. Or better, SarekOfVulcan, would you please restore the last version of the article. --doncram 04:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

When you add information to an article without conclusive proof that it belongs there, it's best to remove it: by including information that's almost certainly wrong (e.g. the Connecticut entry), you throw the entire list into doubt. Better to remove potentially true information than to provide false information, no matter how good or bad the faith of the person providing it. Combine this with the fact that you continue to add these sections despite plentiful opposition, and we've got a significant problem with exactly one person here. Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Moot, at least for now. Doncram is now under a 3-month block. --Orlady (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

During my new page patrolling I can across this article:

15:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:HISTMERGE? – ukexpat (talk

) 15:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That is way out my comfortzone... (and I am not a administrator)

_talk

16:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved over redirect, but then deleted under

16:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

After the CSD-nomination I discovered the TV-series and that it should belong to that. I tried to move the article, but the redirect was in the way. Honest mistake from me.

_talk

16:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• My suggestion would be to complete the suggested history merge, leaving the redirect in place. If the episode (is/becomes) notable, then there is a previous revision with an infobox already formed to build from. –xeno^talk 17:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I've pondered whether to even post this because it'll make me sound weird. But I am, so I figure that's ok.

Thing is, Medeis (talk · contribs) is using foreign characters in his signature ("μηδείς") in place of the plain Latin letters.

I'm not sure whether this constitues a "confusing" signature according to

, but foreign characters make it nigh impossible to intuitively search e.g. a talk page for a user's comments (in the case someone doesn't know about that customized sig and only knows the Latin-alphabet form of the username e.g. from a page history).

Ok, now the possibly weird part, and I apologize in advance: I would have simply contacted Medeis on his user talk page, but I have severe arachnophobia, and he has close-up images of spiders on his user page as well as his talk page, so I cannot go there. If someone would be so kind to notify him, that would be great. --87.79.212.13 (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This sort of thing is fairly common here; a decent number of users have non-Latin characters in their signatures. It does not affect linking within the sig itself, and if you mouse over it, the actual name will appear. Nothing out of the ordinary. If you wish to search for a user's comments on a page and don't have/don't know how to use non-Latin keyboard settings, just copy-paste the sig into the browser's 'find' box. Easy as that. ~~

talk

) 06:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know copypasting. Please don't dismiss my point by assuming that I'm a total computer beginner. Foreign characters make it more complicated when you are trying to see whether a user has left a comment in a long discussion at all. It forces you to either look through the entire talk page, or to go to the page's history. It's a comparatively little thing to ask users to at least also include their username in plain Latin letters in their signature. --87.79.212.13 (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Then talk to the user instead of posting to a noticeboard. This is not an urgent problem and you can effectively intervene without administrative assistance. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User said they are freaked out by the person's userpage, so I'll drop a note. -

Aaron Brenneman (talk

) 06:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome to call me weird for having severe arachnophobia, but I did state that as the reason for why I didn't contact Medeis on his user talk. What venue other than AN would you suggest for bringing something like this up in such a case? --87.79.212.13 (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not mean to make light of your phobia. One of the best ways to contact users on wiki is by Special:EmailUser/usernamegoeshere. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman (talk

) 06:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Note in place, I'm happy to have this go to my talk page, this thread can be closed as Anetode is correct this is not the right venue. -

Aaron Brenneman (talk

) 06:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks a bunch. --87.79.212.13 (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the discussion be at

talk • contribs

) 09:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to discuss it there, but

WT:SIG has been indefinitely semiprotected. --213.196.218.167 (talk

) 03:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected; we'll see if spammers/vandals come back, but in the mean time you can post there now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted my proposal there.--213.196.218.167 (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Several requests have been made at the

!) 17:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC has been opened for 30 days, and needs closing by an uninvolved admin. However, to the closing admin, please note Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC#International canvassing, which discusses canvassing, before closing the RfC. HeyMid (contribs) 08:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to act on this particular RfC, but for future reference, where does it say one must be an admin to close an RfC? Jc3s5h (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether the closing user is an admin or not is not important, but it'd be good if an uninvolved user could close the RfC. HeyMid (contribs) 12:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Closed with the "no consensus" result that probably anyone looking at it could have expected. --RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd advertise this here too: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Make file uploading a separable userright Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding MickMacNee (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. MickMacNee is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After this minimum time has elapsed, MickMacNee will remain banned indefinitely, until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project.
2. Δ (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in hostile and uncollegial conduct, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

User talk:216.169.108.204

User talk:216.169.108.204. 216.169.108.204 is threatening to kill himself. I thought I should notify admins of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conservative Philosopher (talk • contribs) 02:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• [email protected] notified. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Conservartive Philosopher, but this is just the proxy suicide vandal trying to scare people. See the block list. I've been deleting and salting his pages for a couple days every time he makes one. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Can I have the edit history of my user page, except for the most recent, be deleted? I like to permanently remove some personal information that was once on my user page. —Farix (t | c) 15:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. The old versions were just deleted, not oversighted, I assume that's OK? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That will be fine. —Farix (t | c) 15:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on

) 19:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Image in today's ITN article

I uploaded these single frame images: File-1, File-2 & File-3 and later found that animated versions were available. I then uploaded these images: File-4, File-5 & File-6. As it can be seen both sets are exactly the same. The first set, when it was in my computer, wasn't animated. While the second set was animated when it was in my HDD. This notification: (1,642 × 1,534 pixels, file size: 9.25 MB, MIME type: image/gif, looped, 6 frames, 8.0s) can be seen on both the sets. Please rectify the second set of images as the article they are used is second in today's In The News. Thanks. Suraj T 04:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the current top story is Juno, and we have a picture of that spacecraft being launched, I think this is not necessary. I would rather see Juno left as the lead image. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have been mistaken. I wasn't asking for the image in the main page to be changed. My problem is that the second set of images (File-4, File-5 & File-6) aren't animating as they did in my computer. If it is not possible to get them to animate, then it would be best to delete the first set if images ((File-1, File-2 & File-3) as both sets are exactly the same now. Thanks. Suraj T 05:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

fwiw, they animate fine for me...at least when viewed thus: [22]. RxS (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

But I dont see it animating in the article. Is this a problem on my side?? Suraj T 05:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it animated in the article either. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 14:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

With the current configuration of the image scaling engine MediaWiki uses, animated gifs are static if scaled - e.g. see User:Finlay McWalter/sandbox. If you want a smaller scale animated GIF, scale it externally with another program and upload that. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I the admin who you think recommended that this be posted? (which I might be per this comment I made). If so, you've totally misunderstood my post: if you think that the issues warrant a complaint, do this properly rather than posting a vague (and inaccurate) shitlist someone else wrote and which is likely to be deleted. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you were not, but from what I am seeing there, your words there don't match your words here. I also kind of wish people would stop using the loaded term 'shitlist', since it conveys a pre-conceived opinion and is not in line with AGF. -- Avanu (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish editors would AGF and recognize that those who oppose shitlists are doing so for good reasons related to helping the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that 'shitlists' are bad, but when a significant number of people say 'this isn't a shitlist', maybe it is time to relax and just let it be. -- Avanu (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This AFD ought to be speedily closed, since the article it refers to has been speedily deleted and is no longer there, yet the AFD is still open. Difluoroethene (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

New admin here with a question about a block I just made on

) 00:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Small update: The COI admission is fairly minor; on User Talk:Sadads#Moving pages, Atterion says, "I know because I'm a descendant of that house (hard to believe, I know!)" That might explain the enthusiasm, but probably ends up not having much bearing on the immediate issue of socking. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to expand on Qwyrxian's last, Atterion has at some point said that they return to the house each year to conduct tours etc. I haven't yet found that diff, but it is definitely there somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• It's a good block. The CU came back as confirmed, so it's fine. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, this was a good block. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Good block, covering the period by which they may be tempted to disrupt process so, on that basis, preventative. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all. Just figured it couldn't hurt to check in on my first case of the type. I'm still watching the AfD; hopefully there won't be any more disruption. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. It's good practice for new (and established!) admins to ask for a second opinion here if they're unsure about their actions. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I just closed the AfD as speedy keep, on the basis of this discussion and the discussion at the AfD DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

With the AfD closed, the week's block is no longer preventative. An appropriate unblock request covering all the bases should be honored. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been open less than 48 hours, but I think the consensus in this AFD is already pretty clear:

) 00:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I won't close it, although I do agree it'll probably get kept. I did, however, stick a {{

Wha?

01:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That edit was not refactored. Here is the diff --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's an odd one. Either way, there are a good number of unsigned votes and a much higher than normal participation level from IPs.

Wha?

01:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 01:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As an FYI, I've initiated a discussion concerning emergency desysopping at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#Emergency desysopping (v3). –xeno^talk 01:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The parallel Requests for Comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy (which has four active sub-proposals) have both been open for 30 days now. Closings by an uninvolved editor would be appreciated, and since they are closely related, one closer for all of them would probably be best. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have offered my services in closing this [25]; as there might be potential controversy, I'm gonna hold for an hour or so before acting upon it. Just in-case people shout HELL NO. Best,  Chzz  ►  20:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've not disappeared, I may as well wait for 0:00 proper time (another 1¼ hours)  Chzz  ►  22:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

 Doing... [26] [27]  Chzz  ►  23:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! You're not a level 37 cabal member with at least three discussion closing shoulder tassels, and you don't have the secret headband of consensus detection. Think of the political ramifications of this! Wikipedia will collapse if adminship isn't seen as an upper caste with control over all important happenings!

Wha?

23:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the above post was entirely for humor, except for that last line, that's a barb at what is a real, existing, and problematic admin culture. A round of applause is needed for Chzz here.

Please see the discussion at

WP:BN#Closing the desysop RFCs?. Chzz has withdrawn their closing of the second RfC, so that one still needs to be closed. Regards SoWhy

08:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Now closed, by others.  Chzz  ►  13:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded the image File:Sun-free photovoltaics.jpg which got speedy deleted almost instantly, inspite of me specifically mentioning the licensing information. I asked the deleting administrator here, but he seems to have gone offline. Hence I am posting here. Thanks. Suraj T 12:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Answered on my user talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated myself for BAG membership; comments, questions, and !votes are welcome at

) 18:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Technical restrictions on deletion

I believe that there is a maximum number of revisions that a page can have and be deleted; that if a page has more than a certain number of revisions, deletion is not technically possible. Can someone confirm this?

Thanks in advance, —

TFL notices

04:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the upper limit for deletion is set by the devs to be 5000 edits; though I think that in special cases the devs may be able to delete pages above this limit. It is highly unlikely that a page with over 5000 edits would later be deemed to be a non-notable topic or otherwise need to be deleted. It can be done, IIRC, but not by administrators using the "delete" function. I can't find the "5000 edit" limit enshrined in policy, but it is mentioned in passing at Wikipedia:Don't delete the main page and Wikipedia:Village stocks. --Jayron32 05:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe it can be done by Stewards, who have 'bigdelete'. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 05:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think what happened was that compromised sysops kept deleting pages such as Main Page and Canada with several thousand revisions, and deleting and undeleting such pages put a huge strain on the server, so the developers made the change. --Rschen7754 05:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, User:Maxim is not, or has not ever been, compromised. And FWIW, Canada should've been deleted a long time ago :) –MuZemike 06:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's it, blame Canada... Guy (Help!) 08:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It is 5000 edits, and you can easily test this for yourself (at least as an admin) by clicking "delete" on this page: it will fail. (And you'd have to confirm it anyway). Now that we have revision deletion, it is no longer necessary to delete these huge pages. —Kusma (t·c) 09:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, it was a comment like that the caused one of the big pages to be deleted in the first place, think it was either the main page or the sandbox. "go ahead and click delete, it won't go through"--Jac16888 ^Talk 10:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help everyone. For the record I'm not an admin, and this wasn't a purely hypothetical question.

Thanks again! —

TFL notices

13:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What's odd is that we still have the delete button on most big pages, but we don't have it on the Main Page: there's no way anymore for the system to tell us that we can't delete the Main Page :-( Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There isn't really a hard limit of 5,000 revisions ... it's whether or not MediaWiki *guesses* that the page has 5,000 revisions when you hit the delete button, based on factors which I don't understand at all. It can sometimes be possible for regular admins to delete pages with 7,500 edits, and it can sometimes be impossible for them to delete pages with less than 3,000 edits. These massive deletes/restores are occasionally needed for history merges, where revision deletion is not appropriate. Also see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 16#Deletion restrictions for pages with long histories, which is linked from the village stocks page. Graham87 15:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the delete button on the main page is hidden via css. But you can construct a URL to get the software to tell you that. Just click http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=view and change "view" to "delete" in the URL. (Result: "You can't delete or move the main page.") –xeno^talk 17:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of a way around that, even, but it's untested. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nyttend, I think it's still possible, you just have to be creative. But I'm not going to try it myself. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you can delete it via these two POSTed URLs:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=info&intoken=delete&titles=Main%20Page

• Remember the deletion token that this returns.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=delete&title=Main%20Page&token=INSERT_TOKEN_FROM_PREVIOUS_QUERY_HERE

Main Page should now be deleted. However, most web browsers will use a GET request, so you will have to program something that only uses POST requests (not hard) to delete it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Go on, then. I bet you a fiver it doesn't work! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ill double that, I know how to do it, and thats not how. Here is how you do it: <removed per

WP:BEANS> ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

19:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

When someone gets a moment

The UAA bot testbed could use some eyes (and tools, if need be). I think everything's properly marked at this point; just needs emptying out appropriately. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize the proposals at the following discussions:

1. Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2
2. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in infoboxes
3. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in lists
4. archived but then restored
   to the main Wikipedia talk:Non-free content page in wait for a proper closure)
5. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover

The first four discussions have recently been archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussions 1, 2, and 5 should be relatively straightforward closes, while discussions 3 and 4 will be much more challenging. Cunard (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we please have the two flagicons RFC closed? Some lists are being subjected to the mass removal of flags, despite my request for this not to be done until the RFC is closed. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't need an admin to close rfcs. The discussion on mosicon is over I and believe we have consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is best to have an uninvolved admin assess the consensus in the RfCs so that editors in the future who review those discussions will be able to easily see what the consensus was. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2011

Pst to admins looking for an easy close – #2 has no opposes. I can't close it as I write ship articles.

[majestic titan]

08:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed, for closing Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover. The other discussions remain open. Cunard (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Still no closure? Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Closed number 2 for you guys. --
  (t) (e)
  18:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, DQ! Cunard (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The request to close "RFC on the use of flagicons in lists" has been sitting here for about a month and a half. It seems like anyone who looked at it has not found anything strong enough to call consensus and the RFC is now archived at

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)/Archive 9#RFC on the use of flagicons in lists. Interested parties should take another run at a fresh discussion, if necessary - perhaps seeking outside voices with a post to the village pump. Future timestamp removed... –xeno^talk

14:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Return of Help Desk troll, eyes needed

There's not much to be done except play "whack-a-mole" with rev-del to stop him, but a frequent help desk troll who edits from the 66.87 range has returned recently. Admins can view some of his handywork here and at the help desk history page. I'm still working on digging up some of his old ramblings in the past, but they pretty much follow this exact pattern. This is more of a "heads up" than anything, just because he became active again. --Jayron32 06:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

For that specific diff, I already emailed oversight, just after it was posted. Ticket#2011080910002526  Chzz  ►  07:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I just got another one, should we be blocking the individual IPs, or assume that xe's already switched by then? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I rangeblocked 66.87.4.0/22 for two weeks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably a necessary block, but please keep a watch on

CAT:UNB for likely collateral damage. I looked into pretty much that exact same rangeblock, and that range is quite active; there are LOTS of good contributions over the years in the low 66.87s. Perhaps the block was unavoidable, given this pattern of problems, but just be prepared to deal with the collateral damage. --Jayron32

17:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Motion regarding Gilabrand's AE Block for

WP:ARBPIA

The arbitration enforcement block placed on Gilabrand (talk · contribs) related to the Palestine-Israel articles case is provisionally suspended as of 25 August or the passage of this motion, whichever is the latter. Gilabrand is reminded that articles in the area of conflict remain the subject of discretionary sanctions, and are currently subject to a 1RR restriction. Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will viewed dimly.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Unilaterally changing template through full protection without consensus

User:Joy made a series of changes to a highly used and fully protected template {{primary sources}} [30], that as far as I can tell have no consensus now, and did not have it either when he made those changes on July 29. The talk page at the time [31] simply looks like he supervoted the template to his preferred version. Now I am told there is no consensus to revert that [32]. I thought consensus favored long-standing versions of a highly visible template. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus also favors not

WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)

02:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, such a comment is not in good faith; please provide a rationale for the accusation or remove it. -- Avanu (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'll revert it if you're so offended by the new version, but it's a bit hard to understand why the old status quo is most preferable when your position seems to be in the clear minority both at Template talk:Primary sources and at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 4#Template:Third-party. However, I do realize that I may have introduced bias in listening to only to the vocal minority, generally speaking - the template is applied to >20k articles and only a dozen people are discussing it - we do not have a representative sample. Can another admin please review this? If they wish to restore the mention of third-party sources in the original template until the next round of discussion, that's fine by me. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, maybe just undoing my very last edit would be sufficient? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, in a nutshell: for a long time the {{primary sources}} template directed editors to add third-party sources. I believe that in 99% of the 20K article where it was added, this is the fix required. The vocal supporters of the two-template system (the other template being the new {{third-party}}) say that a secondary source is not the same as a third-party source. I acknowledge that conceptual difference. But, I don't think the addition of non-independent secondary sources is actually going to fix (WP:N or NPOV-wise) the vast majority of the articles where {{primary sources}} is already used. Ergo chaining {{primary sources}} to no longer ask for third-party sources, which is what you have done, even if it's more "orthogonal" relative to the template's name, perverts the reason why the template was added to all these articles. With the unfortunate change in the template's wording someone could "fix" (and justifiably remove the template from) an article about, say, a book or piece of software by adding some secondary source written by the very authors or publisher of the same work, like a blurb on Amazon or citing themselves from an interview as to how awesome their stuff is. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur with FuFoFuEd, this change should be reverted. There is nothing even close to approaching clear consensus on the talk page, and for something as broadly used as this template, I would expect that an RFC at minimum should be used to establish a clear consensus for change before any change is made. I've made a similar comment on the template talk page.

talk

) 03:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC threat

Resolved

 – Filing an RFC is always an available option, as is taking part in one. Consider your reasons before doing either. In the end, fish or cut bait. (

BWilkins ←track

) 11:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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

I posted the following on Worm's talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC threat

Worm, you have threatened to drag me through an RfC.

Let me give you advance notice that I shall certainly ignore such a proceeding unless you get the approval of a serious administrator.

On the mathematics project, Charles Matthews, EdJohnston, Geometry Guy, Carl (CBM), CRGreathouse are administrators you might consider. EdJohnston is also on the statistics project. CRGreathouse is also on the economics project. You may also ask any member of ArbCom or any active clerk. This is not an exhaustive list. I have great respect for GWH, but given his positioning on civility, I think that he would be an excellent second "wise man" certifying an RfC worth my time.

This advance notice is to spare us both a waste of time like the ANI, where nearly only the only persons present were already involved.

I remind you of the following policies, which are quoted:

• The following is NOT permitted:
  • Personal attacks.
  • RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary - note that repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process.

In particular, I have viewed the ANI proceedings as part of a campaign of harassment by Demiurge1000, which you in good faith became enmeshed. I have spent a lot of time responding to criticisms in the ANI, and under no conditions am I willing to spend time on an RfC in the next two months. I have discharged my obligations to the community by responding to voluminous criticisms by Du1000's summoned clique, in great detail, and I am under no obligation to respond again in the near future.

In particular, you should avoid even the appearance of having your RfC "harass or subdue" me, after your having prolonged and expanded an ANI brought by TFD.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, *shrug*. There's no requirement for anyone to engage in an RfC; it just makes you look like an ass if the rest of the community or
  our insect overlords take an interest. Ironholds (talk
  ) 12:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

  Worm and I discussed an informal arbitration on his talk page. He wants to do something on wiki, which I would agree to only with a person in whom I have confidence.

  It is hard to see any good coming out of these past drama shows, which seem to be a favored principal activity of those who do not contribute to content. Since Worm, Demiurge1000, and Strange Passerby haven't contributed to pages of any interest to me, and don't discuss the content of the pages in dispute, I probably should not have wasted my time responding to them.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, you must notify anyone whom you discuss here. You appear to have forgotten to do so in the case of several of the people you discuss above, so I'll take care of that for you. I would also suggest that you've been given some good advice by a currently sitting arbitrator at Worm's talk page, so you may benefit from considering that carefully, rather than stirring up yet another noticeboard thread here - which I notice you opened only an hour after the existing thread at ANI was closed (so much for not wanting to participate in drama!) --

talk

) 14:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Restrain yourself. I'm asking you to stop harassing me.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't the three (or however many) of you just not talk to each other and try to avoid the same articles/talk pages? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fechcoms and company,

I have suggested that Demiurge1000 and myself agree informally to a voluntary no-interaction ban. Demiurge1000 often appears when I have a minor disagreement with somebody and where he has made no contributions to articles; at best, these interjections are distractions. He has catalyzed most of my disagreements in 2011, I would guess. I have tried to compliment him when he does a good deed, as a way to restoring normal relations, but this seems to have been a failure.

Worm is usually helpful and always interesting, and so I would dislike a no-interaction ban. However, a no-interaction ban would be preferable to his wasting both our times with a RfC/U, whose (non-rushed) drafting he has announced. He understands that I'm unwilling to participate in an RfC/U in the next months, after I have spent so much time responding to complaints this weekend.

Third? Oh, I forget Strange_Passerby almost immediately after I forget what he's written, also almost immediately. Thus, a topic ban with him would be irrelevant for me (although it might spare administrators his exhortations to "grow a pair" and block me, etc.).

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• KW, I suggested to you on my talk that you
   ? 
  18:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• KW has been attempting to persuade Worm that Worm is not allowed to start an
  WP:RFC/U on KW. I shall certainly ignore such a proceeding unless you get the approval of a serious administrator and you should avoid even the appearance of having your RfC "harass or subdue" me if the ensuing private e-mail doesn't satisfy you, then you may proceed with a public RfC on the outstanding matters, as I have agreed previously (in 2 months), Before insisting on a public irreversible webpage discussion, you should consult an experienced arbitrator and you are unsuitable for drafting even a pre-RfC, at least not by yourself. If he keeps that up, I might be tempted to grow that pair. 19:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Elen of the Roads (talk
  )

Elen, I misjudged you. You are mis-characterizing me again, even after I replied to your previous distraction. Anybody who cares about the truth should read the exchange at Worm's page.

Elen, nobody gives a shit about your gonads.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that an RfC/U did not require the permission of the subject? If it did, I doubt we'd ever have any. So what is the point of this? -- Atama頭 21:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Coercion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• RfC/Us do not require the permission or the participation of any editor. It's not at all unusual for people who have reason to expect a strongly negative response from the community to whinge about the prospect of the unpleasant event, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Preemptive harassment of perceived harasser or anti-harassment harassment? I like
  War is peace, etc. FuFoFuEd (talk
  ) 06:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• As I explained on Worm's page, I am more likely to participate if any RfC has some appearance of fairness and focus, which the ANI did not: "How many therapists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One, but first the lightbulb must want to change." I edit mainly mathematics and statistics articles, and I object to characterizations of "my behavior" by RfA/ANI enthusiasts (which some of you confuse with "the community") who have never contributed to any of the articles I've worked on and at least one of whom has carried on a campaign of harassment and personal attacks for months.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you have not been blocked for incivility? This discussion is silly. Move for close (and any required behavioural remedies). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Two administrators' repeat the sexist phrase "grow a pair", after I had objected to that on the previous ANI (and noted that I display a testicle-cancer survivor userbox) and you want to block me for incivility?

Bury the rag deep in your face, Now is the time for your tears.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does Kiefer.Wolfowitz seem to be constantly getting into fights with... err... everyone? This is at least the fourth thread I can remember in the past few months in which Kiefer.Wolfowitz has been a party (in not a good way), and at least the second where interaction bans involving him have been suggested. Clearly, at least a good part of the problem lies with Kiefer.Wolfowitz.

Wha?

00:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It might help matters if administrators here acted like adults rather than baiting people with crude humor. Kaldari (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer Wolfowitz has elected to complain about his treatment to the Feminism and LGBT Projects.[33] The discussions here, at ANI, WQA and article and user talk pages should have persuaded him to modify his tone, but instead have only encouraged him. I can see no other alternative than blocking him until he is able to react with other editors in a collegial fashion. TFD (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're exaggerating. Looking at his talk page, he gets into a fight with only about half of the editors he comes in contact with. Clearly, it should be raining with IBANs. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems there's a drama star rising fast here. "Wikipedia is run by fatuous children dedicated to giving those even more ignorant and undisciplined a play-stage.... When challenged by an honorable opponent, I have never ceased from verbal fight nor has my sword slept in my hand." Promising crusade, indeed. Of course, nobody dare point that out, lest it be a personal attack. Lulz. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, RfC's can be drafted by anyone and does not require a special permit. By the way, making fun of someone with testicular cancer is pretty cruel. What makes it even more fascinating is that some admins having so much fun insulting someone's physical amputation IRL. As for Elen... I think you should reconsider your demand of refactoring the "forgot medication" phrase, since you don't really have the required moral high ground to accuse me of being uncivil ;-) — Preceding

Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs

)

Fairly interested to see where I've "made fun of someone with testicular cancer". My usage of "grow a pair" was not directed at KW, but at any admin passing by. I note that he's gone on to canvass at WT:WikiProject Feminism accusing me of attacking him with that phrase, when it wasn't even meant for him... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought this might all be cause by his focus on controversial politics where opponents aren't hard to find, but even when he's editing math articles he can't help but berate the n00bs, and emphasize his own self-importance: "You guys can go to a library. Do you see how much volunteer work I've been doing." FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the "he can't help" personal attack.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue, and extremism in the defense of scholarship is no vice."

No freedom for the enemies of freedom, eh? FuFoFuEd (talk

) 05:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

FuFoFuEd, please remove the personal attack referring to the French Revolution's terror, here and on your talk page. As I explained to you, I wrote that ironically for those recognizing Harry Jaffa's famous phrase.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. He does sound like a buffoon in that thread. Since I come from a computational background as well, I can say the value of that discussion is nil and does not merit that kind of back-and-forth.

However, I still don't understand how others can justifiably insult his physical disability without breaking NPA. --

Bobthefish2 (talk

) 05:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruud is a computer scientist, and his judgment was more charitable.

"He does sound like a buffoon"? Isn't that another personal attack?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Close this thread

Is someone going to close this thread already? What is being discussed here? This type of self-referential thread, where really it's just an editor digging his own grave, should simply get hatted. As many have pointed out already the original request about the RfC was pointless since editors cannot control whether or not an RfC is opened on them. Answering that was the only thing that needed doing. Let's close this and move on.Griswaldo (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved closure

Again (per the ANI), can someone close this? As far as I can see, Kiefer has done nothing so egregious as to warrant blocking and nor has anyone else. There is a long-standing belief that civility issues are not sanctioned without a pattern of offenses or strong personal attacks and until we as a community come up with a way to change that, incivility is a subjective issue.

Remember that Kiefer will be under significant stress with a recent ANI and the prospect of an RfC, and so this AN is only exacerbating issues. For those who are worried about Kiefer's influence on the RfC, please read the relevant thread on my talk page and understand that I am well aware of the rules around RfC and I am willing to make some concessions to actually have a productive one. Unless an admin specifically disagrees with this thinking, this thread needs to be closed before more upset is caused. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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

COI, promotion and username

Taken to WP:ANI#COI, promotion and username EyeSerenetalk 11:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Michizane (talk · contribs) JacklynFMPR (talk · contribs) Hmmm, I hope this is the right place, multiple issues, I think admins needed. Okay, starting here, Avery Watts, I am planning to depuff and list for deletion. Looking into contributors I noticed user:Michizane (who I believe to be his publicist working for Papillon Entertainment which I have just csd'd as blatant advertising), who also contributes heavily to articles about Kari Feinstein, Mike McGuiness and their company Feinstein/McGuiness Public Relations amongst others. As if by magic, both companies are based in LA, there seems to be a lot of COI, if someone has some free time to go and review Michizane's edits that would be revealing I believe, maybe the FMPR agency is notable, but I don't think the two founders reach WP notability standards, so this appears to be a lot of free self-promotion. Also, JacklynFMPR is an spa, obviously working for the company, hasn't edited since October 2010, but that's a banned username if ever I saw one and a blatant COI. A bit of a can of worms, I'm sure by digging deeper that you'll find a whole bunch of interesting 'stuff'. CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Addendum Posting to JacklynFMPR's tp, I saw this, [34], which makes me believe that the user 'went underground' and has probably morphed into another username, should be able to identify POV, COI editors by checking the edit history of the articles concerned. CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC) ANI might be a better venue for this. However, the articles seem to be fairly typical puff-pieces though some effort has been made to adhere to WP policy. The sources are pretty low-quality and some of them don't support the article content. I've made some effort to tidy up WP:CORP my gut feeling is that both Kari Feinstein and Mike McGuiness should be redirected to that. I've blocked JacklynFMPR as a promotional username (procedural really as they haven't edited in a while). I note that there have been concerns about the promotional nature of Michizane's editing since Sept 2010. The more I look at the history of some of those articles the more uncomfortable I'm getting, but I'll dig around a bit more before posting anything else here. EyeSerenetalk 11:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Adding to the above the editing activities of Matsiltala (talk · contribs), Pvisi111 (talk · contribs) and Brandstrong (talk · contribs). Also, The Tax Club is the fourth incarnation of that article, the others having been deleted. EyeSerenetalk 11:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning a bureaucrat bot to handle the procedural removal of inactive administrators

Interested parties are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Cratbot for desysopping inactive admins? Discussion for possible idea, not actual request. –xeno^talk 15:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Requirements for voters (in deletion, transferring or merging articles)

Is there a requirement on the users who attend such nominations, as for example the number of contributions and etc?Kazemita1 (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Their comments will be struck if they are

discussions, not votes. --RL0919 (talk

) 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, "votes" are given weight based on the strength of the arguments, particularly how well they appeal to our policies and guidelines, or even more importantly,

WP:ATA. -- Atama頭

05:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions regarding returning vanished users with ArbCom, community, and/or self-imposed sanctions

I view editing sanctions as an agreement between a user and the community. The user has agreed to moderate their behaviour in order to remain part of the community. If a user with editing sanctions invokes their

"right to vanish"

but returns later under a new username, the community is unable to confirm that the user is abiding by that agreement.

Setting aside the more contentious issues of "abuse" of RTV, if a vanished user returns and confirms the connection to the vanished account:

1. Should sanctions-imposed by ArbCom be explicitly transferred to the new account (i.e.,
   WP:SANCTIONSLOG
   updated)?
2. Should community-imposed sanctions be explicitly transferred to the new account?
3. Should sanctions voluntarily undertaken by the returned user (eg those noted in ArbCom cases) be applied to the new account?
4. If sanctions are not explicitly transferred, should the account (or accounts) of the returned user be connected to the vanished account so that other editors will have the ability to check for sanctions (if they are recorded)?

In my experience, the community is better at imposing sanctions than recording or monitoring them, but even when those sanctions are recorded, returning "vanished" users are able to sidestep the agreements they have made in the past. I believe that the community desires the ability to monitor compliance with sanctions and I am posing questions here to gather more input. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

How about moving this discussion to

WP:RTV or one of the other venues where this topic has already been discussed in the past week or two? Risker (talk

) 17:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There have been discussion about RTV in a more general sense, but I am posing very specific questions here. I don't want this to become a discussion about any specific case, and I think that those existing discussions have suffered from a lack of broader input. Community sanctions are very often started by admins, necessarily involve discussion at AN or AN/I, and are imposed by admins. I think this is an appropriate place to ask these questions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's always a problem when decisions about a policy or guideline are made on pages that don't relate to that policy or guideline: it's not transparent why those discussions happened, where they happened, why they were interpreted to have the result that they did, etc. Many of the very issues you've mentioned here have already been discussed in considerable detail in the past few weeks. I'm not opposed to the idea of consolidating the discussion, but restarting it again in a new venue without links to the very recent prior discussions comes across as forum-shopping, whether intended or not. It places an unfair burden on those who have already discussed this matter, provided information and recommendations, and shared their experiences; those recent discussions are essentially ignored now, as if what those users had said was irrelevant or immaterial. Risker (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping that that discussion here will clarify the community's thoughts about sanctions as they relate to returning vanished users. I don't believe that the subject has been discussed in any detail at other forums, although there has been a great deal of argument lately about what constitutes "abuse" of RTV. My questions are about sanctions, not about abuse of RTV and I would prefer that you not try to insert that suggestion here. Please don't derail this discussion, Risker. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

looking for a closer

There is an involved discussion on categories for school attendees on the WikiProject Schools talk page. I believe we've come to a general consensus, but it would help if an uninvolved admin could read over the discussion and close it based on their own conclusions. Thanks!--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

RFPP is backloged

I normally don't raise concerns like this but the RFPP page is almost 13 hours backloged (31 protection requests). If an administrator could see their way to evaluating the reports and resolving them, that would be great. Hasteur (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Autoblock notices

I remember back in 2005 or 2006, it used to be quite visible if a user or IP tripped an autoblock and this was one way to catch potential sockpuppets. Has the visibility of autoblock notices been reduced since then? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please remove my IP block exemption

Hi sysops! I have/had IP block exemption because my previous ISP used IP sharing. I've moved to a new ISP and I have my own IP address :). Therefore I no longer need the IP block exemption. Thanks! Tim1357 ^talk 00:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, give it to me instead, I'll lose it down the back of the sofa and we'll both be rid of this annoying bit Egg Centric 00:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, don;t know about that, but I've removed Tim's. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That was quick. Thanks Tim1357 ^talk 00:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Education in Washita County, Oklahoma

I am trying to create and add categories to the category Category:Education in Washita County, Oklahoma, but it gives me the following error message:

"The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

"Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page. Thank you. "

I would like to create this category, since I have created education categories for other Oklahoma counties.

Thank you. Jllm06 (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Created. TNXMan 16:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this an example of clbuttic autocensorship? --Golbez (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is: "Category:Education in Washita County, Oklahoma" --Carnildo (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For whatever reason, that just made me LOL. :) Thanks Carnildo! –

talk

09:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob topic ban proposal

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

Not going to happen per

WP:SNOW. Reaper Eternal (talk

) 12:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Based on the astounding amount of

User:Off2riorob on the actual article, I propose that he be topic banned from sexual minorities / LGBT topics, including BLPs of that kind. FuFoFuEd (talk

) 05:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose if that is the only issue. The discussion about that one article is getting VERY heated all over Wikipedia, but this is a singular issue, and needs to be hashed out via
  dispute resolution processes. One single discussion, no matter how heated, doesn't indicate a need for a ban. --Jayron32
  05:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Request for RFC. Off2riorob's abrasiveness and aggressiveness in discussion is not new, see: Tin Pei Ling (for my earliest encounter with this editor), where WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT also seems to apply. I appreciate his strange mix of radical conservatism when it comes to enforcing BLP policy, but his abrasive style rubs me the wrong way, and I suspect, other editors too. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• There is nothing preventing you from starting an
  WP:RfC/U yourself. You do not have to "request" it.Griswaldo (talk
  ) 11:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Of course, there'd have to be a second user who can certify they'd tried to resolve the same issue with Rob. It's worth noting here for clarity's sake that Rob has supported a topic ban on La goutte de pluie (Elle) at ANI. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose He's stating the issue is not notable, which is understandable and valid. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 11:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a frivolous suggestion IMO. You don't jump right to a topic ban proposal when someone's arguments are frustrating you. I think the proposer ought to outright withdraw this proposal and explore more productive ways to work the situation out. If Rob is really refusing to listen is there a way to mediate these types of discussions? And perhaps the problem isn't his in the first place. If you have a complaint about him it would be much better if you air the complaint first and get feedback from the community in general before suggesting a topic ban, which to me, simply looks like an attempt to gain advantage.Griswaldo (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; interestingly - Rob appears to be constructively discussing actual content on the article talk page. I don't notice FuFoFuEd on there... what I do see is two trivial comments by FuFoFuEd in a long thread where Rob is trying to discuss policy with a mass influx of SPA's... :S The content is legimitately concerning in its original form, and Rob is helping apply policy and sensitivity to the subject. What's wrong there? --Errant ^(chat!) 11:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose All I see here is someone who doesn't like how a conversation is going. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• LOL I stopped looking after seeing the most recent revert made by Off2riorob at
  Luke Evans (actor). The reverted text included "...his publicist refused to clarify Evan's sexuality...". Thank you Off2riorob, and would someone please pass around a few clues to the SPAs. Johnuniq (talk
  ) 12:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't often suggest
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 12:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose O2RR is engaging in appropriate discussion and behavior for determining what belongs in a BLP. LadyofShalott 12:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose One might note that he has the consensus view on this topic - seeking to remove him is outre at best. Collect (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Rob is discussing the matter, I see no justification for a topic ban. GB fan please review my editing 12:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Post close comment

This thread was closed while I was composing a comment. I agree with the result but I think a general point needs to be made. I took a quick look at the BLPN thread referenced. It looks to me like the "pro-say foo is gay" side isn't completely without merit (I haven't looked at it that closely though) but the case isn't being helped by a bunch of SPAs who drop out of the sky and say things like this information will continue to be re-added until it sticks. It would have been better if this remained a discussion between

here compliant

editors because people unfortunately tend to support the "side without the socks", not the side with the strongest argument.

You know it would be quite ironic if it turns out the best way to get an article deleted is to create a bunch of socks and have them scream "KEEP" in the AFD. Perhaps I should reconsider this AFD close from last October. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The SPAs were likely stirred by the numerous gay sites, including

new policy. FuFoFuEd (talk

) 15:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Then the word needs to get out that any

bite newbies with an honest opinion on an issue) --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 16:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am not sure what evolving "standards" are being used to judge topic-ban proposals, but I will emphasize how dangerous the censorship has become, as one who has been indef topic-banned since 4 June 2011, while on wikibreak (from the "
  WP:SPA sockpuppet accounts, but also beware of disgruntled meatpuppets who disagreed with an editor in the past. There is need to reform the topic-ban process. -Wikid77 (talk
  ) 06:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Buildings and structures in Washita County, Oklahoma

Hi, I had the same problem creating the Category:Buildings and structures in Washita County, Oklahoma as with the category for education in that county. Can you help me create it? Thank you. Jllm06 (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User: 188.107.5.219

188.107.5.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - I'd like an admin to take a look at the recent edits from this IP. Two are extreme incitements to genocide: [36] and [37]. Others are rather nasty racist slurs used against editors, such as the edit summary of [38] ("paki" is a rather nasty racist epitaph). Others are general racism against certain Afghans, e.g. [39]. Others seem reasonable edits, though often with inflammatory edit summaries. These are so varied I suspect its several different editors through a shared IP, but some of this stuff is so extreme and nasty that admin intervention may be necessary. Thanks, Palltrast (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just blocked the IP for 48 hours and revdeleted the incitement to jihad. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift action. Palltrast (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure.

Follow-up: the IP was back as 188.107.6.231, whom I've blocked for block evasion. I've been also been informed that they were the same user as 84.59.190.210. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And it continues, 94.219.60.146. (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC))

Dear Salvio, now I have created an account to please your wishes. I have to say that Ketabtoon is a Pashtun ultra-nationalist also known by former User like Tajik and some others. He is spreading his false claims. One even provide references but since all of them do not pleasure his view he just delete them and call it vandalism. Ketabtoon and the already banned User:Nisarkand or Farsiwan, currently known as Dupreefan, with some other socks are here to troll. With best regards --AhmadShahAbdali (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

AhmadShahAbdali (talk · contribs) is in Germany using an open proxy (on the web browser he clicks on "Tools" then "Internet options" at the bottom, then selects "Connections" on the top followed by "LAN settings" and adding German IP addresses and port numbers that are constantly active and then starts editing Wikipedia). It takes him less than a minute to change his regular home-registered IP which is 82.83.137.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to that of the 84.xxx, 88.xxx, 188.xxx, and 94.xxx, and his regular Wikipedia name is Lysozym (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Tajik (talk · contribs). He just stated: "If you keep on I will ask Lysyzym for support who will provide his sources...".[40]. He is basically saying that I will soon change my IP to the 82.83xxxx and log under Lysyzym and then come here to prsent myself as someone else and argue in my regular advance English level, etc.--Dupree fan (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Dupree Fan (do you actually know who dupree is?) you are a sockpuppet of banned User:Nisarkand and Lagoosab, Behnam, Afghan4Ever etc. User:Tajik:: is not existing and Lyzsym is not me. Every admin can check that! All the IPs are from Germany I use but all of them have the same root. It is you and Ketabtoon, two Pashtun ultra-nationalists (both were many times banned) who falsyfie articles, delete sources and references etc. and than call for vandalism for other Users. Soon, the Admins will ban you again. I have created now this account to start working here regularely, basing on the rules and laws of Wikipedia--AhmadShahAbdali (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

All the IPs that you and Lysozym use are assigned to Vodafone Germany. You (Mr. various IPs) and Lysozym edit the same Afghan related articles, with the same POV. You deal with ethnolinguistics. Your edits indicate that you are Tajik ethnocentric and anti-Pashtun POV pushers with knowledge about editors who have been banned back in 2007-2008. Each IP you add to your browser proxy setting is located in different cities of Germany (i.e. you are in or near the city of Bochum, these three that you used today are located in Berlin [41] [42], [43], this one in Frankfurt [44]) As I explained, you can be in Bochum but still be able to hide under an IP from Berlin or Frankfurt in less than a minute with just a few mouse clicking, and then you change your typing to avoid suspicions. I can easily figure out a person who is purposely trying to change from advance to basic level of English as you are trying to do. How is it possible that you edit nothing else but the same ethnic related stuff in the same articles that Lysyzym (formerly known as Tajik (talk · contribs)) has been doing?--Dupree fan (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to see here...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A warning to this guy in Gemany (AhmadShahAbdali), some administrators have connection with law enforcement agencies and the things you type about mass murdering, ethnic cleansing and etc., could be used against you because this is evidence you leave behind in the history. There are many anti-terrorism law enforcement agents busy online looking for such people like you. To them you are a potential threat regardless what your race, religion, nationality or ethnicity is. You should know this, especially after the recent mass killing that took place in Norway. They are now becoming more serious. In other words, if police come across your posts they may come to your house and arrest you because they figure that you may go kill people in the streets of Germany due to your building up of hate. If police want to track your IP they know exactly where you are, your name and house address, and etc. Use common sense, didn't you use your real name to open account with Vodafone? Don't think that Afghans living in Germany are liked, they are hated by the government. [45], [46], [47], [48]. I gave you this warning because you are the only person who is talking about wanting or planning to kill people.--Dupree fan (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Yeah Dupree fan, what ever ... first of all I am from Francfort, not Bochum. Next time, be better :) Ps: Terrorism, ethnic cleansing etc. is your tribals´ jobs. Mass killings, producing suicide bombers, Bacha Bazi... etc. Who hosted 10 000 Arab fighters and Bin Laden? Who promoted hatred against US and UK? Who were behind Mumbai attacks etc etc ??? You! Believe me my friend, I have already contacts with BKA, CIA and NDS. Two of my family members are generals and two others are high ranking officiers. If we want something, we get it. If you would support terrorism, it would be very easy to locate you on exactly 32metres and get you. So let it. It is you as an ultra-Nationalist Taliban (one grade upper than the ordinery nationalist Pashtun, means chauvinist) who called for mass killing, destructions and many more things on non-Pashtuns. Why don´t you go for police and ask them to jail US, NATO, UK, Pakistan, non-Pashtun terrorists in eastern Afghanistan, ISI and many other of thousand foreigners you once invited to train them and than letting them over the western world etc., because they are engaged in mass-killings of you. I just say what happens. I don´t say I do it. How can I do such a criminal thing? According to you, I am living in Germany. Where is Germany and where is Afghanistan? Good luck. I will ask some of my friends to check you. I feel something bad on you.--AhmadShahAbdali (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Beeing Tajik and supporting Tajik independance in Afghanistan is not a crime. Pashtuns like you support Talibanism and wahabism and want a utopic Terroristan called Loy Pakhtunistan. Ethnocentric are and were always Pashtuns. Forging history, creating lies, creating wars within non-Pashtuns to weak them, driving out original population of a certain region and taken their homes and lands etc. Don´t worry. Everything has a prize. Tajiks will never forget what happened in the past. All of them are written on papers. It is said that an elephant forget nothing in 100 years, but a Tajik won´t forget anything till the last day of this earth. --AhmadShahAbdali (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC) You wanna to threat me? Show me a picture of yourself. Afghanistan is mine country ... if you want it than come take it. German government have done well sending criminal Pashtuns and supporters of Gulbuddin back to their original homeland, Paktia and Khost. It is a well-known fact. Criminals have no place, specially not a coward terrorist and hero like Gulbuddin who hide himself under woman´s Burqa. Typical tribal and namard Pashtunic--AhmadShahAbdali (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Live in your Canada and keep talking abt Afghanistan lmao. The fact is. While I go every year 2x4 months to Afghanistan to support my Tajik and Uzbek and Hazara brothers against terroristZais, you will live in Canada, living from the social welfare, and dying there alone, far far far away from Afghanistan. So what is these all about? Just keep silent and enjoy your life.--AhmadShahAbdali (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia image placeholders for image namespace

I was wondering if this category is actually needed anymore at all. I mean, the MediaWiki software now supports create protection, which seems to be what those file names are made for. Which steps are necessary so that these images can be deleted and receive a create protection. Should I post it somewhere for discussion or is it common sense enough to just do it (scripts could probably do this in a few minutes, if at all, so this wouldn't be an issue)? Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the point of those placeholders is so people can clearly understand why the page is upload/create-protected. (Because some people are just so incredibly thick they can't even bother themselves to read the red box with the log entries in it.) Given that the corresponding pages are already protected (or at least the random four that I checked), I don't see need to delete the placeholders. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for community sanction against uploading images of Anders Behring Breivik from his manifesto

Hi there. There are numerous ongoing deletion discussions, both here and on Commons, regarding images of Anders Behring Breivik from his manifesto.

Without going into the details, each one has been deleted, and many have been re-uploaded, and then re-put up for deletion, and so on and so forth. We are now in the third round of re-uploading.

The whole thing is compounded by the fact that unlike most FfDs, where the only participants are people that spend time on FfD and know image policy, these ABB discussions are attracting not only Wikipedians who are rehasing arguments that have nothing to do with policy (a lot of ILIKEIT and IHATEIT), but it's attracting people from outside sites that are rehashing the same irrelivant arguements.

It's far past the "it's getting disruptive" stage, and is now in the "please make it stop" phase.

I am asking for a community sanction that essentially says "Any image from the Anders Behring Breivik manifesto is to be deleted per CSD G4 on sight, without further discussion. Repeatedly uploading the image will be seen as a blockable offense" (warning for first upload, block for subsequent uploads).

Maybe in six months we can all have a nice chat about this again, but right now it's just too much.

Wha?

23:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support wholeheartedly; I'm bored making the same arguments. They're not PD/CC - as detailed in Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_July_23#File:Anders_Behring_Breivik.jpg (no clear declaration, etc...) and, they fail NFC as living person, and various other reasons (some here).

They're bouncing back-and-forth between enwiki and Commons; there's been massive interest over the 2 weeks since the attacks to keep some-kind-of-image, and our sluggish bureaucracy has allowed that to continue. This suggestion might close the door.  Chzz  ►  23:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(

Wha?

23:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is just me musing aloud, but... on the face of it I tend to agree that the licensing terms on these images are largely unclear and confusing and we can't sensibly claim they are freely licensed at this point. So, yeh, I support Sven's suggestion. On the other hand he is alive (if detained) se we could possibly deal with the issue - is he able to receive mail in prison? If so, is anyone able to send him a letter which asks him to clarify the licensing in a way which meets ours (and commons) guidelines? Ideally this would resolve most of the issues relating to the images. I'd be happy to draft such a letter, but have no idea where to send it to, or how! :) --Errant ^(chat!) 00:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Better idea; contact his lawyer - any idea who that is? --Errant ^(chat!) 00:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Appears to be Geir Lippestad. (source) —GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
      • He... I'd not want to be the OTRS volunteer that got that ticket.
        Wha?
        00:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• The opening of the book 2083 where these images appear states, "The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form. In fact, I ask only one favour of you; I ask that you distribute this book to everyone you know." I don't see what the copyright issue is or why people keep deleting these images. Shii (tock) 02:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• That's what I've been wondering: it's hard to make a clearer PD release. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • But a lot of the text was taken from copyrighted works, so that is why it was removed from the Commons. We are trying to sort it out on the Commons and having discussions at 2 or 3 places isn't going to work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally (and apologies that I'm repeating what I've said on a dozen deletion-request pages), the same doc says it is required that the author(s) are credited, and that the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world, the compendium is a compilation of works from multiple courageous individuals throughout the world, and I have written approximately half of the compendium myself - clearly, we do not know which half. Therefore, we have no 'author' information. In addition, we already know that the same document contains other copyrighted content, without appropriate licencing. As for 'fair use'...please see this FFD.  Chzz  ►  13:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine someone else took those pictures, or that they are photos of someone else. Shii (tock) 04:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That isn't the problem. To summarize:

• In terms of Commons/free image: there is no clear licence that is compatible.
• In terms of NFCC: It's a living person (hence, further pics are possible), and it's not historically significant.

That's been decided by consensus several times now - see the discussion mentioned, and others have been deleted by admins under CSD criteria. Two more have just been deleted from Commons, in Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anders_Behring_Breivik.jpg and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anders Behring Breivik portret blackwhite.jpg.

The problem is, that despite repeated deletion, the files are uploaded repeatedly and bounce back-and-forth between enwiki and commons, with days of discussion between, repeating the same arguments. Meanwhile, since the actual incident of 22 July (18 days ago), we've been displaying the images on the articles.  Chzz  ►  07:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I have no opinion on whether these images are usable or not, but if they are persistently being re-uploaded in ignorance of the deletion discussions (or worse, in full knowledge), then they should simply be deleted without further process. In fact, unless there is some special rule for files I think it's already possible to speedy them as recreation of deleted content. But it can't hurt to make this perfectly plain in this specific, high-profile, case as well. Hans Adler 10:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support Do it now. It seems pretty obvious that there are serious problems about using the images and this is wasting time that could be used more constructively.
  talk
  ) 10:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Let's not glorify a crusader wannabe like him. and persistence to upload the manifesto images is right up that alley even when there's a lot of deletion discussions, that's ignorance indeed.--Eaglestorm (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support There should be no rush to display manifestos at Wikipedia—anyone wishing to "exercise their rights" can easily find the document using Google. When the dust has settled on the incident (in a few months), a calm discussion can occur regarding the merits and copyright aspects of the case. Meanwhile, it is a waste of time to debate each upload. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bing, File:Behring-Breivik-Anders.jpg  Chzz  ►  09:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons, not us. I suggest uploading a local protected version of the grey dummy headshot. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that'd help much, to be honest; there's so many variations on the name.

I've been asking over at Commons, but it seems the discussions there might mean the images remain, for quite a long time - Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Anders_Behring_Breivik_pictures.  Chzz  ►  02:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia is not supposed to be in the business of deciding who to "glorify"!!! Of course people can find the picture using Google. Indeed, perhaps they need to work on the article using Google Knol. Perhaps Wikipedia is a pipe dream and we need to recognize that petty censorship and media manipulation are all that can ever prevail here. But I say NOT TODAY! We have a bunch of public domain pictures which practically every newspaper on the planet freely republished without paying Breivik or the imaginary third-party photographer one red cent! Are you seriously claiming the world's media all pirated these pictures? Are you seriously saying we have no possibility of making a Fair Use argument for pictures so widely publicized? Wnt (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Un-Retirement

Hello all! I've been in retirement for perhaps 2.5 years now, but have recently been considering getting back into the Wikipedia game. I realize that this question may be over-broad in its focus, but would anyone be willing to offer links to the most pertinent changes in policy since January of 2009? I assume that most things are the same but I would hate to step on toes considering the extreme length of time I've been gone. I guess listing them either here or on my talkpage would be sufficient. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The biggest thing is probably that

WP:3RR and contentious material must not be tagged as unreferenced or in dispute, but must be removed entirely until properly sourced and relevence established through consensus. --Jayron32

06:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back to the

Hotel Wikipedia! Mjroots (talk

) 06:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave." Ain't that the truth. --Jayron32 17:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't we have a policy timeline? Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

We also have

soft removal of the bit for admins inactive for more than one year. MER-C

10:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, welcome back! To answer your question, we have Wikipedia:Update which should list the most important changes in policy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ayup! Some of us remember you :-) Guy (Help!) 20:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

WB. And...maybe it'd be worth flicking through

signpost headlines? Just a thought.  Chzz  ► 

02:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User has more power than he should have? [technical question]

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

Reason why the editor has autoreviewer rights now explained. Any issues which have arisen from this or concerns with the editor's conduct should be taken up elsewhere. The editor should have also been notified of this discussion when it was started. Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Hello. I am not sure if this is the right place for my question but I found out a quite strange thing about one user. His name is Legolas2186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

According to his user rights page, he has autoreviewer rights although, according to the official rule of 50 valid articles, he created only 16 articles.

• Proof 1 - Created articles
• Proof 2 - His rights

How is this even possible?
My apology if this is not the right noticeboard page.

Kind regards, ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC).

The 50 article rule is neither technically enforced nor a rule as such. It's mainly a guideline, and for that reason, discretion was obviously used here to save the work of reviewers in looking at any new articles that might be created by a highly trusted user. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I get you but how does being a "higly trusted user" make you more human? More "human" that you don't need to follow ordinary yokels' orders and laws? I still don't understand, are rules rules or just laughing stocks? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Being autoreviewer doesn't mean much. Just, AFAIK, that it's assumed that when they generate an article it's assumed that it's good enough that it doesn't need to be autopatrolled. I note you have a wikiquette dispute with this user. Don't think the autoreviewer status is aprticularly relevant. DeCausa (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if the said rights were being an assistant of assistant's janitor, it's just strange in principle. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Being more trusted means that you have to put up with less oversight. Small children are monitored constantly; teenage children let out on their own. It's not a law-and-order thing, it's a resource allocation thing. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess we *can't* do anything against a person with connections then. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether more rights were allocated than intended, diff, log but it is all a bit (or two!) beyond me. Thincat (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

ItsAlwaysLupus (talk · contribs), what is it you want from this discussion? Has the autoreviewer permission for Legolas2186 (talk · contribs) resulted in one or more substandard article creations that should have been reviewed? Is it hard to believe that someone who has over 30K edits since 2008 and a pretty clean block log should be granted a very minimal userright? Do you want the autoreviewer permission yourself? (If so, see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled) Or is this a sour grapes extension of this? I hope it's not the last one, because that would be annoying and really not a productive use of anyone's time... — Scientizzle 20:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Although the user's behavior is in question, questioning the same user's power is something coincidental and it has absolutely nothing to do with the other case. In fact I would open this topic even if the user was Jimbo Wales himself. Also you do realize that I can't get Autopatrolled rights if I don't have 50 articles on the list, or can I? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I dare say about what people think about those with

NewPage Patrollers don't need to worry about patrolling, doing any tagging, proposing for deletion, etc.? –MuZemike

22:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be chosen because of the "quality over quantity" rule, if you catch my drift, but what about the hypothetical situation when you don't have any administrator who can trust you? How can these particular users become reviewers and patrollers without being tested by the *50* articles-rule? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

For some background on what might have prompted this, see here and here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a strong accusation and wild speculation ("might") but if you think that these two issues are somewhat related, well, I can only respect your opinion. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Calling it "power" is bizarre, really. So he could create

BWilkins ←track

) 23:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not a very helpful addition, Bwilkins. I thought admins were supposed to offer useful advice. Absconded Northerner (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Legolas was bitten by a radioactive administrator, thereby making him more powerful than he imagined. If the guidelines allow for discretion, and discretion was taken, then so be it. If you feel the guy is abusing it, report that, but it doesn't sound like this particular superpower is being misused. Maybe he needs to be a bit more civil, but that is just his wild-mannered editor side, not his superpower side. -- Avanu (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey NuclearWarfare. have you been biting newbies again? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Suspicious

Look at the history of

vanispamcruftisement? Guy (Help!

) 20:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary here is certainly curious - especially given that the user doesn't have a talk page. :-/ While that makes it sound more like meatpuppetry, I'll go take a look anyway.

a/c

) 06:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser came up dry. *shrugs*

a/c

) 06:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that

WP:PAY. -- Atama頭

08:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Robinson. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, sanity check appreciated. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

TfD

Resolved

Would an uninvolved admin or editor conversant with XfD discussions take a look at this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Closed both. Speedy deleted as a test page and snowball keep. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert

Resolved

I know I'm not really supposed to be posting this here (and should instead be posting at

WP:WQA), but I'm completely dumb-founded at this

response left by a user on their own talk page to another user. I know WQA says my "first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor", but because of the severity of the post... Gah... I don't even know what I am trying to say anymore...

If this needs to be moved to ANI (to take action or whatever), by all means do it.

I guess I'm posting here to know what to do in a future situation like this.

Also, I'm holding off on notifying the particular user(s) until I regain my... um... voice...

–

talk

09:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well one, you haven't notified Bob of this thread, and two, I'm not going to do it either because I'd rather the whole thing disappear rather than start another argument here about whether Harald was more annoying than Bob. Next time, please try not to get so offended and just ask Bob to come back after a few hours and then respond. Or just not respond at all, because sometimes people who

don't hear things should just be ignored. /ƒETCHCOMMS/

15:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Fetchcomms, I'm trying to AGF with your comment, but for some reason, a part of me doesn't feel like you were being as civil as you could have been with your response. However, I'll respond anyway:

1. User:Bob House 884 notified.
2. I didn't know there was more history I should have been looking at, and frankly, I don't really care who is "more annoying" and I'm not offended by the comment at all, and I'm not sure how you could have (mis)construed my comments as that. I saw something that needed attention, but I wanted to get a second opinion about it before I did anything. Obviously, I screwed up.

–

talk

08:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the comment you mentioned, and yes, it's a shocker. But there are times to act and times to pause, and there is no emergency in this case. Clearly someone has got very frustrated on their own talk page and violated everything at WP:CIVIL. However it is likely that the event is limited to a short burst on that page and it is not worth aggravating the situation by making the editor sit in the corner. I have not read anything about the users involved or the dispute other than what's at that talk page, but a guess makes me think that the well written abusive rant indicates that the issue probably deserves serious attention. The underlying issue is what should be investigated (if anyone has time), rather than an isolated if spectacular rant. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I've left some links on Ajl's talk page which might explain context. (To be honest, it would have been nice if anybody had made some effort to investigate before passing judgment - obviously a message like this is the result of provocation and not my standard response to good faith talk page requests). I don't think its fair to categorise my note to Harald as 'abusive' - it's just rude and shouty if anything. Anyway, I will make some effort to follow this thread but otherwise I'm not very interested in editing at the moment. Best, Bob House 884 (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Responded at my talk page, here. –

talk

02:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

AJL, I wasn't being uncivil and I'm rather annoyed that it came off like that. The problem clearly is not you or Bob--it's Harald. I was simply trying to say what Johnuniq said above in that the rant isn't the real issue here. In any case, if you see something that needs attention, why don't you try to help resolve it yourself? There's nothing wrong with a second opinion, but there's also nothing wrong with being bold. Now I hope you don't take this edit harshly because it's not meant to be rude or brusque or anything like that. (I'm just trying to conserve keystrokes and reduce comment length because I'm stuck on a mobile device ATM.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• The comment AJL made on their talk page (linked above) indicates they consider the matter settled, so someone could mark this section as resolved. Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to say, It would be nice if somebody could try and sort out this issue with mr Wallin. I'm inclined to beat him over the head with a stick until he accepts that somebody can, in good faith, disagree with him. It would also be nice if he could be shown that on wikipedia, if you have pursued an issue for 2 years on which you are so obviously wrong and everybody else disagrees with you, it might be time to just give up. Bob House 884 (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Someting smelly here. Sockpuppets??

Resolved

It looks like 99.234.64.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Wildwingdundas (talk · contribs) and Timharper068 (talk · contribs) have a remarkable similar taste for Toronto politicians and a communist accusation. Common interests that triggert my attention are for instance: Gerry Adams & Jack Layton ([49] & [50]), Bill Vrebosch ([51] & [52] and the (in my opinion) vandalisme on the userpage of Wildwingdundas ([53]), the original author of Bill Vrebosch, Jr..

I hope I am wrong, but I hope somebody can give it a look.

_talk

00:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPI if you want a checkuser, but behaviorally it's a little odd to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/

03:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser will not tie an IP to an account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I know that, but there was another account named above, which is the main problem. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See:

_talk

17:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Somebody please tell me what template I'm supposed to use.

I've blocked an IP for block evasion, but right now it looks like block evasion is a red-linked article title. I always have trouble with these things. Where is a nice list of block templates? LadyofShalott 18:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC) (I'm not notifying the IP of this thread as it's not really to do with him directly.) LadyofShalott 18:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins ←track

) 18:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and [[WP:EVADE]] is the block evasion link (

BWilkins ←track

) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, first I changed my link above to be less ambiguous of my intent (I hope) - just to link to the relevant section with my goofy template use. Now, that list is helpful, but I don't see what I really need for this instance: something along the lines of "This IP has been blocked for a period of two weeks for block evasion." I could just type that like I did here, but I'd like it to have the standard template formatting and "if you'd like to request an unblock..." yadda yadda. LadyofShalott 18:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it would be useful to have uw-eblock or uw-evasionblock block notice to go along with the single-level {{

WP:UTN. DMacks (talk

) 18:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Twinkle has the ability to leave block notices. Anyway, I've taken the liberty of changing the notice to another template and adding a link to WP:EVADE. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, y'all, for the replies, and DoRD for replacing the template. LadyofShalott 19:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Multiple user accounts

An user has created multiple accounts by mistake and wishes to delete them all but one. I am listing the user accounts here. The user wishes to delete and block all his accounts except his first one. Can you please guide him on what to do? --Sreejith K (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the pages pertaining to the account, if the editor is the only account, the user should log in to the account to be deleted, and add {{

db-U1

}} to them, they will then be deleted.

Blocking is not necessary (just scramble the password and render them useless to yourself and others). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Won't the user get accused of

sock puppetry later and get his accounts blocked? Does the user need to display a notice on all the talk pages that these are alternative accounts ? --Sreejith K (talk

) 14:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, if the user does not use the same accounts at the same time for (even remotely) disruptive purposes, there is no need to call it sock puppetry. And when the user has scrambled the passwords (change the password, type the old one, go to the first new password field, close your eyes and hit the keyboard randomly, open eyes, copy and paste the password from the first to the second, confirm) then the accounts can not be used anymore (if you also blank the email address, then it is really game over). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The latter is also an option, see User:Beetstra public. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tag the old accounts as {{former account|New account}} and there should be no problems as long as the old accounts are truly "laid to rest". -- Avi (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Week-long

WP:MFD

backlog

 Done

Would admins close the following overdue DRV discussions:

1. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 2#Seed7
2. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 2#Multiple signatures of living people
3. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 3#File:Tin-Pei-Ling-Kate-Spade.jpg
4. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 4#Diary of a Bad Man
5. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 7#Template:Non-sovereign territories of Asia
6. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 8#Miko Ramelow
7. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 8#Keep Portland Weird
8. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 8#Bahara, India

Would admins also close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ONE PIECE CHARCTERS BIOGRAPHY LIST and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Two done, struck from list. --RL0919 (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Struck the MFDs (closed one, currently closing the other one). Regards SoWhy 09:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Three more done, will do the rest in a couple of hours if no-one else does in the meantime. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Struck two more. Regards SoWhy 11:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

...and that's the last one. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, RL0919 (talk · contribs), Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs), SoWhy (talk · contribs), and Black Kite (talk · contribs) for clearing the DRV and MfD backlogs. Cunard (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Bibcode Bot needs to be blocked

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC_on_the_bot-addition_of_identifier_links_to_citations causa sui (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The automatic bot User:Bibcode Bot is not reliably harmless or useful. Its purpose is to add Bibcode links within citations to an astronomy database. Let me repeat that. An astronomy database. However, it is adding links within citations in all articles that happen to include a journal in that database. Some general science journals cover both astronomy and medicine, say, so the database overlaps into other fields to a small extent. However, the astronomy database is useless for medical citations (and I dare say, for most topics outside of astronomy). We already have PMID and DOI links. This third link adds nothing for non-astronomy journal articles and is further clutter. The bot's unwelcome edits have been reported on the bot's talk page here by User:Marie Poise, here by User:Looie496 and here by User:Colin. This has met with rejection by the bot owner (User:Headbomb) and edit warring to restore any reverted bot edits (this edit, and this edit, and this edit). There is no policy requiring Bibcode links in citations and this bot should not attempt to enforce such a non-policy. It may prove to be generally useful if its scope is restricted (category, or project scope perhaps). But on the vast majority of topics on WP, its links are not guaranteed to be useful and should instead be done by a user (albeit using some tool). Editors should be free to decide which links are included in citations and to decide which are useful. Until this bot can be adapated to be 100% useful, it should not be run automatically and so needs to be blocked. Colin°Talk 12:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC) I have been looking through the complaints that were made, and I do get the feeling this is a case of: I don't like how the new citation looks like. These links are not useful for me/for the articles in our scope. Well: it is a reference, it is not prose. You don't like one of them, don't click on it. are you determining here what a reader may find useful? Or is this 'stay away from the articles in our project, we don't want your links? As far as I can see, all the databases yield different information (sometimes slightly), and from any site there may be something that is useful - moreover, some readers may prefer one database over the other, or have specific access to it. There is also no policy to keep Bibcode out of citations, however, I would say that it should be our goal to include information which may be of interest to some. I would say that this is pretty useful, at most except to the table-creep like effect. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Pretty much what Dirk Beetsra said. Also Citation bot, Rjwimsli, and Bibcode bot has been adding these codes for a while now. They didn't suddenly become controversial overnight. Each went to extensive trials, and each had their BRFAs, etc... PMIDs are routinely added to astronomy articles. No one's going "doctors shouldn't be able to use their own database to look up stuff, they need to use the NASA database, it is much more useful". I don't see one reason why the converse should be forbidden. Wikipedia is for everyone, and yes, that includes physicists, astronomers, material scientists, who might be reading an article on brain cancer. The bot added the codes. They were reverted. I re-added them, not the bot, and there's a discussion. This is usual WP:BRD . Rjwimsli added bibcodes to these very articles a while ago. My code's more advanced so he asked me to do a run on the same articles he did. He didn't get in trouble for it, so why should Bibcode Bot be blocked for the exact same thing? books } 12:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC) These links are not useful in the cases where editors have complained. I have clicked on the links for those I reverted. The database provided nothing useful. These were useless external links. The "are you determining here what a reader may find useful" is in fact the basis of the complaint. This bot is cluttering citations with links that are not useful outside of astronomy. If we take the hardline "editors mustn't dictate to the reader what may or may not be useful" argument, we've have folk adding links to Amazon so they can buy the book, or to their university library so they can borrow it. For an automatic bot to be acceptable its edits have to be always welcome. These edits are not always welcome. Beetstra and Headbomb are assuming that because there is a consensus that adding links to big citation databases is generally approved and useful, that it is acceptable for a bot to enforce such links on all articles and all citations. This is the difference between guideline and policy. These bots should not be used to enforce a guideline that has exceptions. Headbomb continues to miss the point about astronomy articles with PMIDs. I wouldn't support adding a PMID link to a journal article that had nothing to do with medicine. Whether to add the link is a decision based on what the journal article's topic is, not what WP article it is in. Bibcode links are likely to be only useful in astronomy articles (perhaps others?) and rarely useful in the 99% rest of Wikipedia. Please can someone block/stop this bot while we discuss this. It is currently running and adding these pointless links to scores of articles. If there's a consensus to keep it, the bot can be unbocked later. There never was any wiki-wide discussion to add these links or to automate their insertion and the approval page clearly indicates the only discussions were on astronomy projects and the authors only thought that outside of astronomy, it would only affect "a few odd pages which cites a astronomy/physics journal for some weird reason ". What has become apparent is that many articles cite general science journals that are in that database and none of them are astronomy related. Therefore the original remit of the bot has been exceeded and is unwanted. Colin°Talk 13:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC) I will stop the bot pending further discussion. There is an issue though of link overload which I don't think is being understood. Here is an example of what a reference in one of my articles looks like now that Citation bot and Bibcode Bot have gone through it: Berneman, ZN; Ablashi, DV; Li, G; Eger-Fletcher, M; Reitz Jr, MS; Hung, CL; Brus, I; Komaroff, AL; Gallo, RC (1992). "Human herpesvirus 7 is a T-lymphotropic virus and is related to, but significantly different from, human herpesvirus 6 and human cytomegalovirus". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 89 (21): 10552–10556. PMID 1332051. It's entirely unnecessary to have all those links bloat the references section. A virology article has no real need for them; the PMC (or the doi with a |free=yes parameter) could act like a link to the article and the rest of the reference codes could be placed on an easily accessed subpage somewhere. NW (Talk ) 13:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC) It's adding the links to the same articles Rjwimsli did a month ago, per his request. Blocking is completely silly. And that link IS useful. Please unblock the bot. books } 14:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Blocking is entirely appropriate for a bot that is not 100% harmless and consensual. In my perception, the bot is spamming. -- Marie Poise (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC) The bot is 100% harmless, and bots do not require 100% consensus to operate. Right now it's cleaning up after Rjwimsli, on articles which already contained bibcodes. books } 15:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC) I always thought that adding additional metadata to citations was helpful. I guess not. :/ Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC) It is. books } 14:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC) I was being sarcastic. :) Note the quantity of metadata in the Cirrus cloud article—I added everything I could find, and no FAC reviewer complained. In fact, one actually complained about the lack of bibcodes in a couple of the citations! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Colin, I assumed nothing. You are the one enforcing that the pages in a certain subject should only use certain links to certain literature databases, and not the others. The only thing I said is that it seems that a) PMID 's on astronomy articles, even if it not necessarily adding more info everywhere, I encourage chemistry articles to have links to all of them as well. It may not be necessary, but it utterly, absolutely does NO harm to the articles to have them (and in some cases it may even give more info). Regarding the block, this bot was not breaking anything, these edits were certainly not making Wikipedia worse (the argument is maybe that it is not making Wikipedia better, which is a POV). I therefore think that this is a bad block. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC) My opinion is that these edits are indeed making Wikipedia worse. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC) And many others think these edits make it better. See books } 16:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC) That is indeed the whole point, Looie496 - You are of the opinion that it makes Wikipedia worse, but we are writing this encyclopedia for the reader .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC) I don't believe we are benefiting readers of medical articles by adding links to an astronomy database to them. Adding that clutter makes it harder to find the correct way to access the reference source. Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC) The correct way to access the reference is whichever the reader prefers. Don't make decisions that readers can make for themselves. books } 17:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC) (ec)What is 'the correct way to access the reference source', Looie496? --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Usually by PubMed, because it provides a lot of extra information in addition to the abstract. To be clear, I have no objection to a human editor adding a bibcode where there is any reason to think it is useful, I just don't like this automated addition of useless clutter. I don't think I'm alone in this, by the way -- I have yet to see a biologically-oriented editor who claimed to be happy about this. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC) I am speechless that you actually answered that question. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC) I'm more speechless that he would have his preference enforced and the preference of others denied. books } 18:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Argh. Look, suppose you're an ordinary reader who doesn't know about all this stuff, and you are looking at this version of the optogenetics article. Look at the first reference in the list -- suppose you want to look up the source. There are three links presented to you: a bibcode, a doi, and a Pubmed link. Which do you choose? Even parsing out the links is bewildering. This just isn't a user-friendly way of doing things. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC) And suppose there's doi, pmc, pmid? Which do you choose? Or if there's doi only? Or if there's doi and bibcode? You choose like you choose all things. You try it. Then you decide which you like. And then you use that one (or those ones). If I just wanted to read the article, and I had to choose between bibcode and pmid, I would pick the bibcode since there's a good chance the article is digitized and available in the ADSABS database (and also often contains lots of additional information about the article). Between PMC and PMID, I'd pick PMC since PMC = free and available. If I'm interested in who cites the article, then both Bibcode and PMID, as they both cover different journals. What you choose depends on what you want. But what I don't want is someone telling me "you shouldn't have access to want you want because this is not what I want". Wikipedia is for everyone, not just medicine experts. books } 18:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Looie496, they are all going to the source, so it does not matter. Let me be clear, I have no clue about Optogenetics, I am a chemist. I will use the DOI to get there (maybe PubChem if it is there). And if an astronomer goes there they may use the Bibcode, because they are familiar with that. If you really want to enforce PubMed, because PubMed is the best way of reading the sources, you should be removing all the other identifiers (they are inferior to PubMed anyway). But if it is a personal choice that PubMed is thé only way of accessing references on medical information, then you can change that behaviour with some clever programming in your style sheets. One question, you accidentally stumble upon an article on something typically belonging in the astronomy world (something that does not have a clear relationship with medicine), and you have a reference on that article which links out via PubMed and BibCode .. which one do you chose? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC) "we are writing this encyclopedia for the reader" followed by "you can change that behaviour with some clever programming in your style sheets". That's pretty funny. Colin°Talk 19:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC) What I want is for human editors of the article to be able to make these decisions without having bot coders who know nothing about the topic area coming along and overriding them. Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC) And that is about the clearest violation of WP:OWN in this whole discussion, Looie496. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC) That is not a violation of WP:OWN. It is an entirely reasonable request. The bots do not OWN Wikipedia. Colin°Talk 19:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC) I do hope this bot contains better logic than some of the arguments being presented in its favour. Like "There is also no policy to keep Bibcode out of citations" or "PMIDs are routinely added to astronomy articles." Or the logic Headbomb's using to excuse his edit warring that somehow the bot (which he runs) should be regarded as an independent other editor wrt BRD. We could do without the false arguments and the attempt to set projects against each other. Like "bots do not require 100% consensus to operate" as though the opponents of the bot suggested they did. Or that opponents suffer from WP:OWN because they object to a bot. None of the opponents here object to the inclusion of Bibcode links where a human brain has decided they are useful. That might be an astronomy article, a medical article or a Simpson's article for all I care. We object to the assumption that these Bibcode links are useful to all articles and all citations where the journal happens to be in some obscure astronomy database. Looie is right about our reader's reaction to the clutter of citation links. If they hit one, when reading about viruses say, and end up in an astronomy database, their reaction will be WTF, not "thanks for the link". For this bot to be allowed to run across all of WP, it needs to have consensus approval among a wider scope of readers than the astronomy/physics projects listed in the bot approval page. Actually, following the project-notification links we find this discussion. Which consists of three posts by Headbomb and one post by Snottywong, who co-authored the bot. Great! So even the astronomy/physics projects haven't given any sort of consensus for this (unless one takes apathy for consent). This is unacceptable. Colin°Talk 18:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC) There has been express support for the addition of bibcodes all around (do you really think the astronomy project, of all projects, would oppose this bot?). Discussion concerning bibcodes sprouted on most citation templates, several wikiprojects, and various other pages. Bot variants of bibcode-related tasks have been done in the past months before Bibcode Bot's approval, (see books } 19:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Your links are to a citation template talk page and to the citation bot talk page. We're hardly talking the village pump here! Do you appreciate how obscure those pages are and atypical the watchers of those pages are likely to be. Neither of these will be on many user's watchlists. Each of the "discussions" involve at most three editors. You haven't linked to even a project-based discussion (involving those other than the bot authors) where this bot's actions were discussed. You are right that the astronomy project members would likely consider this a useful tool, but even some of them might realise that setting it off across all Wikipedia might not be wise. Discussions that are pro-bibcode in citation templates or about transforming a url to a template parameter do not indicate that folk want all citations in all articles to include this database link merely because the journal is in the database. Let me repeat that I have no problem with the template containing the parameter and no problem with editors filling in that parameter after considering whether yet another database link actually adds anything (which Beetstra's example below doesn't). It is just clutter if it fails that. Filling WP with clutter is not desirable. Colin°Talk 19:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Colin, you are pulling things out of context here, you first say "They end up in an astronomy database, their reaction will be WTF, not "thanks for the link"" .. while exactly that is what the people get, a proper link to the proper article, only hosted in an astronomy database as I try to show below - and now you turn it into whether it actually adds anything? Yet another argument which does not hold anything, it adds exactly just as much as the DOI (which redirects to the original), or the PMID - the article title, the authors and the abstract. And again, clutter, yes, it may be clutter to you (you can edit your stylesheet if it bothers you), but it may be very useful to someone else. You keep pushing arguments where you push your preferred databases, because other databases are for you not useful, and because they clutter the page for you, that must be the same for others. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC) 'They end up in an astronomy database, their reaction will be WTF, not "thanks for the link"... this link gets you exactly where you expect to get, to the correct article. And I stand by my argument: It is up to the reader to decide which database to follow, not those who (normally) author these articles. You are right, this is unacceptable, it is unacceptable that editors use their bias for preferred databases to link externally. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Moving on This dispute in this way is not getting us anywhere. While one side argues that the links can be of interest (and some of these links are already there for some time on articles outside the scope of Astronomy which suggests people don't mind, and suggestions and insertions of the link did not show significant opposition up till now), or are actually an addition for some articles, the other side argues that they don't see that it could possibly be useful to the reader in any form, and that it is mere clutter (yet another link which does not give more info and makes it impossible for the reader to find the 'proper' reference). Headbomb, is it an idea that for now the bot stays with articles in areas where the link surely is of interest (for sure within the Astronomy project, broadly construed, maybe using some setting with a list of 'allowed categories') and allow for discussion whether the link generally is of interest outside that area before (if ever) inserting them there as well (or finding other solutions like I believe is currently discussed on the template talkpages)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC) A simpler rule that might achieve the same result would be to restrict |bibcode= addition to articles that already have one or more existing citations including a |bibcode=. Rjwilmsi 21:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC) The funny thing is .. that that is true for many articles, also outside of Astronomy (it is even true for articles that were recently reverted). --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC) I mean, a highly visible article like Dog has already a BibCode for months (occasionally, next to a PMID and a DOI ...). And sure, we have Laika, but considering Dog a typical Astronomy subject .. nah. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC) All these articles already had bibcodes in them (many, but not all, added by Rjwilmsi). That's why the bot ran on them in the first place. books } 21:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC) It will often happen that one or another, but not all, of the citations will lead to open access copies. The one that is almost certain to is PMC, and it would therefore make sense to list that one first if available--even for articles in Astronomy. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Just commenting from the perspective of an astronomy editor, bibcode is usually useful in cases where there is online data, a non-fee copy (arXiv) of an article, or for older articles that lack identifiers such as doi. It is also useful for finding other publications by the authors because it has built-in search capabilities. Besides the topic of astronomy, I would expect bibcode to be useful in physics or space exploration articles. Sometimes odd connections also occur because of the mythology of astronomy naming conventions (Example: Sirius and dog), or just the extensive history of astronomy. But I have no particular preference about it being automatically used in non-astronomy articles. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Can we unblock the bot now? books } 00:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Just to clarify: the bot is only going to run on articles that already have at least one Bibcode and that it hasn't already edited? NW (Talk) 02:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Right now the current run covers a list of articles Rjwimsli edited, per Rjwimsli's request so the vast majority of them should have bibcodes. The bot is slow, so it focuses on areas where it makes the most impact (usually astronomy, physics, etc...) or on requests. Right now it's running on a request. There's no point in running it twice over that list. So no the bot won't run twice over this list. That being said, the code is refined after every run, mostly to include some journals it might have missed due to unconventional spellings, non-standard journal abbreviations, etc... So the bot could and will run on certain articles twice. But articles receiving multiple runs would be those that have either been explicitly requested twice, or those much more closely related to physical sciences & astronomy (e.g. those in Category:Exoplanets or Category:Semiconductors). Will there be runs covering topical non-physical sciences categories such as Category:Physiology? Unless someone makes the request, no, simply because it's not a good use of resources. Will the bot ignore articles without bibcodes? No, because this is highly-undesirable. A stub like doi:10.1086/190287. Citation bot would do the same, although it might miss the bibcode because its logic is not as sophisticated. But if the questions is will the bot run on stubs like Priapulites ? Unless someone makes a request, no it won't. books } 04:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC) No, we can't unblock the bot now. Headbom has already stated that this "restriction" is no to the current list the bot is processing. So the same articles would get the same pointless clutter added to their citations. Rjwilmsi's suggestion (that the bot only add bibcode to articles that already havdifferent e bibcodes) is little more than "if the article has been crapped on already, crap on it some more" for those citations that never benefited from bibcodes. The real determinant of whether a bibcode is useful is the citation itself. A medical paper with PMID and DOI that just happens to be in an astronomy article no more benefits from a bibcode than the same paper in a medical article. But if we're looking for a heuristic to restrict where the bot is more likely to be useful then category or wikiproject restriction might help. The main issue is that where a citation has multiple possible database or access links, some will add nothing already supplied by the others and lead to databases that are clearly off-topic. It seems to me that bibcode is always inferior to PMID. Are there any astronomy or physics papers in PubMed? There are certainly medical papers in the astronomy database. So could we restrict the bot so it doesn't add bibcode to a citation that already has (or should have) a PMID. Can anyone think of a paper that has a PMID where the BibCode was a superior database link? There may be other database than PubMed that this also applies to. So I'd like Headbomb et al to consider what they might be too. I can't for the life of me understand Headbomb's urgent need to unblock the bot. This alone makes me think he is unsuitable to determine what bots run on WP. There is no rush. We should get this right rather than clutter WPs citations and expect editors to manually clean up afterwards. If I was coding the bot, I'd have it run on the highest restrictions I can think of first and wait to see the effect/reaction. But again, I repeat that this bot has had no community approval for its actions. The approval process it underwent was a joke and was based on an assumption that it wouldn't affect non-astronomy article to any great degree: this assumption is wrong. Headbomb should come up with a new set of restrictions, experiment with those, and then re-apply for approval showing genuine support from a wider set of editors than one or two bot owners and template authors. Colin°Talk 09:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC) The bot has very reasonable heuristics. It's running on physical science-related articles, or on requests. Contrary to your claim, the bot would not "run over the same articles it currently is", and your opposition to having the bot add bibcodes to articles that already contain bibcodes is completely unreasonable. As for physics articles with PMIDs, see Physical Review Letters. 74: 2626–2631. books } 13:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC) The bot is clearly not running only on "physical science-related articles", Just look at the contributions history. A sizeable proportion of those are biological science articles. The bot doesn't have any heuristics as far as I can see. It seems that you are configuring it to run on whatever lists you come up with, so the scope of its edits, should we unblock it, are basically whatever articles you configure it to run on. You claim the bot would not run over the same articles yet at 04::00 you said "the bot could and will run on certain articles twice". Indeed, since it is run at will, on whatever set of articles you give it, Wikipedia is at the mercy of whatever you want it to run on. So not only do we have a bot with no set and approved scope, but we have a bot that will in all likelyhood repeat its mistakes whenever it is re-run on articles. Well your example is certainly one where I would agree the bibcode is superior to the PMID and in that case a human would sensibly avoid adding the PMID because the PMID is useless clutter. Ok. So can you perhaps refine the list of journals that the bot runs with. If you can restrict it to only add bibcodes for journals that solely deal with astronomy/physics, rather than general-science journals, then I think that stands a much higher chance of success. For the journals that contain papers outside of the astronomy/physics domain, it could still be set to add a bibcode where no other database link was present (I'm not counting the DOI as a database link as that effectively leads the user directly to the article). Anything else needs to be decided by humans. Colin°Talk 14:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Re-read what I wrote. "It's running on physical science-related articles, or on requests'." I mentionned that several times now. books } 14:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC) I did read that but fail to see how "on requests" is a valid scope for running a bot. So Rjwimsli has been adding bibcodes to biology journal articles in a semi-automated fashion with AWB. That doesn't make it all right for your bot to continue this behaviour with an automatic bot. It doesn't appear that Rjwimsli has been any more careful about what citations to add bibcodes to than your bot has. Come one guys. I'm just seeing false argument after false argument. It doesn't get away from the issue that this bot is adding clutter to citations and isn't selective enough in what it works on. Colin°Talk 19:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC) These issues have been showing up on my watchlist, which, like Looie's, is largely neuroscience-oriented. To me, personally, it's no big deal either way, just some more blue gobbledygook in references where one can either click on it or ignore it. But it does seem to me that there are differences in perception revealed in this discussion, between some of the physical sciences and some of the biological sciences. Looking at the bot approval page, it seems that all the trials were in astronomy and physics-related areas. Outside of those areas, it's not clear to me what the "requests" have been, or whether these requests really represent editor consensus in the subject areas affected. Why not post on the talk pages of more WikiProjects, especially those that are biologically or medically oriented, and survey editor preferences? Getting, and respecting, wider input would be a way to get out of these ownership concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC) The first defence of a bot owner is to cite WP:OWN. I'd be equally upset by a bot adding PMIDs all over astronomy paper citations. So lets just drop the false wikiproject bias argument. If this bot can't be made to have a higher hit-rate of usefulness (I reckon at least a third of its recent edits are poor) then it shouldn't be run. Colin°Talk 19:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC) How about a rule of "don't add a bibcode if there is already a PMID or a PMC for the citation"? Rjwilmsi 21:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC) I think that would be very helpful as a rule for the bot or semi-automatic tools. The cases where both a bibcode and a PMID are possible can be decided by a human. In the interests of balance, the same restriction should really apply to the PMID-adding tools, though I suspect the cases where PubMed contains physics papers is quite rare (but Headbomb found one and perhaps that suspicion is wrong). Colin°Talk 21:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC) There are some 4,620 templated citations on mainspace with both a PMID or PMC and a bibcode (cf 330,000 with PMID or PMC, 29,000 with bibcode, though note bibcodes are under-represented as citation tools have only worked for bibcodes for a few months). Of those around 2,800 are Nature, Science or PNAS (probably as expected as those journals are multi-disciplinary). However there are about 600 for Physical Review Letters. There hasn't AFAIK been any concern about PMID and bibcode for the PRL lot, but a consistent two-directional rule is probably best for the moment. I would hope that compliance to the above rule would be enough for the bibcode bot to be allowed to continue its operations. Rjwilmsi 21:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Not adding a bibcode when there's a PMID would be an incredibly bad idea. Plenty of physics journals have PMIDs. Not adding a PMID to physics journals would be equally bad, because people familiar with the PMID database would most likely prefer using a database they are familiar with than one they aren't. If medicine people care about physics stuff, why should that bother physicist or physics editors? Physics (and Wikipedia) is for everyone, not just physicists. Not adding PMIDs per books } 22:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Moving on, part 2 Let's refocus on the bot, rather than on meta-discussion of WP:ILIKEIT . This was the question asked: Just to clarify: the bot is only going to run on articles that already have at least one Bibcode and that it hasn't already edited? This was the answer Right now the current run covers a list of articles Rjwimsli edited, per Rjwimsli's request so the vast majority of them should have bibcodes. The bot is slow, so it focuses on areas where it makes the most impact (usually astronomy, physics, etc...) or on requests. Right now it's running on a request. There's no point in running it twice over that list. So no the bot won't run twice over this list. That being said, the code is refined after every run, mostly to include some journals it might have missed due to unconventional spellings, non-standard journal abbreviations, etc... So the bot could and will run on certain articles twice. But articles receiving multiple runs would be those that have either been explicitly requested twice, or those much more closely related to physical sciences & astronomy (e.g. those in Category:Exoplanets or Category:Semiconductors). Will there be runs covering topical non-physical sciences categories such as Category:Physiology? Unless someone makes the request, no, simply because it's not a good use of resources. Will the bot ignore articles without bibcodes? No, because this is highly-undesirable. A stub like doi:10.1086/190287. Citation bot would do the same, although it might miss the bibcode because its logic is not as sophisticated. But if the questions is will the bot run on stubs like Priapulites ? Unless someone makes a request, no it won't. Is that satisfactory? Or is something else required? books } 22:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Well, I wouldn't have thought it was satisfactory, as people kept arguing with you after you said it the first time. Repeating an argument in a discussion thread seldom makes it more acceptable I've found. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC) The argument comes from the same guy that made the original complaint and wouldn't tolerate the bot editing on articles who already have bibcodes. While he has the right to his opinions, one person should not be able to keep a bot blocked because he personally doesn't like it. Third opinions are what is required at this point. In particular, that of NuclearWarfare, who originally blocked the bot, and asked this question. This isn't a restatement of the same argument, it's asking the question, does the answer satisfy objections according to reasonable people. If yes, the bot should be unblocked. If not, then what else is required? span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;"> books } 23:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC) I haven't had time to really follow this discussion in detail these last few days unfortunately. Any administrator is free to unblock iff they feel there is sufficient consensus to run the bot, which, at first glance, there doesn't seem to be. Perhaps we should move this discussion over to one of the Village Pumps so we can talk about scope and alternate proposals more effectively? NW (Talk) 18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC) I just came over from WikiProject Medicine. Reading through this and the linked discussions, it looks like part of bot approval is notifying affected interested editors and seeing whether there are objections. In this case, it looks like the objections are coming from editors who are involved in editing affected pages, yet were not part of projects that received the notices. Doesn't this suggest that the approval phase was inadequate (because the scope of affected articles has been beyond the scope of the approval notifications), and should be revisited? -- Scray (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC) What I want to know is how is "Physical science + requests" is not a reasonable scope for the bot, or how it should be modified if this is not acceptable. It's not like the bot does pure runs on weird categories such as books } 06:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC) The +requests bit is the problem (the physical science less so but still potentially one should the bot be run multiple times on any article). Looking at the requests list, it seems that Rjwilmsi was also adding bibcodes to citations that didn't benefit from them. So his list isn't any good either. Have you actually looked at your bot's contribution history. It might as well have been running on Category:Benign neoplasms because a good third of the articles it hits are that sort of subject. But I've already said this... Colin°Talk 08:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC) I want to underline what Scray said. That is exactly the real issue here. I raised it in Moving on part one, from which it appears we have now moved on to part two, and Colin immediately deflected the discussion towards ownership, which was what I wanted to get away from. It's becoming very clear that "requests" includes a lot of mysterious runs in subject areas where, in reality, most involved editors could not possibly have requested anything, because we did not know anything about it until after the fact. Why not stop the bot in the "requests" areas until the "requests" have been identified and been discussed by a wider community of editors? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Seems reasonable to me, I'd be fine with that. books } 17:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks for saying that! If that works for you, have we solved this complaint? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC) There was never any consensus for this bot to run on any topic area. Show me the discussions. There's no rush to unblock this bot. It isn't a human being denied his editing rights. I'd like to see some progress towards an acceptance that the bot should be journal-citation based in its logic rather than article or request-list based, some acceptance that it should tackle only the uncontentious citations, and I'd like some assurance that next time someone complains about the bot and requests it be stopped, that Headbomb listens and doesn't require an ANI complaint before something is done about it. I'm not seeing that here so my request below stands. This ANI request was caused by a behavioural problem with the bot owner and that issue is not resolved. Colin°Talk 21:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Take a step back and let's look at what happen. The bot made an edit which you objected to. You reverted. I (not the bot) reverted once per BRD. We could have had a civil and reasonable discussion, but you categorically object to this bot doing anything whatsoever regardless of context, you're calling for my head at BAG, you want to deny me any bot-running privileges (which amongst other things would cripple books } 21:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC) What happened was a bot run by you started making mistakes. You wouldn't listen when asked by three people to stop so we're here. The one who needs to chill, is the one pressing to restart a bot that isn't well designed. I don't need your head. But you aren't acknowledging any of the behavioural mistakes you've made. I think it would be good for us both to take a break from this and let Bibcode Bot sleep for a week or so. Colin°Talk 22:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC) No, Colin, that is not what happened. The bot did not make any mistakes. This bot is doing exactly the same as Citation Bot, who also is adding PMIDs everywhere. There is no design flaw, it adds BibCodes everywhere, just as that PMIDs are added everywhere (well, if there is a design mistake, then it is that it targets articles which already have a BibCode, it should not have cared about that and just add it wherever it can). You guys don't see that, PMIDs are deemed generally useful, everywhere. But because you three (and at least one other, I believe) do not see that. You only see that it is not useful to you, and therefore you state that it is not generally useful. So please stop making this personal, and give proper arguments, because I have not seen any proper argument to why the BibCode is not useful on a medical article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Why we're at ANI We're at ANI rather than WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with editors now starting to repeat their arguments. The contentious point is whether journal paper citations should have external links to certain journal databases, even if the scope of those journal databases is only including that paper by accident (i.e., a medical paper in ADS or a physics paper in Pubmed). Following the link to such a database is likely to be suboptimal compared to following the link to an alternative database. Headbomb appears to think it is still useful. Some editors don't care. Other editors consider these superfluous links as clutter. Regardless of the merits of each of these positions, the vital point is that this is contentious. That should have been clear on the first complaint and blindingly obvious by the third. It is not the purpose of ANI to resolve that point, though it would have been nice if we had. Wikipedia:Bot policy makes it clear that they should only perform tasks for which there is consensus. From the above heated discussion, there is clearly no consensus for the useful scope of bibcodes. This is apparent now but it should have been discovered before the bot was run. I won't repeat the links made above but essentially the bot approval process assumed it would only affect astronomy/physics papers and the so-called WikiProject discussions didn't involve anyone other than the bot authors. There has clearly been a failure of the bot approval process. Wikipedia:Bot policy's "Good communication" section outlines what is expected of Headbomb. This standard has not been met. The response by Headbomb to Rjwilmsi's suggeestion ("Not adding a bibcode when there's a PMID would be an incredibly bad idea.") makes it clear to me he does not understand what the purpose of his bot should be. Nor does he appear to understand the difference between a user making these edits and a bot making them. It should not be the purpose of Bibcode Bot to add bibcodes to every single journal citation that benefits from them: that is clearly a task only a human could do. The bot should tackle the low-hanging-fruit that does not require contextual information (a human brain) to work out if it is beneficial or not. If that means that thousands of citations miss out on an automatically inserted bibcode then it is not exactly the end of the world. Due to these issues, I believe Headbomb should be suspended from running any bot on WP and be removed from the Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group. I don't believe he understands the purpose of bots and has not shown the behaviour expected of bot owners. Colin°Talk 08:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC) I see we are still at the same point .. no, Colin, IMHO, the dispute is something else than what you say, arguments which you also ignore. First, we have a bot that is adding PMID and other codes around, which adds them without any bias to the subject of the article - PMID is added withing the projects: Pharmacology (Celecoxib), Ppsychology (Biofeedback), Chemistry (Pamoic acid), Medicine (Sammy Lee (scientist), Business/Graphic Design/Media (Advertising), Food and drink (History of the Hamburger), Molecular and Cellular Biology (Melanopsin), Turtles/Amphibians and Reptiles (Painted turtle), Geology/Energy/Environment/Canada-Saskatchewan-Alberta/Venezuala (Oil sands), Indiana/United States (Indiana), shortly: everywhere. The Medicine project does not WP:OWN the PMID, there is no objection to having PMIDs everywhere, they are useful, everywhere. Note added (Dirk Beetstra T C 08:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)): I did note, that some of the additions that I mention here are medical questions regarding the subjects (e.g. true on Indiana, History of the Hamburger. So I decided to have a short further look, whether the use of PMIDs outside of the typical Medical subjects was typically a medical subject which is part of the subject (for the Hamburger, the health issues regarding that is a medical issue for a non-medical subject, e.g.). I did find PMIDs in subjects from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy: Comet, Moon, Galaxy, Sagittarius A* and Pluto - where the subject of the article, nor the referenced sentence nor the reference were 'typically medical'. Secondly, many of the articles in medicine already had a BibCode, most of them since a short time. But also articles, outside of Astronomy, have a BibCode, and some of them already for months. And I have seen only little , or no, objection against that. For examples of articles that have a BibCode: see WP:MED ), they are useful, everywhere. So yes, 'Not adding a bibcode when there's a PMID would be an incredibly bad idea.' - many articles in Astronomy have a PMID, and not adding the BibCode there would be an extremely bad idea. That is also true for all articles in any other place, many articles outside of Medicine and Astronomy have a PMID, not adding a BibCode there is a very bad idea. I can turn it around 'Not adding a PMID when there's a BibCode would be an incredibly bad idea' - what, I would say 'Not adding a PMID would be an incredibly bad idea' ánd 'Not adding a BibCode would be an incredibly bad idea'. The only major objections I see are from the medical wikiproject, who argue that their articles do not need a BibCode, with as main argument 'BibCodes are useless clutter'. Who are you to say that some identifier is generally useless based on the point that it is useless to you. Now, again: WP:MED does not own the articles in their Wikiproject, nor do they own the PMID. WP:MED does not like the BibCode because they are not useful to them - PMIDs are useful everywhere, no hamburger eater, chemist, or graphical designer complains about having the PMID, and I do think that having a BibCode on articles is also useful. But some editors in WP:MED simply do not like having a BibCode there. No-one seems to think that having a PMID everywhere is contentious, but you seem to think that having a BibCode everywhere is contentious (however, you did not care for weeks (or longer) while there were BibCodes in 'your' articles. And there are more people than just Headbomb that think that it is useful, just as useful as that PMID. So yes, maybe there is WP:OWN by the some members of the WP:MED wikiproject. They may not be useful for you (and that is what you turn into a point), but they may be useful to some, and that is why we write this encyclopedia, and why we add identifiers everywhere, because they may be of use somewhere. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC) For christs sake, listen to yourselves! :) This is going nowhere - same arguments round and around. Can I suggest an RFC - because this is not really an admin issue (now the bot has been stopped/blocked) and you are simply not going to get any external input of note in a thread where you have daggers drawn. Please start a neutrally worded RFC laying out the issues and the questions to resolve - whether that is broad scope (all database links added by bot) or narrow (these specific links). --Errant (chat!) 14:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC) It DID went somewhere. The "problem" (although I dispute it is a legitimate one) was that the bot was running on unvetted requests. I've agreed to stop that for now. Surely an RFC isn't required to run the bot on physical sciences articles? We can have an RFC seperatly, but that shouldn't be the condition for the bot to resume its work on physics & astronomy & related articles. This has already been vetted and books } 14:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC) An RfC on what, exactly? Whether PMID's are useful outside of medical articles (where the use of the reference is not pertaining a medical statement), or whether BibCodes are useful outside of Astronomy articles (where the use of the reference is not pertaining a astronomy statement) .. as I have not seen any proof of dispute for the former (no block of Citation bot there), I think that starting an RfC on the latter is utterly bureaucratic. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately it clearly seems to be disputed - so yes, you need to discuss it. That's the basis of Wikipedia.... you can't simply ignore concerns raised by other people on the basis that it is bureaucracy :) I mean, I'm not a fan of one screaming individual being able to disrupt the process and force yards of discussion. However I flicked over the discussion above and it seems multiple people are noting concerns, if mildly, and others have done so in the past. So clearly there is an issue to iron out. @Headbomb; if you can restrict the continued bot run to Astronomy articles I will be willing to unblock you. However the issue of them appearing outside of astronomy articles seems to be unresolved, and letting that run continue will only cause argument. Stop arguing on AN, resolve the issue in the proper format et voila. --Errant (chat!) 14:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I've already agreed to restrict the bot to run on physical sciences for the meantime. books } 15:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Also; I think a general RFC on what to do about citations would be useful - because there are sensible points made above about the relevance of some of the links, and the display issues. Off the top of my head a neat solution would be to customise the citation template to show only one or two, customisable, database links per citation - with a further link/tag to "show more". Then you could add all the links regardless and simply display whichever is relevant. Seems an obvious compromise to me :) --Errant (chat!) 14:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Errant, you may well be right. The concerns are about the display of the citation. If we could simplify the default display and still allow additional information to be optionally dipslayable that ought to suit all concerned. Rjwilmsi 17:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Unsolicited comment from a non-admin, non-scientist, humanities post-graduate: Recognising that Wikipedia is not an exhaustive scientific or technical reference, I am nevertheless inclined to favour more rather than fewer references, and all the pointers I can get to more information in the event I choose to pursue it. I favour specific references over general bibliographies, and if Wikipedia already recognises PMIDs/Bibcodes, why not ‘fill ‘er up’. On the subject of the bot, that’s another can or worms altogether. There are far more annoying ones than Headbomb’s. Resolve the issue of bot oversight first, then zero in on functionality that might be adding potentially useless/duplicate references. But on that subject, too, I favour any lead over no lead at all, so if abstracts are not available for PMID or Bibcode references, there may be other functionality on remote indexes, like ‘See related entries’, that might offer a useful lead. That other concern about visual clutter is surely one for the Manual of Style, which ought to reflect best practice/acceptable standards for referencing. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 22:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Unblocked - but Headbomb has undertaken to apply this bot only to physical science articles. Please take a moment to follow my rationale on this unblock - and consider the steps from here... There is much discussion over the use of database links above. More choice, obviously, is preferable. As is less clutter. Fixing that ambiguity is not really specific to this bot - but more to how we display academic citations. Part of my hope in unblocking is to focus work on improving citation format to respond to this. As far as I can make out the main complaint is that these DB links are not all that relevant to medical articles. I suggest those that feel (and it seems to me your view is fair) such take steps to rollback additions to such articles they find objectionable - and Headbomb takes steps to make sure that such edits do not happen (Headbomb; you are responsible for ensuring this is the case). If the bot edits outside the area of physical sciences I suggest immediate block without prejudice, my unblock is predicated on an endeavour not to cause significant issues (and I will be keeping an eye out the next few days). To be utterly explicit - the rationale that the bot is editing articles that another editor has added bibcodes to is utterly inefective. I am AGF that this is not the grounds on which Headbomb is asking for an unblock. If it is I will be extremely annoyed. The category of articles should be physical sciences, where bibcodes can sensibly be expected to add detail as desired. If the bot resumes indiscriminately following another editors "whim" then reblock it. The bot owner is explicitly responsible for keeping to this unblock condition I suggest that this unblock not be looked on by the bot supporters as a licences to carry on as before - your actions are requested in some areas, and rejected in others. If you want to work in those areas you must get wide community consensus to do so. There is far to much commenting in this thread along the lines of "you have no idea what you are talking about". And that is simply not constructive. I hope this unblock works to resolve this issue - arguing on AN has little use, you are simply not going to resolve this. I suggest, as strongly as possible, that and RFC into citation database additions be started to resolve any extant issues. And that in the mean time if the bot causes any further, and clear, issues it be blocked. I, for one, consider the links of potential use in any article that can use them. But if WP:MED legitimately disputes that use then you must, must, find a compromise or consensus to address that issue. As to WP:MED - I'd request those editors arguing against these additions to help pioneer a constructive RFC into the issue and resolve the issue. You both sides seem entrenched on this - and in that you are being fucking idioticrather silly. Raise the disagreement properly and incite valid third party opinion. Or your dispute will receive short shrift in future. --Errant (chat!) 01:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I just want to note here, that I am not an originating party in this (but obviously have a strong view one side .. maybe I should have toned that down). Note: User:ErrantX suggested an RfC on this, which can be found here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations. Maybe this whole thread can now be closed? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well overdue AfD

Could someone please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moray Laing given that it should have been done weeks ago? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Consensus was pretty clear there. I deleted the article but am too stupid to close the discussion. Oh, the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions suck, and while I install and study that Mr.Z tool, perhaps someone smarter than me can TCOB. Thanks TT for the note. Drmies (talk)

I went ahead and closed the discussion for you. GB fan please review my editing 17:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, if it's any consolation I know of at least one other admin who couldn't figure out the coding for AfDs; the one time he tried, he accidentally closed the discussions for the full day's log. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Blade, thanks--I am consoled. I feel sorry for the poor admin, who shall remain nameless, of course. Incidentally, I tried to install that Mr. Z thing, but nothing is happening yet. GB, thank you as well. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Impressed that you remember that incident :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I did a

bold overhaul of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions page (see [57]), which hopefully should spell things out more clearly to administrators. Feel free to do whatever to it. –MuZemike

21:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• That looks a lot better already. I'll give the instructions a try next time. Thanks MuZemike--we don't pay you enough. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I propose that his pay be doubled... Nay, tripled! -- Atama頭 17:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Anyways, I've tried to model the actual close process after the instructions for closing

WP:CFDs, which involve more than just simply renaming or deleting a category)? –MuZemike

21:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• The whole page could be replaced with a link to
  User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD. In all seriousness, just use the script. It's magical. causa sui (talk
  ) 19:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

please block the Bibcode Bot

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC_on_the_bot-addition_of_identifier_links_to_citations causa sui (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Admins, please restore the block of the bibcode bot. This bot is cluttering literature references with redundant links. As Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) shows, it is strongly contested whether these links are welcome or not. As long as there is no consensus, an automatized tool should not be allowed to create facts. -- Marie Poise (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC) See books } 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Approval by a single admin, but no consensus. What you are doing is script-aided edit warring, Headbomb. What a tasteless user name, by the way. -- Marie Poise (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Can you give a specific instance of edit warring? Looking at random through the entire first page of Bibcode bot's contributions showed no edit warring. Syrthiss (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC) There's no edit war with the bot. Marie Poise is basically removing bibcode, links to OSTI, and other databases (basically everything that isn't a DOI) from articles. These links have been there for ages, although bibcode bot did introduce additional ones. I reverted (not the bot) Marie's edits because there is zero reason to remove those links. This concerns a bunch of articles related to books } 18:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Of course the bot is not warring, but Headbomb is: once an article's references are bloated by his bot, he doesn't tolerate others reverting. Examples have been given above: this edit, and this edit, and this edit, plus the more recent examples in the Mössbauer field. -- Marie Poise (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Can I point out that it takes at least two to edit war? Formal warning to both of you - quit it or be blocked. You've both been here long enough to know about WP:EW. That is also not an implied license for Ms. Poise to go to all the articles edited and revert the bot. Let the RFC play out. Syrthiss (talk ) 18:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Headbomb, please read WP:BOTACC policy. For the purposes of considering edit warring, the bot is merely an extension of your account. So if someone reverts your bot, and you then revert them back again without any discussion, you are edit warring. Although I actually agree with Headbomb's reverts today, this behaviour of enforcing one's own bot edits with reverts needs to stop. The unblock and/or restart of the bot was premature while there is an ongoing RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations, instigated by Headbomb. This is a bot that never had any community approval to begin with [by this I mean a discussion involving anyone other than the bot authors]. So what's the rush? As a gesture of goodwill, please suspend the bot till your RFC is concluded. Colin°Talk 19:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC) In no universe would that RFC conclude that it's improper to add Bibcode to physics and astronomy articles, much like in no universe that RFC would conclude that is is improper to add PMIDs to medicine articles. The bot follows it's approved scope, it follows it's unblocking premise (i.e. physics & astronomy articles for now, until the RFC resolves), it doesn't revert war, it's edits are both correct and relevant. Bots and bot owners shouldn't be held hostage to the whims of one single disgruntled editor. Nor should WP:AN be the first place to go to during an edit war. books } 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC) In the RFC, at least ten people have expressed opposition to the bloating of references. Call it whims, but there is more than a single disgruntled editor requesting that your bot be stopped. -- Marie Poise (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC) i.e. physics & astronomy articles for now, until the RFC resolves --- you are anticipating that the RFC will result in bibcode's being added at least to all physics & astronomy articles, possibly to more. And what if the result will be that bibcode remains restricted to astronomy? Will you clean up all physics articles where you added bibcode links? -- Marie Poise (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I solicited opinions from a vast array of people, including WP Physics, WP Solar System, WP Astronomy, WP Astronomical Objects, WP Space, etc.... Combine this with several thousand edits on Physics and Astronomy articles without anyone ever complaining about anything, and I would find it very hard to believe that the "physics" subset of the "physics & astronomy" community are opposed to seeing links to their most used database in their references. It would be as ridiculous as Medicine people deciding a ban the bot-addition of PMIDs on medicine articles. books } 20:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC) You solicited opinions, but you got almost none. You cannot construe silence on a projekt talk page as support. Only now people start to realize what you are doing, so it is quite normal that only now people start expressing discontent. -- Marie Poise (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Marie Poise is still reverting the Bibcode-bot (diff, diff, diff, &c.). Specifically, in this diff, the reference is to an article titled "On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton", typically an Astronomy subject. Moreover, Marie Poise is removing identifiers to all databases except DOI (diff (removing a PMID)). Whether or not PMIDs, BibCodes should be added blindly or not is yet to be determined by the RfC, but this becomes destructive. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Yes, I am reverting ... less than 1% of the mass edits done by Headbomb (aka bibcode bot). At the same time, I am materially improving articles. -- Marie Poise (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Removing BibCodes and PMIDs from places where they do matter (diff) is not improving an article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Beetstra, please let us make clear that you are writing here not as a neutral admin but as a party in the controversy. You have written screens full of arguments in favor of bibcodes. Fine, you have your opinion, I have mine. What I am asking for is just that Headbomb aka bibcode bot stop their mass edits as long as the discussion is ongoing. The PMID did not matter; it was inserted by I don't care which brainless bot into a physics article. -- Marie Poise (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Marie Poise, I am just as neutral as you. And just to note, a) if you are so much against all these identifiers, you should not be singling out Bibcode bot (not even only bots), b) I also note you remove more than just identifiers, also accessdates and issue numbers (to name a couple). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC) And to be clear, I am writing here as an editor, as I do in the other threads. Don't try to chill the discussion with such insinuations, please. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC) In physics, it is superfluous and unusual to use issue numbers in references. The fact that they can be found automatically by bots proves that they are redundant. Therefore, when cleaning up an article, I also remove issue numbers. The real problem is: once there is a template, some people think it is per se a good thing to fill out as many fields as possible. No! Readability! Brain! -- Marie Poise (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC) DOI's can also be found automatically by bots, what, if you have a DOI only most of the other information can be found automatically by a bot. Let's remove the authors, journal name, the title, what, everything except the DOI (where available). (I do agree about the issue numbers by the way, they are generally pretty superfluous, and also not commonly used in Chemistry, but I don't think there is consensus to remove them then, because, you know, this is not physics, this is Wikipedia). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Does anybody have a link to any documentation or previous discussion to agree that issue numbers are redundant? Rjwilmsi 16:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC) It's the first time I hear such a thing. Sciencedirect always uses issue numbers in all citations, including physics papers (example). I concur in that a link is needed. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC) The issue, titles, and similar are often omitted in journal citations because of space considerations. Which is why you'd see something like Belinfante, FJ; ter Haar, D (1952). Science 116:555. rather than the full Belinfante, FJ; ter Haar, D (1952). "Hendrik Anthony Kramers: 1894–1952". Science 116 (3021): 555–556 In the case of Science, the issue number isn't particularly useful, mostly because they number their issue since the first issue ever published, rather than start at 1 with every new volume, which is what usually happens, and which usually makes the issue a useful thing to know. E.g. books } 18:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC) 18:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

I want to redirect this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C6%B0u_Quang_Minh to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luu_Quang_Minh but I cannot edit that page, please edit it with this:

1. REDIRECT
   Luu Quang Minh

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Buuda (talk • contribs) 05:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Done. I'm guessing it's a title blacklist issue, but I'm too tired to figure out what. Courcelles 05:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it perhaps something to prevent the creation of titles with unusual diacritical marks, to retard Grawp-style title vandalism? Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The "ư" is falling afoul of the "select Unicode Letter-like symbols" ban (the first entry on the blacklist). --Carnildo (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion, and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Trial duration

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize:

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#Publishers cited by Wikipedia
2. Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#Proposal - split non-free files and free files
3. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Dispute resolution noticeboard - Stage 2
4. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Trial duration

The first three discussions were listed at Template:Centralized discussion and have been archived to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive#August. The fourth discussion, also listed at Template:Centralized discussion, has run for over 30 days and can be closed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've closed 1, 3, and 4. 2 never got off the ground, so I don't think it really requires a formal closing.

[majestic titan]

06:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work! I agree with your comment that #2 does not need to be closed, so have stricken the future timestamp since you've closed the rest. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification: Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RFC: Use of non-latin or unicode characters as usernames

I have started a RFC on a policy related to usernames at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RFC: Use of non-latin or unicode characters as usernames and would request that interested users give their feedback. Regards SoWhy 15:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Help with move

Hi! Could an administrator undo the moves I just made at

Equitable Life Building (New York City)? I'm an idiot and didn't read everything correctly, and now I can't undo the mistake. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat)

19:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been done now, thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikibombing revisited

A couple of months ago an editor created an essay, Wikipedia:Wikibombing (SEO), to discuss the alleged use of search engine optimization techniques on Wikipedia to influence search engine rankings. I have carried out an experiment to see whether this is actually possible in practice and have posted the results at User:Prioryman/Use of SEO techniques on Wikipedia. I would appreciate any feedback from editors. Prioryman (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Your conclusions fully agree with my own experience. It takes Google even much less than 15' to find a newly created article. -- Marie Poise (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(speaking from my experience a few years ago) (PR=PageRank) The PR of a certain page propagates to all pages that are linked from it. If the mainpage of your website is heavily linked and gets, for example, PR 4, then every subpage linked from the mainpage will have at least a PR of 3 regardless of haw many incoming links they have. Almost every single subpage that can be reached by normal navigation from the mainpage will have a baseline PR of 2 or 3, also regardless of the PR that they would obtain by counting the incoming links to that specific page. A page has to be very deep in the linking structure or be really empty to merit less than a PR 2.

The higher the PR of a page, the higher the chance that it gets crawled. Our mainpage has a very high PR (PR 8?) and "recent changes" is linked directly from it, so it must be getting at least PR 6, which is quite high. (It's also linked directly from almost every single page, which must help). If google notices that a certain page changes frequently, it will get crawled more frequently. Recent Changes is not disallowed in our robots.txt file, meaning that google is free to crawl it as frequently as it fancies. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been concerned in the past with the speed at which Google picks up new articles and changes - and indeed other sites that mirror Wikipedia. Maybe we shouldn't worry, maybe we can't do anything, but it does mean anything from BLP violations to blatant advertising gets picked up by Google.

talk

) 08:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"maybe we can't do anything,": pending changes might be a partial solution for this, or other methods of vetting new pages before they go live.

Fram (talk

) 09:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone seriously think the page in question would not have been vetted? It was largely written by an admin. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I was replying to "it does mean anything from BLP violations to blatant advertising gets picked up by Google." of course...

Fram (talk

) 07:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitrator abstention votes

Resolved by motion:

That in voting sections of proposed decisions as well as of freestanding motions, an additional "Comments" section will be included following the Support, Oppose, and Abstain sections. This section may be used only by arbitrators for comments on the proposal and for discussion of fellow arbitrators' comments. Posting a comment on a proposal does not constitute a vote on the proposal or change the required majority for the proposal. The use of abstention votes as a vehicle for comments, while ultimately within each arbitrator's discretion, is not recommended. Generally, an arbitrator who posts a comment is also expected to vote on the proposal, either at the same time, or at a later time after there has been an opportunity for his or her comments to be addressed. The Arbitration Committee will reevaluate this change of procedures and consider whether any additional changes are warranted in three months.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

CoolKoon personal page

See page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AtonX&diff=prev&oldid=213436875

Personal attack from CoolKoon

original text (the slovak text) Mozes sa podakovat picke Bubamare a "superslovak" Brontovi, ze odviedli spinavu pracu za teba. Skoda, ze su taki sprostucki, ze nevedia po anglicky. Potom by som im to povedal do oci. CoolKoon (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

in english translation

You can say thanks pussy Bubamara and "superslovak" Bronto, that did the dirty work for you. They are so stupid they do not know English. CoolKoon (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

user Bubamara is admin on slovak wiki

http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redaktor:Bubamara

http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Špeciálne:ZoznamPoužívateľov/sysop --Jurkojanosik (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That was over two years ago, why are you raking this up now? New user who is raiing complaints on the AN so fast is a little suspicious. GedUK  13:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I checked his page.... your post was ....intersting to say the least:

Ahoj. Docital som sa ze si pre vlastnu rodinu v Budapesti len Cech. Hahaha. V 1945 sa mnohi Madari na Slovensku radsej prihlasili na Slovensku len aby nemuseli ist do Madarska. To je ta velka narodna hrdost? Urcite aj tvoji predkovia sa hlasili k Slovakom len aby ich Benes nevykopol ako smradlavych psov. A zmaz si nalepku ze vies po slovensky ako keby to bola tvoja rodna rec - ziadny Slovak nenapise "po Michaloviec" ako si to napisal ty na sme. Rec brechajucih psov ti ide lepsie. Fico a Slota sa po volbach dostanu znova do vlady z coho mas fobiu uz teraz, pises o fasisme Matice Slovenskej ale o fasizme Jobiiku nenapises ani slovo ty madarsky klamar. Tak si davaj pozor aby si nedostal po hube za madarcinu v Ba - sam pises ze sa na teba ludia oborili tak im to asi vadi. A ze by si chcel madarske napisy v Ba - kde je 3% madarov to uz vrchol. Papa debilko. Si len obycajny vojnovy stvac, fasista, privrzenec Orbana a Jobiku. --Jurkojanosik (talk)

Translation from Google reads

Hello. Docital I was of your own family for only guild in Budapest. Hahaha. In 1945 many Hungarians in the Slovak Slovak instead logged on only to avoid having to go to Hungary. That is the great national pride? Definitely behold thy fathers to be reported only to their Slovakom Benes nevykopol like smelly dogs. And delete the label of the Slovak VIES than if it was thy native language - no Slovak writes "after Michaloviec" as he wrote it on the We. Rec brechajucih dogs to better the terms. Fico and Slota, after the elections again to get government out of coho masses phobia already now, you write about fascism but about Matrix Slovak fasizme Jobiiku do you write a word of the Hungarian Klamar. So please be careful to get their noses in the Hungarian Ba - sam you write of people would be pressed hard on you so it probably bothers them. And that you would like Hungarian inscriptions in Ba - which is 3% Hungarians had a peak. Papa debilko. You only usually a warmonger, fascist sympathizer and Orban Jobiku. - Jurkojanosik

.... and that was on his page today. I saw a lot of messages in slovak with the same basic accusation "facist" / "nationalist", some by IP's, and one with your name ... Boomerang anyone ? @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 17:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggest looking into whether "Jurkojanosik" is a sockpuppet or an SPA created for the sole purpos of making the above post. Hobartimus (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Just wow. I get a very short wikibreak and when I return all hell breaks loose. Does anyone have any doubts about the hopelessness of the Slovak nationalists? Well, if you still do, let me translate the whole text correctly for your convenience:

Hi. I've read somewhere that even for your own family in

SME. You're better at the language of the barking dogs. Fico and Slota will regain their power once again after the elections, from which you obviously have a phobia already. You write about the fascism of Matica Slovenská, but you fail to mention the fascism of Jobbik you Hungarian (in this case rather: retarded - the word Hungarian became a synonym for a retarded/dummy person/doofus in Slovak) liar. So take care to avoid getting beaten up for (the usage of) Hungarian in BA (Bratislava) - you say yourself that people have lashed out on you, so obviously it (the usage of Hungarian in public) is annoying for them. And to top it off you want to have Hungarian signs in BA -where's about 3% of Hungarians-, that's just unacceptable. Bye, moron. You're just a regular warmonger (?!), fascist, supporter of Orbán and Jobbik

.

And have no doubts about it, over 50% of Slovakia identifies itself with such psychotic claims (supported by Fico's almost unanimous victory in all the polls). And to make the text even more "realistic" I've tried to translate it with the preservation of as much of the original content and context as possible, with some added explanations. -- CoolKoon (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have indef blocked

Fram (talk

) 08:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you believe that this is the second such post on my userpage and I got the first one from a Slovak editor too (Bizovne, who might even be behind this very same account)? And when I say that around half of Slovakia agrees with such ideas I mean it. The daily SME mentioned above is among the most liberal newspapers in Slovakia. Its commentaries are objective, relevant and informative, even as far as "Hungarian matters" are concerned. And do you know how do such people (like the one above) think about this paper? They say stuff ike it's a "Hungarian paper written (for now) in Slovak" and spell it with the Hungarian "sz" to read "SZME" etc. And all this comes from the fact that their editors don't badmouth the Hungarians 24/7 but write relevant articles (sure, they mention Hungarians too, but only in a well-informed and thoroughly researched manner, which the others fail to do). And yet all this just doesn't prevent anti-Hungarian commenters from appearing there. Usually there's so many of them that they totally overwhelm the sane ones. And unfortunately I have a feeling (supported by my personal experiences) that that's THE NORM in Slovakia. If you happen to end up in Slovakia for some inexplicable reason, just ask ANY Slovak you meet about the Hungarians. Their answer will surprise you, I'm sure. And the answer will be pretty much in the same manner regardless of the person's level of education: even some of the most "educated" ones will tell you how insolent they are and how much of a bastard every Hungarian (or most of them) is. They might also tell you that "basically I don't have any problems with Hungarians, BUT...." (and that's where their anti-Hungarian opinions follow). Sure, all of this might seem incredible (maybe even to a guy from Belgium), but just insert this short text into Google Translator and you'll see (the guy wrote the text in reaction to one of my posts there). And you'd find thousands of others on the same portal if you google around for words like "Madari/Maďari", "madarsky/-a/-e/maďarský/-á/-é", "Madarov/Maďarov" etc. I'm sorry if I've offended yours or anyone else's feelings of PC, but I have a feeling that this wasn't (by far) the last offensive comment made against me (by far) for the fact that I'm Hungarian (and nothing else, I'm not even sure if I've upset this user "personally" on WP with something). I'm sure that there'll be others as well, probably mostly in Slovak, because the people who tend to write such things rarely bother learning English either (maybe they view the lack of knowledge of foreign languages as a "Slovak virtue" just like drinking). -- CoolKoon (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

CoolKoon, I didn't mean that your comments about Slowakia and Slovaks were incorrect (nor that they are correct), just that they have no place in this discussion. The attacks against you were clearly blockworthy, but whether they present the personal opinion of one or two editors, or are a representation of what 10%, 50%, or 99% of a country thinks, is not really relevant and may well antagonize people who would otherwise symphatize with you. It's best and safest to stick to what happened here, and leave most of the background out (apart from things which are really necessary to explain things, and even then just stating that there is e.g. "widespread anti-Hungarian sentiment in Slovakia" would be enough, without stating "over 50% of Slovakia identifies itself with such psychotic claims". It's just some friendly advice, I'm not interested here in whether this is true or not.

Fram (talk

) 09:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I tend to force the topic into this direction when Slovak nationalism/anti-Hungarian hate speech is mentioned (I just can't help it :P). But my original point was that because of the fairly high amount of alike-thinking people I fear that this isn't (by far) the last of such comments and this might happen again (this is somewhat of a note to myself as well :P). Thanks for resolving the issue though. -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed to close ANI proposal

This has been sitting stale for a while while the editor/admin involved continues to add POV to articles, so can an uninvolved admin please look at the two proposals here and here and decide if there is sufficient consensus to enact either or both of them? Thanks, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've closed both proposals, and found no consensus for the first proposal, and an almost unanimous consensus for the second proposal. My reasoning can be seen both at that page and at the top of

WP:ANI (the latter until it is archived). -- Atama頭

01:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

CoolKoon

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.

Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hobartimus

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.

Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

European rabbit

Resolved

The European rabbit page has been taken over by some kind of script. Or at least it is with me. 86.157.66.115 (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It works fine for me (using Google Chrome). Have you tried reloading the page? Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it was taken over, I saw it but wasn't sure how to fix it. User:Grawp messing with the Template:Taxobox (see ANI). Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

See AN/I for the discussion of Dodo. Template IUCN was the problem. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Review File:Opus prototype.jpb.jpg, please

Resolved

Arrivisto uploaded this image earlier today, and Ahunt tagged it for speedy some hours later as a copyvio of http://www.opusaircraft.com. I've declined the deletion because the website doesn't appear to exist, but I'm sure that Ahunt (who's been around here for more than six years) wouldn't make a fraudulent nomination, so I suspect an error with my computer or connexion. Someone or someones, please check to see if that website exists and either delete the image or leave a note here saying that my computer or connexion was not the problem. I mentioned the odd situation to Ahunt (who hasn't yet replied for the very good reason that I left the note just a couple of minutes ago), but since Arrivisto's behavior isn't the subject of this discussion (and I hope it won't be; we don't block or sanction for a single copyvio, even if that's what it is), I've not notified him/her. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The website seems to work for me, and the uploaded image seems to be a cropped version of one on the website - I think that Ahunt is correct, though we should perhaps also see what Arrivisto says. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your post here. The Opus website seems to have been "up" and "down" a lot recently, it looks like they are having some kind of server problem there. As of this morning the website seems to be back "up". As User:AndyTheGrump says the image in question is a cropped version of their titular image on their home page. The website has no notice indicting free licencing, so under US law that means it is copyright. User:Arrivisto has uploaded a collection of questionable images that look like they have been scanned from magazines, like this one, or other sources, all added to ARV Super2, but I haven't tagged more as copyright violations as I can't locate the source for them. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have notified User:Arrivisto about this discussion at User_talk:Arrivisto#Review_File:Opus_prototype.jpb.jpg. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The image can be deleted as missing permission or missing source/author. Otherwise, if Arrivisto is the author, he/she needs to follow

WP:CONSENT. /ƒETCHCOMMS/

16:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you need the tag replaced or can this just be deleted then? - Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay lacking any further direction on this issue I will re-tag it and reference this discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The image has been deleted as a copyright violation, so I think this thread can be closed at this point. Thank you for all your assistance on this issue. - Ahunt (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship threshold RfC

An RfC to determine the threshold for successful Requests for bureaucratship is now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Requests for bureaucratship threshold. All of the community is invited to comment. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Moroccan_writers&action=history

Here I see are personal attack: Tachfin wrote me "Spanish Imperialist-nationalism", because I erase people from Ronda & Seville are Spanish not moroccan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Moroccan_writers&action=history

talk

) 20:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandal

User:Walrasiad wrote me Vandal a lot of times, and reverts all my contribution without any sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Tangier_%281437%29&action=history — Preceding

talk • contribs

) 00:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I would precise that

WP:DUCK) suspected to be Bokpasa

, a notorious pov-pusher, edit warrior and OR editor.

Here is a bunch of discussions to show you what does this user do on EN.WP:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive137#User:Bokpasa_tendious_editing_and_personal_attacks
• Talk:History_of_Morocco (sections 4 to 16)
• his own talk page [58] [59]

talk

) 02:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Important

I received a very disturbing note, perhaps murder, not sure.

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

talk

) 00:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Omar, I think you may be on to something here, Bokpasa's [| last entry] is August 16th to

Tachfin's page, Luciusmaximus [| first post

] was on August 16th to Tachfin's page. They also share the same interest and have the same way of writing and both are focused on the same history of Morocoo. Yes, I smell a sock

@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 16:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A sockpuppet investigation confirmed that Luciusmaximus is a sockpuppet of Bokpasa. I blocked the sock indefinitely, and blocked the master for 2 weeks. -- Atama頭 17:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Unban of User:Tobias Conradi requested

This isn't going to happen. Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am posting this request to unban talk · contribs) on the behalf of NelsonSudan (talk · contribs) (see [60] ; this is his unban request): Reopen this case. Just what did Editor do to deserve permanent ban? Wikipedia is an amateur organisation (in terms of content / banning editors etc). The facts are that one amateur editor (styled Tobias Conradi) was banned by another editor. Amateurs makinsg decisions about fellow amateurs. This is not some High Court where proper procedures re followed. We should be humble and acknowledge this. I don't know what exactly Tobias Conradi did IN THE BEGINNING to get banned....but was it really so bad? Itis hardly surprising he or she has been involved in so called "sock puppeting" since then. After all, he had no alternative....He was banned! I don't dont know the Editor in question. I have no connections. I came across this because I was leading a discussion re Dominion of India and Tobias Conradi tried to participate but what he said was deleted...Believe me, the quality of discussion there is very low. Not many editors are involved. I welcome more editors and would like to hear what Tobias Conradi has to contribute on the discussion. Give him a chance to contribute again. Wikipedia is really weak these days...so few editors and so many that just make lazy contributions. Tobias Conradi has been banned for a long long time.....Its time to let him back into Wikipedia and give him a no strings attached chance to participate. Censoring him and this permanent "gagging" is really undemocratic....and unfair given he was banned by a fellow amateur....Other editors have asked these questions above.....Its time to stop this permanent tarring of some one who seems to want to contribute.....and WP needs contributors! NelsonSudan (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC) –MuZemike 20:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I can respond to this point easy... Itis hardly surprising he or she has been involved in so called "sock puppeting" since then. After all, he had no alternative....He was banned!. There's a simple alternative, you don't edit wikipedia. This is not somebody who lost is driver's license/insurance in a city without public transport and is being asked to stay in his house. This is not somebody who has no job and is forced to steal to feed his kids. This is somebody who is being asked not to edit a wiki which is a very simple thing not to do without any real life consequences. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Oppose - too many socks, too much disruption. WP:TWP was caused a lot of work due to this editor. Mjroots (talk ) 21:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Various pieces of the history of this... Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi - ArbCom case on him. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive10#Tobias Conradi - The official ban discussion. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tobias Conradi - Many of the IPs from which he socked. [61] - His talk page before it was blanked when he was banned. (Warning, large) - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I would support a Standard Offer. How recently has he been socking? If less than six months, then the SO is likely not applicable yet. I'm certainly not the appropriate admin to administer such, but I'm sure one could be found, if Tobias met the other elements of the SO. - TexasAndroid (talk ) 22:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 5 days ago. –MuZemike 22:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Not a chance. Tobias Conradi is actively being disruptive. The person making this plea cites so many arguments that go against what Wikipedia is about, I don't even care to take the time to enumerate them. Suffice to say that this request doesn't merit any serious consideration. -- Atama頭 23:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Opppose search for TigreTiger in the archives for this page; nothing has changed since then. His latest sock, Bogdan Nagachop created yet more drama. I'd have no objection to him coming back after a year of not socking and creating huge messes, as he seems like an intelligent enough person, but not now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Oppose just based on the disingenuous lying alone. He seems to think we're all idiots. Even after a checkuser busted his sock and linked it to him - he still tried to claim the sock wasn't his by calling Checkuser more or less a starchamber and demanding to see the proof (which, as we all know, isn't going to be released because we *do* have some decency). Stop considering his unblock requests, just revert, solipsism-block, and leave him to scream at a wall. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 02:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Strong Oppose This editor was blocked for several things, such as harassment (e.g. vandalism to user pages), edit warring and sockpuppetry (including another sockpuppet, mentioned recently by TBOTNL. He was given way too many second chances back in 2007, but that disruptive behaviour exhausted the communitty's patience, and led to his ban. Minima© (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Comment – per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 16#Template:ISO 15924, perhaps we should more seriously consider an unban and unblock of Tobias Conradi, as it is clear that he will continue to return to make apparently constructive edits in which users do not want deleted. –MuZemike 05:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC) I'm disinclined to change my !vote based upon that, since he seems pretty insistent on denying who he is, not to mention he could be pulling a Batman gambit here - he makes these edits to get unbanned so he can wreak more havoc. In general, second chances for banned users have failed because, even when unbanned, the problems that the user was banned for in the first place are still present. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 06:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Oppose The leopard never changes its spots [62]. 93.97.18.221 (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Oppose As MuZemike points out, TC does not appear to want to be unbanned but rather wants to circumvent the ban. Unbanning them now would just reward such socking. I'm not opposed to applying the standard offer iff he can go 6 months without socking though. Regards SoWhy 14:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Oppose Well a leopard can change its spots, but will need to stand scrutiny of a good scrubing. As long as the coverup paint shows not a chance. Agathoclea (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Ron Ritzman makes this easy. That a banned editor continued to edit with sock puppets is unsurprising only if we assume that the editor had no interest in playing by the rules. The complaint itself demonstrates that this is still the case. causa sui (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Some editor made the sort of remark I regard as plain stupid. Putting down my point that he can hardly avoid "socking" when he is banned...he said, Oh well, he just has to stop editing. This is an amateur forum where most participants take about ten nanoseconds to make judgment...most interested in banning editors tend to be pro banning too. Its simply not fair that on the basis of these "amateur trials" editors get banned permanently. Given the unfairness (particularly as the user can't even have his voice heard), points like the one I regard as stupid are pretty idiotic. A constructive comment was made above about unbanning the editor.....or banning him for a few months and if he does not sock puppet during the period, let him back in........Why don't we try one or other of the two. He is an intelligent editor and there are fewer and fewer here on WP. The content quality suffers accordingly. A PERMANENT BAN (capital punishment so to speak in WP terms) is always overly harsh. Naturally it results in sock puppeting. We should communicate with this editor more and give him a chance to get back in properly. NelsonSudan (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I would also like to mention that I consider it really unfair and again overly harsh that the banned editors user page or talk page is frozen. Frankly, I want to leave the user a message to let him know that there are some fair minded editors here who think he has something of value to offer....but that he will have to convince some other editors........I can't even leave a mesage like that in a place he is likely to see (his old talk page). This is another reason why these so called "trials" are really inadequate. The "accused" isn't heard...and those who speak up for him cannot even communicate with him. Its despicably unfair and goes against rudimentary principles of fair procedure. NelsonSudan (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC) So saith you. Try negotiating with Bambifan without him talking past you. Try debating with User:JI Hawkins without the conversation mentioning Tupac, Colonel Sanders, aliens or anything tangentially related to them in his warped weltanschauung. You're lying, Toby. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I did not understand any of that. NelsonSudan (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC) At least enable posting on his talk page I would also like to mention that I consider it really unfair and again overly harsh that the banned editors user page or talk page is frozen. Frankly, I want to leave the user a message to let him know that there are some fair minded editors here who think he has something of value to offer....but that he will have to convince some other editors........I can't even leave a mesage like that in a place he is likely to see (his old talk page). This is another reason why these so called "trials" are really inadequate. The "accused" isn't heard...and those who speak up for him cannot even communicate with him. Its despicably unfair and goes against rudimentary principles of fair procedure. NelsonSudan (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Support NelsonSudan (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Out of curiosity, has Nelson been CU'd? NelsonSudan, if you know his email address (which I'm certain you do, you being he almost certainly) you can contact him. However note that part of the reason he was banned was harassment of other users. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 10:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC) This isn't a court of law. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and a consensus of editors decided that his persistent abuse wouldn't be tolerated. I believe that anyone who wants to contact him to give him moral support can do so on this page. -- Atama頭 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Jéské Couriano - I am not Tobias Conradi; I've explained to others why I got involved in his case a bit and don't feel like typing it out here again. You can read my edit history over the last few days or so...Pleas respect the basic WP principle, Jéské Couriano, of "Assume Good Faith". Atama - I think we are all familiar with the basic principle of consensus. Obviously, I accepted above that there was no desire to let this editor back in...So I asked for something much smaller...in the interests in just having some minor element of fairness...a forum where we could communicate with Tobias Conradi in an open and transparent way...Instead you referred me to some email service I don't subscribe in (its not what WP is about) and presumably only facilitates secretive non-transparent communication. All - "Let he who is without sin...etc". Such pious editors indeed. Not much compassion though. NelsonSudan (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC) What does "CU'd" mean? Thanks. NelsonSudan (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC) I have blocked NelsonSudan as a very likely sockpuppet of Redking7 (talk · contribs). Review, as always, is welcome. TNXMan 17:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Just a note, and I mentioned this when I declined NelsonSudan's request for unblock on his user talk page, but he admitted to having used an IP in the same range as one that Redking7 has used (a Smart Telecom range in Dublin). -- Atama頭 19:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Museum of Modern Art

CTJF83

01:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

All the images are important highlights of the Museum of Modern Art's collection accompanied by valid Fair Use Rationales...Modernist (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We are talking 4 great, important works by Dali, Bacon, Matisse, and Mondrian...Modernist (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Directly and completely fulfills

WP:NFCC #8, explaining to the reader important and vital information visually, that words cannot convey. In this case the Museum's world class collection of Modern Art...Modernist (talk

) 01:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I told you, if someone wants to see what it looks like that badly, they'll go to the article page of the work.

CTJF83

01:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

First off, I'm not sure that, the way NFCC #8 is written, it's *possible* for there to be a clear violation of it, given how severely subjective a criterion it is. Secondly, there's also the question of whether those pieces are still protected by copyright, or if it has expired on them yet. The Dali probably is, but the others may well have passed into the public domain at some point, in which case it would be moot. Either way, this should probably go to

WP:MCQ instead of here. (Just my non-admin opinion.) rdfox 76 (talk

) 01:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, wasn't sure where to take it....if someone else seconds that, we can go there. It's important to remember Wikipedia is not an advertisement for the museum and is not here to showcase the museums works.

CTJF83

02:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this encyclopedia is to be the most accurate, neutral and informative source we can be supplying information to our readers - including visual information that cannot be conveyed in words. The article merely highlights a few well-known examples from the museum's enormous collection of Modern art that must include a few recent examples - the 4 in question have valid Fair use Rationales and all predate 1950...Modernist (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't "showcase" the museum's works because there are far more works than are included in our article, and the museum has its own website at which many of the works can be seen. As concerns Wikipedia being an "advertisement", I think that is inadvertent and unavoidable but that applies to a large percentage of Wikipedia articles. Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This thread is ongoing here [63] at the MoMA talk page...Modernist (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin requested to formally close a RS/N discussion

Given the large number of articles involved and the BLP aspect, could an uninvolved admin summarize the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Self-published royalty websites? Thanks. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirects for Discussion

Resolved

 – Thanks, the backlog is now clear. --Taelus (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Got a couple of days stuck in the RfD backlog that I think most of the regular RfD admins have commented in, rendering them unable to close, thus a little help would be welcome here:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 6
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 1

Thanks in advance, --Taelus (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Closed the remainders. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Promotional userpage

Resolved

 – Userpage deleted. —mc10 (t/c) 15:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Promotional uiserpage User:Farhad Varasteh, please delete--Musamies (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Done; in future, however, just add a CSD tag and someone will get to it. Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Are articles about WMF Projects exempt from WP:N?

Would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Are articles about WMF Projects exempt from WP:N? per the clear consensus there? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, please let me know if there are issues. TNXMan 14:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The closure is perfect. Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Review of 3RR block

Thread retitled from "Oversight me, if you like...". (retitled to avoid confusion with "Wikipedia:Oversight")

...if "oversight" is a verb, of course. I blocked Wicka wicka (talk · contribs) for 3RR (could have been for edit-warring as well) after crossing the line at Arsenal F.C.. User has a history of edit warring, and is not interested in any kind of resolution by peaceful means--see the history of their talk page. I'm bringing this here since I reverted them twice now (once after blocking him) and so one might claim that I'm involved one way or another. Also, you might think that I've been too lenient with an editor who manages to piss off lots of people; again, see their talk page history. I wish you all a great day, Drmies (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The first edit does not look like a revert but is one (continuation of a previous ping pong by some other protagonists), So 3RR has certainly tripped. The user is certainly heading for longer sanctions. In less clear cirumstances though you'd have people asking for your head as you have reverted yourself. You most likely are just impatient, wanting things fixed now'. Someone else would have made that revert - someone else would have done that block. If in doubt in future just wait those extra few minutes. Agathoclea (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. However, I think these things take more than a couple of minutes: of all the boards here, the 3RR is the most time-consuming one, since those complaints are often the most difficult. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on talk page

User is now edit warring to remove block notice. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If the user is not requesting an unblock, why not let them remove the notice? Clearly it has served its primary purpose (to advise the editor they have been blocked). –xeno^talk 19:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Per

WP:UP#CMT, "... A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: Sanctions that are currently in effect, including relevant information about a currently active block ..." JoeSperrazza (talk

) 19:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"...where an unblock is being requested" –xeno^talk 19:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside, if you don't put the block notice back, he can't remove it again. If you do nothing in response to his removing it, there is nothing else for him to do... --Jayron32 23:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

My reading of UP#CMT is the same as JoeSperrazza's. If the sanction is in effect, the template stays. Once the sanction has expired, the template may be removed if desired. Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The guideline is pretty clear: "relevant information about a currently active block or ban where an unblock is being requested" [emph. mine]. This says that if the user isn't asking for an unblock, they can remove the block notice (otherwise the last six words should be removed). Edit warring to restore an uncontested block notice is a colossal waste of time and resources. –xeno^talk 12:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that your continued restoration of the block notice was also a violation of

WP:3RR. Reaper Eternal (talk

) 12:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, as I interpreted

WP:UP#CMT has been made at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Removal_of_current_block_notices. I'm hopeful this clarification will help other editors understand the current policy. Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk

) 19:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Request semi-protection of Fact

Request semi-protection of

talk

) 21:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Another user Just requested same at

talk

) 22:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Protected for a week while you sort this out on the talk page. Seems like there have been problems there for a while. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of indigenous peoples

If

talk

) 19:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

All the ones I can see have more than 10 edits. Which one are you thinking of? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

talk

) 19:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Human Toad has 55 edits and Nanomi has 58. They were sockpuppets being used to flood-vandalize other articles (adding 50+ meaningless edits to a single article) so I deleted those edits from the edit history of those articles. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? When I go to their contribs pages, they each only have two edits. What am I missing?

talk

) 19:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

They have other, deleted, edits that still count towards their overall edit count. TNXMan 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For example, Human Toad did this:

    (del/undel) 10:10, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:10, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:10, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:10, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:09, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:09, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:09, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:09, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:09, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:09, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:09, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:08, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:08, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:08, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:08, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:08, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:08, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:06, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:06, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:06, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:06, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:06, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:06, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:06, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:06, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:05, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:05, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:05, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:05, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:05, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:04, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:04, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:04, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:04, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:04, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 10:03, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 09:53, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 09:53, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 09:52, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 09:52, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 09:52, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 09:52, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 09:51, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 09:51, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 09:50, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River
    (del/undel) 09:50, 23 August 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . m Barboşica River

As a non-admin, you cannot see these deleted edits. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. OK, thanks.

talk

) 19:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have purged the article's talk page via

poor man's oversight due to the excessive vandalism, which has made the talk page virtually unusuable. I am not going to bother semi-protecting, as he will simply bust autoconfirmed to vandalize it again. I would recommend pagemove archiving for talk pages like this, but I will leave it for others to decide if they want to move to that. –MuZemike

23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I re-enabled the semiprotection because he uses 4chan to raid the talk page and do his dirty work for him. At least they are (as a whole) not smart enough to get around that. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Overdue MfD

Please could someone close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TreasuryTag (which should have ended yesterday) as 'no consensus' – thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 17:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Consensus was clearly to delete the offending section (and not the whole page), as is permitted through the MFD process. Would you like to delete it, or should I? (

BWilkins ←track

) 17:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The gall to tell administrators how to close that discussion is

distressing. FuFoFuEd (talk

) 22:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it appears to be

WP:SNOWing in the subsequent DRV. FuFoFuEd (talk

) 02:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag 3 month ban proposal

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

---

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

I'm boldly closing the ban proposal per

WP:SNOW since there is overwhelming opposition to it. I'm leaving the Twinkle misuse subsection open, since that needs to be addressed. 28bytes (talk

) 22:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Not holding Wikipedia in high regard is one thing, constantly disrupting it to air your grievances with whoever pissed you off in the past is quite another. I propose a 3 month ban for TT to prevent further disruption along the lines of [64] [65] [66]. I hope he comes back refreshed and cooperative. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for now Tempers are high at the moment. A 24 hour block has been put in place. I'd suggest everyone (TT included) sleeping on the matter before we roll out long term ban proposals.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

{{ANImove}} ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 21:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposals do indeed belong here, so I've removed your ANImove template. 28bytes (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

And I deleted the discussion at ANI to avoid confusion. EC may or may not wish to repost their comments here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

ok Egg Centric 21:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably but agree we should see what he does after this block. Frankly the block could probably be brought down to 12 hours and then he will (assuming he's not on the night shift, something we have no reason to believe) have had some decent sleep and he can say what he has to say. I make no secret that I think that the way he is currently behaving deserves a ban; but he has some time to think now, and no need to rush into this sort of thing. Egg Centric 21:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose what is tantamount to a

cooling off ban. I can't say TT is behaving at his best, and I agree with the block, but a ban is very different kettle of fish and not likely to do any good. Worm^TT · (talk

) 21:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption." FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Not banned. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, then block him for the 3 months. What is the difference? He now moved the deleted material to his talk page, because that's only place he can edit [67] It seems fairly obvious he's going to continue the disruption elsewhere if he is unblocked, just read his

WP:NOTTHEM reason below, again claiming to be victim. He's given vandalism warnings to several people who removed his very obvious "fuck you" personal attacks; I'll give you a list if his contribs are hard to find. FuFoFuEd (talk

) 21:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, since a ban requires community consensus to do, it also requires community consensus to undo. That disallows TT normal recourse from a block - an unblock request. As for blocking him for 3 months, again it appears to me to be a cool down block - he's done nothing so egregious that he should have that long a block, his longest previous block was a week and that was overturned within 12 hours. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as a Draconian solution in search of a problem. All tT really needs to do is recognize that when a bunch of editors with whom he has never had a conflict all agree, that arguing with them is a Sisyphean task. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as an over-extreme reaction to recent events. The current block was appropriate, but discussions on a ban goes beyond an appropriate level of response to his behavior. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose There's no love lost between TT and myself, but I don't see this ban as productive (and a ban, not a block?).

I have long seen TT's behaviour as much too drama-focussed, although let's not forget many valuable contributions around Dr Who. I confess I was even relieved to see that he'd "retired" and I was one of the first to complain of what I see as using his user page to attack others.

I wish TT would lay off the drama. There's provocation on both sides, but it was his user page that started this, he could have defused it at any time afterwards, and he knows where the limits are and how tonight broke them. Long blocks though will not improve this. Please TT, drop the conflict. Everyone else, please agree to stop poking him.

24 hours blocking is reasonable - hardly a great burden and it avoids further escalation. After that though, let us respond to what happens in the future, not continue raking over this old issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, as the target of the invective, I do not care about the "fuck you"; he's annoyed. If that was the only reason for the block, I'd be inclined to ignore it. However, if this 24 hour block stands, perhaps it will emphasize to TreasuryTag that the behavior of the past few weeks (of which the "fuck you" is an example) is very quickly exhausting the community's patience. For that reason, I'm in favor of having the block stand, but hold off on any ban or long term block discussion until we see the results of this block. If the behavior continues unchanged, then I'd be in favor of a longer term solution.--Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. My76Strat (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from TreasuryTag

• Strong oppose for several reasons. Firstly, I think it would be unwise to reward harassment in any way, shape or form. Nor would it be appropriate to incentivise
  deliberate baiting [68] by demonstrating that it works. Secondly, I think that this is an overreaction (and a very fast, off-the-cuff-and-not-thought-through overreaction) to comparatively minor incivility of a variety which is tolerated on Wikipedia every day. I see no real reason why I should be held to a higher standard than other editors, though I must admit I am used to such treatment. The other cited example of disruption – again, from the last couple of hours rather than representing a long-term trend worth slapping down a three-month ban for – is that I initiated a DRV to discuss whether or not 60% constituted a consensus to delete swathes of my userpage. I don't see this as disruptive, nor even as unreasonable. I think it is legitimate scrutiny of a (poor) administrative decision. For those reasons, I insist and expect that this ban will not be issued and that those who have been harassing me can move along pronto. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox
  ─╢ 21:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  Incidentally, I'm also slightly suspicious of an editor whose first edit was a very expert one just three months ago and has suddenly decided to pursue me. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 21:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your suspicion, there are some tools that help fill in citation templates, ya know. Just above the edit box and available to every user. And that was not my first edit either, as the link you gave actually shows, duh. And that citation template I had actually copied from the sub-article [69], which already contained it before I ever edited it. The two-day difference between the time of my edit and the access time in the template should have hinted you that. But of course, you have to make insinuations against anyone disagreeing with you. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we please make this block (or whatever) exclude talk page access too. Otherwise accusations like [70] are just digging himself further down the same route as previously. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Another idea

I don't think anyone believes Treasury Tag makes malicious edits to the Wiki itself (as opposed to other namespaces). So at the very solution something could be devised whereby he was permitted to edit so long as he wasn't allowed to take part in anything off namespace - and had a mentor to go through for things such as nominating articles/files for deletion, and stayed entirely out of anything policy related. I would be willing to be that person in extremis, although I feel it would be better for TT to suggest someone.

If he continues editing outside of mainspace I am extremely pessimistic, sadly. Egg Centric 21:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Twinkle access and rollback

Should the author of these: [71] & [72] still have rollback access? I don't believe they're an isolated case. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't see how those diffs are relevant to rollback, actually.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy is probably confusing it with Twinkle. It's amusing that an editor, TT, who prominently displays a "don't template me" message on his user page, himself spams others with inappropriate templates so easily. 21:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Rollback is there for clearly defined purposes, including the removal of clear vandalism and a narrow few other cases. It is specifically not allowable when there is conflict between editors, such as here.

Now AIUI (I'm not a Twinkle user), Twinkle is based on rollback and has similar constraints applied to it. I may well be wrong here to describe this as "rollback", but my point is that WP has "accelerated" tools available that are restricted to clear vandalism, so as to avoid their use to accelerate an argument, as clearly applies here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Once upon a time, we had the ability to blacklist individuals from using Twinkle if it was abused.

Now we dont. Twinkle can act in a manner similar to rollback, but it's not rollback. I don't understand why you'd revoke rollback privileges for misuse of Twinkle, what does that accomplish? Those same actions can be repeated with or without rollback. Such an action sounds punitive, and we avoid punitive actions. -- Atama頭

01:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Except for people that sock to create otherwise viable articles, to "make him a lesson to all". FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's hardly comparing "apples to apples", Fu. ;) -- Atama頭 03:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it was an error to get rid of the Twinkle blacklist. Now the only way to stop someone from abusing it is to block them entirely. This TW use is clear abuse, even aside from the editor's other issues, though perhaps not bad enough to require a block yet.   Will Beback  talk  08:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have been mistaken here - I thought that Twinkle required the rollback permission. It appears that there's agreement that such anti-vandalism tools should only be used for that purpose, and that this use is neither acceptable, nor an unusual event for TT. Perhaps there's little that can be done here at the tehnical level, but do we agree that this isn't acceptable use and that there ought to be a warning? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Conduct unacceptable naturally, but I think twinkle is a red herring, that content could just as easily be manually added. I think best to chill and just wait and see what happens after he's unblocked. 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egg Centric (talk • contribs)

Talk page access

This is being abused, per

WP:STICK: [73] Andy Dingley (talk

) 11:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait what? How is that even remotely abuse? He made a response to this ban proposal and asked that it be brought here. I can't see how adding a link to a diff is abusing talk page access. That's a stretch.--v/r - TP 12:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI#Treasury_Tag_.28again.2C_sorry.29 Andy Dingley (talk

) 14:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Enforcing a merge

Link. Need an uninvolved administrator to weigh in here. Wikifan^{Be nice} 14:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Done--v/r - TP 15:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

3rd, or more, admin required to oversee interaction ban

Re the following;

"++ Restrictions on interactions between Roscelese (talk · contribs), and Haymaker (talk · contribs) ++
Important Notice These restrictions are agreed by the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

• Roscelese and Haymaker, as the parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia, and editing any article to the effect of undoing or manifestly altering a contribution by the other party - except on the talk pages of the "involved administrators", Arbitration Committee Request/case pages where either (or both) are an involved party, Requests for Comment/User where either or both are a party, or similar pages where their comments are requested. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. The ban is indefinite, but for not less than 1 year - after which either party may request review or both may agree to request the lifting or suspension of the ban.
• A relaxation of the restrictions may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, by the parties in regard to certain topics from time to time but otherwise the above restrictions apply.

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and - (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome."

Volunteer(s) sought for position of third admin, preferably one who has either a good working relationship with User:Haymaker or are completely unfamiliar with the contributor. Functionally, one of the two parties will report any violation of the interaction ban and the admins job is to agree and action any sanction. It is hoped that there will be few such instances. The ban will be put into action and noted when a third admin is appointed. Please do not rush! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to where this interaction ban was agreed? I have zero contact with either editor and I'm willing to settle disputes if I can read a bit of the background first.--v/r - TP 19:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The suggested form of words were presented to the parties and commented upon at User talk:Roscelese#Proposed interaction restrictions and User talk:Haymaker#Proposed interaction restrictions between you and User:Roscelese, and also at User talk:Courcelles/Archive 82#Proposed interaction restrictions between Users Roscelese and Haymaker. As you can see, the only issue raised - and not since - was by User:Haymaker regarding the length of the restriction. This may require resolving before any interaction ban is logged and put in place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are requesting a background to the issues relating to the two parties, this will require more investigation - but if it means getting this restriction on the table, then I will be willing to provide further links. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well for the sake of not holding this up any longer, I'll volunteer if they'll both have me. I can't recall a time I've interacted with either of them and I have no idea what the dispute is concerning so I think I am unbiased as they come. I would, however, like it if you could sum up the background of the dispute, in a neutral manner of course, in an email to me so I have a bit of an understanding. Diffs arn't neccessary unless you feel they are relevant, I'd only like to know what kind of hell on earth I'm jumping into here.--v/r - TP 22:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Great. I will email you the succinct facts, and once you confirm you are still willing I will promote your candidacy to the others. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright violation

Resolved

 – marked as copy vio on commons Agathoclea (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The person who uploaded this file said thay took it themselves - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Wanted_boyband.jpg

But this website claims that it is taken by Dave Hogan and Getty Images - http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/WKVeSzODNxu/Heroes+Concert+Backstage/PHQSnMrt9tn/Tom+Parker

188.220.151.140 (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice for

WP:ABUSE

I would like to get sysops to submit

abuse response cases for IPs because the abuse response team knows that there are lots of IPs out there that are (or were) eligible for a case. Sysops, please acknowledge that when you block an IP, its the fifth time blocked, for a year or over, we can get the carriers and/or the IT team to take action. Its better than a block. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs

19:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

May I ask what the point is? Most of them (there's the odd exception) are educational institutions, and I just block them for a very long time and leave them to find another hobby. But if there's some benefit I'm missing from reporting them to ISPs/institutions, please feel free to enlighten me (here or at my talk page). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a punitive block for being an educational institution, and a very long time is not that much "wiki". The idea is by contacting the ISP, action could be done better than anyone on wikipedia. Also, vandalism is in most of the time against there acceptable use policies. The ISP would know better what to do (suspend an account, disable wikipedia, etc.) Its better to let in the ISPs for inappropriate things. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 20:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still lost. How is an ISP suspending access to the Internet or Wikipedia better than a block? In cases of one persistent vandal from the same IP, I can see the benefit, but one IP that's almost exclusively used by multiple vandals... a 1000-day block and a template that points them to ACC seems to achieve the desired effect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm with HJ. I just block schools for 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and then one year, because the vandalism tends to be a long term pattern of silly, childish edits by random people. Most vandals who really cause problems tend to be long-term abusers on large, highly-dynamic IP ranges, and they also tend to use accounts, not IPs. Frankly, I don't see much point. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm studying such things right now, I'm finding myself on the opposite side of the fence, especially when it comes to operations by schools. A couple of emails to a school district's network administrator from someone at the

WP:ABUSE desk might get that network administrator to tighten up the school district's policies enough to cut the vandalism off before it ever gets to WMF's servers. School districts, in my experience, are quite sensitive to reports of behaviors that put them in a bad light, especially smaller districts with limited IT budgets. The problems, then, will lie more with getting actual ISPs to respond in kind, since their primary motivation is their revenue stream. These are, of course, my own observations, based on very limited experience in dealing with network administrators at varying levels. YMMV. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk

) 22:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It does. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 22:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think it will be helpful to have them reported to WP:ABUSE since we actually do get responses from the Schools and they do try to work with us to get things sorted out. If it's an educational institute, don't just block it for a long time, let the Abuse Response team do what they're there to do and stop it once and for all.  JoeGazz  ♂  23:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

With the greatest respect to you guys, when you've blocked thousands of school IPs, only to have a different vandal use it the day the block expires, you'll realise how futile getting a school to deal with one vandal really is. We have a

template with instructions on creating or requesting an account for those who wish to edit constructively, and for those institutions whose students produce nothing but vandalism, we have the banhammer (and nothing stops vandals as effectively as that). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

01:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to see IPs that like are from the same school that when their block expires and then they cause more issues, be reported to WP:ABUSE because then we actually work with the school and sysadmins to disallow http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php*&action=edit* in the URL so they can't edit if it's a presistant vandal problem, which a lot of schools actually like to do, just so they dont hear from us again. JoeGazz  ♂  11:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Some institutions it may be worth contacting, even if just to get a nice feeling to know that a vandal was tattled on :). But most ISPs it's not worth bothering: they don't give a shit. Also, related note: it's funny how our "abuse team" manages to even elicit a response from schools without proper credentials or an "official" email account. But whatever. The WMF is too lazy to deal with these things on their own. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Fetch, I'm not sure what you mean, we don't have an official email account? We do, it's [email protected] . Or am I missing something else you mean here?  JoeGazz  ♂  11:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A mailing list address is hardly "official", as the users on it are still volunteers not speaking on behalf of the foundation. Until the WMF decides it's their responsibility to deal with abusive users, we've no "official" solution. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that disallowing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php*&action=edit* disallows logged-in users in addition to anonymous vandals? Thus it appears that long-term softblocks are definitely a better solution. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Even before I read Reaper's post, I was going to ask what the difference was between disabling "&action=edit" and a block, apart from more work. I'll stick with 1000-day blocks. The sysadmins are no doubt busy enough without doing admins' work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I just saw

WP:ABUSE and thought, hey, something for me to do. You're making less work on us, but if you guys see some persistent institutions come up, can you please let us know? Many institutions actually want to disallow everyone from editing, they don't want their name being put in dirt on WP, but that's their choice... Anyways, consider letting us know when you get some persistent ones that need contacting.  JoeGazz  ♂ 

12:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Huntingdon Life Sciences

This would seem like a clear candidate for it. It's an animal testing lab, so a clear target for abuse. It's currently being attacked by a rapidly morphing IP from a large UK ISP, so rangeblocking would be a bit heavy handed. Anyone fancy making the appropriate notifications? It's not something I feel comfortably familiar with. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to unblock User:OSUHEY

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

Ain't going to happen; in fact, the opposite. –MuZemike 17:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

---

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OSUHEY/Archive

OSUHEY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This guy is going to keep editing Wikipedia, no matter what we do, and I no longer feel compelled to full-protect every article on Ohio politicians because of him, as it's not fair to anyone; semi-protection will not work as he easily busts autoconfirmed to edit through the semi-protection. I recommend an unblock on User:OSUHEY, as we cannot do anything to stop him, aside from full-protecting every Ohio politician article out there. –MuZemike 17:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

How about an edit filter? As an extreme example, one could set up a filter that specifies a list of approved editors, who are the only ones permitted to edit a certain group of articles -- editors who want to work on those articles could then ask to be added to the list. There are no doubt other ways of doing it as well. Looie496 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

He was originally blocked for copyright problems. Many of his socks have been caught because he kept on violating copyright. (I believe, if memory serves, his first sock was created so that he could carry on with copyright violations when we started paying attention to his main account; see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Jansport87.) I guess the real question for me would be whether or not he's learned to stop copying & pasting. If he hasn't, then I don't think we should be unblocking him simply because he's hard to stop. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose We don't reward long-term vandals with unblocking. TNXMan 19:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• He makes edits for the Democratic Party. It shouldn't be too long before he is fired if we keep this up. I can communicate with one of his employers if we need to. He's been caught copy-pasting as recently as mid-July so unblocking isn't the best idea.
  Qwertyus
  22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Exactly what TNX said. The reward for being a prolific socker is not to be unblocked. Doing so would set a dangerous precedent, IMO. Should we also unblock Grawp? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I blocked 2 of his socks today. Granted, the socks weren't being disruptive in themselves aside from block evasion, but if someone wants to make a good-faith request for an unblock without editing deceptively with sockpuppets, let them do that. In that case I'd give it some consideration, if he sticks to gnomish edits. -- Atama頭 00:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - an appeal for an unblock of one account can be considered on its merits, with no further socking on pain of a total ban being a possible condition of unblocking. I don't see why we should reward bad behaviour by allowing an editor free rein to do as they please. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose 50+ socks and continuing problems? This should be a discussion for a formal community ban, not an unblock! Just because stoppig him is difficult, doesn't mean we hand over the freedom of the city and let him go about his merry way. Courcelles 07:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Courcelles. If this guy really works for a political party, then it might be worth notifying them of what's going on - given its potential for scandal, they can be expected to take that kind of report seriously. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Grawp, Scibaby, Bambifan, Vote (X)... ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC) In other words, we're not going to unblock other persistent sockmasters, so this guy shouldn't get his way, either. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

OSUHEY has posted an unblock request as a result of this conversation. It is clear that he will continue to sock and evade his block, as he has stated. He's virtually going to keep doing what he is doing on all Ohio politician articles indefinitely; we cannot reasonably full-protect each and every one them as that would shut out too many regular users (remember our "anyone can edit" mantra).

Perhaps we can set up some sort of a community sanction which states that any copyright violations and/or plagiarism will be reverted on sight without counting towards 3RR, but he will not be blocked, as that will only encourage him to sock even more.

The reason of this request has been to try and prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. Every other means to stop this user has failed, so RadicalInclusiveness becomes the only other viable option here, unless we are willing to keep collectively banging our heads against the wall, as we have been doing for the past year and a half. –MuZemike 15:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios are already 3RR-exempt. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Question: Have his socks been caught because they've been creating copyvios in the same way, or they caught because of their intense and sole interest in Ohio politics? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• In addition to intense sole interest in Ohio politicians, most of his socks are making similar styleistic choices. Stuff like "he has stated" and similar preferences for sources.
  Qwertyus
  15:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• In other words, his only current unacceptable behavior is socking (and promising not to stop)? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• What if OSUHEY could only make additions to lists but not prose additions broadley construed.
  Qwertyus
  15:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If OSUHEY wants to be taken seriously then he needs to show that he can follow our rules, which he clearly isn't since he's continuing to sock right now, this request to be unblocked or he'll continue socking is basically like saying if I don't get my way I'll keep throwing tantrums. I would strongly oppose an unblock unless he can go at least a couple of months without editing, disruptively or not--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• With more socks than an
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 15:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've left the Standard Offer at his talk page. If he complies with it fully, I will, in 6 months time, support lifting the block. If he does not, I will continue to vehemently oppose any unblock. --Jayron32 16:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

...which he appears to have declined. (

BWilkins ←track

) 16:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The offer sounds in extortion: unblock me or I will continue to sock. The notion of being able to track his unblocked edits is novel, but there's no guarantee he won't sock for some edits. Glrx (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This is quite an ill-conceived proposal, and I can only imagine that Grundle2600 is watching this and salivating over his pending unblock request were this to ever pass. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

User:OSUHEY ban discussion

• banned by the Wikipedia community. -FASTILY ^(TALK)
  06:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

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

---

• Can someone close this per
  WP:SNOW. Its clear that OSUHEY has no interest in being a positive contributor to Wikipedia, there is no chance of his being unblocked. Let's just consider him de facto banned and move on. --Jayron32
  16:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• I have declined the unblock request and suggest that we make a de facto ban into an actual ban--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban - actions are absolutely egregious; we shouldn't reward that by unblocking, we should be taking long-term abuse actions instead. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  [74] just further supports a ban--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support community ban per the repeated copyright violations, numerous sockpuppets, and refusal to cease violating the copyright policy. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per jpgodron. Something needs to be worked out here. I don't see evidence he is doing the same stuff that he was blocked for (COPYVIOs) with his socks. Perhaps extend him
  WP:OFFER? FuFoFuEd (talk
  ) 23:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  OSUHEY was already offered the standard offer here, which he declined here. Copyvios or not, OSUHEY clearly has no interest in following our rules--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

So, we're banning him just to spite him? The only rule he says he refuses to follow is to wait 6 months. And that one is not really based on any policy, OFFER being an essay. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No, we're banning him because he has made it very clear that in his eyes its a choice between we either unblock him immediately, or he continues to sock disruptively [75]. Does that sound like someone who can be a productive editor?--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

He continues to sock, but are his edits

improving content on Wikipedia or not? FuFoFuEd (talk

) 00:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize the extent of the problems he first created. I think that any offer to let him back must include his help in fixing any copyvios he has created. He now says he understands that that was wrong. How about this: he stops editing any other articles, and first cleans up any copyvios he has created with his socks, already discovered by others or not. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No idea, ask one of the politics folks who deal with his socks, presumably there must be some issue or they wouldn't keep getting caught, but that's really beside the point, are you honestly suggesting that you think an editor with dozens and dozens of sock accounts going back over two years, who is basically attempting to blackmail us into getting his own way, and is making comments like the one I linked above is in anyway capable of being a constructive editor? --Jac16888 ^Talk 00:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support. The evidence speaks for itself. Better for us to make him a lesson to all persistent sockmasters. @FuFoFuEd, we can't let such idiocy get away.--Eaglestorm (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:CSD#G5 anyone? FuFoFuEd (talk
    ) 00:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You mean the article that stated "allow small private employers across Ohio to award compensatory time off to their employees who work overtime instead of paying cash so long as the employees choose to participate", where the source had the identical phrase "that would allow small private employers across Ohio to award compensatory time off to their employees who work overtime instead of paying cash so long as the employees choose to participate."[76]? Yep, he is no longer creating copyvios at all... Oh look, the first version of the article stated "He has served on Marietta City Council since 2005 and is publisher of his family's magazine, Bird Watcher's Digest.", which was taken literally from other sources[77].
      Fram (talk
      ) 08:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Guess what, the article is back! FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support - As I noted above, I blocked 2 socks only because they were socks. I don't actually see anything they were doing wrong (actually they were making helpful gnomish fixes). But one thing that the community should be able to expect from anyone with editing privileges is honesty, and despite some helpful contributions, if OSUHEY is unwilling to show a willingness to follow our guidelines and policies I don't see how giving him a chance will ultimately be in the community's best interest. Accepting him back would be like accepting a tasty cake with poison in it. -- Atama頭 01:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I strongly suspect he is honest when he says he'll continue to sock if not unblocked, so I don't see how he lacks honesty. His lack of obedience surely is a problem, but his honesty is actually used as an argument against him here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • So you don't see anything dishonest about creating an alternate account to sneak back into Wikipedia where you're blocked? -- Atama頭 03:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Fair point. I think he has been deceptive for a long time with respect to his many accounts, apparently way before he was ever blocked. I'm not sure why he was doing that. (Give the impression that Ohio GOP reps have many wikifans?) He surely spends a lot of time editing on his favorite topics. I wonder if he's getting paid to do it. It might be some astroturfing attempt; the use of Amazon IPs suggest someone with technical skills and some resources. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. We didn't have one before? Huh. That should be fixed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• 'Support per the concerns about copyright policies and sock puppetry.
  Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions
  ) 05:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Even the article
  Fram (talk
  ) 08:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It's clear his articles still have problems. I have tagged a few of them where he's written most of the text with G5. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Some of those have been declined by admin User:Fæ with the argument "the article stands on it's [sic] own legs" and some by his new sockpuppet User:BandofBreeze. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Oops, I confess that's an embarrassing use of the apostrophe. Though I gave a poorly written edit comment, I think my point is valid and in line with G5. I'm open to advice on interpretation but suggest such is given on my talk page rather than here. Fæ (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support – OK, I give. First, the plagiarism problem is apparently bigger than I thought, and then there is also his sheer contempt for the project that popped up since I originally opened the thread. I have to agree that we can't have either here. –MuZemike 17:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. He is here to serve his purposes. He has no ibtention of following the rules, and he is skilled at evading them. Glrx (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I normally don't get involved in these, but I just found his newest sock
  db-banned}} templates! Reaper Eternal (talk
  ) 19:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

With a signed challenge... Glrx (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support per Eaglestorm.   —
  G.  ツ
  19:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support as the admin who declined his latest (and I would imagine final, as I revoked his talk page access in the process) unblock request. I hadn't known of his history; it seems clear from what I read here and that recent spate of unblock requests that he has exhausted the community's patience. Daniel Case (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Effective enforcement?

If the community is serious about his ban, perhaps it should be effectively enforced by G5-ing his articles and reverting him on sight? Most of his socks are damn obvious. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, he is using a number of Amazon.com IP addresses (50.16.*.* and 50.17.*.*) besides the Dayton OH ISP. Do you think the former are from his employer or is he just renting a service there? Perhaps a

WP:ABUSE complaint should be filed with Amazon. They'll probably not want to enable a serial copyright violator either way. FuFoFuEd (talk

) 18:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

We can delete any articles per G5, but don't have to,

per policy it's taken care of on a case-by-case basis. -- Atama頭

19:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, his editing isn't very NPOV even when it's not violating copyright. Generally, he is puffing up OH GOP guys and sometimes removing criticism thereof. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, any major contribution by this user may be deleted or reverted under Wikipedia:Copyright violations. MER-C 04:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Action to take

Can we procedurally blank and delete any articles created by socks? This has been done before when Contributor Copyright Investigations are impractical.

Qwertyus

19:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can now. OUSHEY is officially banned. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I meant edits made before the ban.

Qwertyus

19:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations - "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately". MER-C 01:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue needs updating

Hi, anyone with an interest in DYK able to load some preps into the queue at Template:Did you know/Queue? I'd do this myself but my hook is in the next to be updated. The images have been protected on commons now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've moved P3 into Q1, to make sure the next update goes off fine. Courcelles 01:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Special:DoubleRedirects

There a boat load of leftover protected pages that are double redirects. Could an admin please process these? Thanks! --

chi?

14:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the double redirect fixer bot should

apply for adminship =) –xeno^talk

15:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin bots are often frowned up on. It isn't that many edits per year. I doubt I should even try as it would only cause drama. --

chi?

21:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Finalizing the changeover to the oversight requests email address

The email address to which requests for oversight should be submitted is oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. Editors with email enabled may use Special:EmailUser/Oversight.

Further to a previous announcement and to finalize the announced changeover to the above email address, the original oversight-l mailing list shall be set to subscribers only effective 1 September 2011, automatically prompting non-subscribers to email requests to the new address instead.

Individuals who submit requests via direct email should ensure that their address books are updated to the new mailing address.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 04:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Test results, one clear suggestion and some vague ones

Just a pointer, please read this thread.//Hannibal (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Close Your Eyes (hardcore band)

Resolved

I'm wondering if these articles are the same? I wanted to move the "hardcore" band to just "Close Your Eyes (band)", because the hardcore isn't necessary, but noticed that it was protected from creation. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. In future, you can use

WP:RM to request such moves. Regards SoWhy

14:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Users playing "Get to Philosophy" game to the detriment of Wikipedia

There is a game

Wikipedia:Get to Philosophy, (especially see Get to Philosophy#Gaming the system, which I wrote) that some editors are playing to the detriment of Wikipedia. See discussion Here

.

Madcowk made an edit to Truth that appears to have been made to "win" the game, not to improve Wikipedia (diff) which was not caught and reverted until nine days later.

Then Nickburka did the same thing with a misleading edit summary.(diff) This one was reverted in about an hour.

I would like these two users to be warned about this behavior, but more importantly, I am looking for comments that I can use to show consensus when writing up a stronger warning on

Wikipedia:Get to Philosophy

? Delete the whole page? Create a special warning template? Any suggestions are welcome.

(Both users mentioned have been notified) -

talk

) 02:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, as I wrote on

Wikipedia talk:Get to Philosophy I don't think this so-called 'project' should be part of Wikipedia in the first place. It has nothing to do with improving article content. I've had the Truth article on my watchlist for some time, initially because it seemed to be attracting some rather odd POV-pushing from a few Christian fundamentalists, if I recall correctly. Lately though, there has been a rather ridiculous slow-motion edit war over word order - and it is only on becoming aware of this 'project' that the reason became apparent. This sort of nonsense is a waste of everyone's time: if people want to play games on the internet, there are plenty of other options. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 02:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am agnostic as to whether it should exist or not, but I have to admit that seeing the sort of shenanigans that I have seen here make me lean toward deletion. The argument for keeping is that it shows something interesting about Wikipedia's link structure, and indeed it has been the subject of some serious scholarly research. Then again, that goal might better be met with a strictly descriptive page that isn't a game someone can play.

talk

) 03:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I strongly feel that it should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conservative Philosopher (talk • contribs) 06:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• I was originally neutral toward its existence and thought it was a fun little game. But if it is causing this sort of disruption, then it should be deleted. In the end, we're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not host fun little games for users to play at the detriment of articles. Silverseren^C 06:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Would a page that describes the research with no game, no high score, etc. be an acceptable alternative to deletion?

talk

) 09:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

How big a problem is this really? A small number of editors vandalising articles is, by itself, not a good reason to delete something which is bringing people into Wikipedia. Semi-protection of Truth and any other seriously affected articles seems appropriate, but I think that we should be careful to not over-react. It's not like we've got an oversupply of new editors! Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that, since the point of the game is to make the longest possible chain of articles before getting to Philosophy, a lot of the changes are going to be made to obscure articles, rearranging or outright changing the lede so that the first wikilink goes to an article that will lengthen the overall chain. Therefore, it's a lot more difficult to determine how extensive this is, since it could be happening in the most obscure of articles that have few watchers. Silverseren^C 10:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the page isn't going to put the genie back in the bottle. As long as enough recent change patrollers are watching for people screwing with link order (and enough admins on the noticeboards are aware of the situation), this shouldn't be all that much of a problem. And like all internet memes, this one won't last forever. Parsecboy (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't be keeping pages which result in increased work for others. If some wikipedia game is causing an increased work load and damage to articles it doesn't need to be here. In fact, it should not be here. While deleting the page won't put the genie back the bottle, keeping the page looks like we endorse it, and I don't think most would. I don't know that I've seen any evidence that the existence of the page has lead to bringing in constructive editors to the project that would balance out damage caused.--

Crossmr (talk

) 05:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fair. I suppose the best option is to send it to MfD and see what people think. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As you can read in a research linked from the signpost the game has been solved and the longest link currently is

List of state leaders in 1977 articles. Updating the page with information from that research seems to be the most efficient way to kill the game. Yoenit (talk

) 11:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit of a digression, but it is by no means clear that the analysis is correct. There have been at least 3 previous failed attempts to write software that analyses Wikipedia links. All have failed because when the Wikipedia API gives you links, it shows the underlying page structure which is that every redirect is a page. That's technically correct, but to the user it doesn't look that way -- he/she just sees the target of the redirect.

talk

) 21:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Same problem at knowledge and its being going on for a month or so, again semi-protection would be enough --Snowded ^TALK 12:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the problem with, say, MfDing

Wikipedia:Get to Philosophy just as people who are inserting vandalism into pages aren't reading essays on vandalism or hanging out on ClueBot NG's talk page. —Tom Morris (talk

) 06:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, but we can hardly say to people that they should stop editing pages with the sole purpose of playing the GtP game, when we have at the same time on Wikipedia a page stating the "rules" of the game. I have yesterday severely trimmed that page to make it a dry description of the phenomenon, without any indication of its game-like nature or any indication that people are encouraged to influence it. It won't stop people doing this, but it will perhaps make it easier to counter it.

Fram (talk

) 08:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This game reminds me of the big discussion about

E-prime, an English language variant with the very "to be". The former was discussed on ANI (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646#Block threats for disagreement on style) and the eventual, well-supported position was that anyone trying to do so could be blocked for disruption. I propose the same thing here: when people see changes made that have no benefit to an article and that directly effect The Game, that the editor in question be warned once and then blocked (multiple warnings aren't needed because this is clearly and undeniably an attempt to alter the encyclopedia for purposes other than imrpoving it by editors well versed enough in Wikipedia to know better). Qwyrxian (talk

) 08:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we could clarify that reverting this is also exempt from

WP:3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

20:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've started a thread on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring to clarify and seek consensus on whether this should be exempted from the three revert rule. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The 1977 Thing

It's more than a bit dubious. Look at

List of state leaders in 1978. Given such things I don't really think we can trust that software at all. Egg Centric

20:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Reminder re reviewing new articles for copyvios

As many of you know, CorenSearchBot has been down since July 20th or so. As a result, A LOT of copyvios are not being detected, and are getting patrolled without being tagged. As a New Page Patroller, I am sending out a friendly reminder that if anyone has any extra time, could they look through the new pages backlog to check for copyright violations? All you need to do is run a random sample of text through a search engine like Google, and see what comes back. Also, if you do new page patrolling, remember to to check the article for possible copyright violations before marking the article as patrolled. Copy/pastes can be a huge problem with new articles, and without CorenSearchBot up, we need to do a lot more manual checking. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Prep areas to queues at DYK

Hi all, I'd do this myself but have a hook in prep area 3 - can another admin please upload? I've dropped a note over at

WT:DYK too. Casliber (talk · contribs

) 01:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user

Does anyone know/recollect what led to the block of RedwoodsHermit (talk · contribs) ? The blocking admin is on a wikibreak. Shyamal (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to come across as rude, but why do you ask? The user was blocked with the log entry of "vandalism-only account". The block took place more than two years ago (March 2009), and the account in question had fewer than thirty edits or three weeks' experience. As far as I know, there has been no unblock request or other evidence of account activity since then. Honestly, if the user has since come back under another name and made good edits since, I doubt anyone will have noticed or will care.

The blocking admin (Nakon) seems to have email enabled, so if you really need to pursue this with him, that might be a reasonable way to get in contact. I suspect that even he might not remember the details, given the age of the block, and the fact that he has placed literally thousands of other blocks since then. Is there any action that you're seeking regarding this account? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the account was compromised and then used for vandalism. I have no idea if the user returned under a new name, but as ToaT says, it's probably not important. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right—I didn't check the deleted contributions for the account. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ditto here, expected to see the deleted edit count somewhere at the left. Too bad - excellent contributions by the original account owner to

Cochabamba Mountain-finch Shyamal (talk

) 16:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at

WP:UAA

Just a heads up that there is a backlog at

WP:UAA. That is all. —KuyaBriBri^Talk

16:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture page with commons picture, not needed please delete, check also page Muhammad Muaz Bin Zaka, which are copy from user page, please delete--Musamies (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice of 6 month Interaction ban between User:Haymaker and User:Roscelese

Important Notice These restrictions are agreed by the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

• Roscelese (talk · contribs) and Haymaker (talk · contribs), as the parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia, and editing any article to the effect of undoing or manifestly altering a contribution by the other party - except on the talk pages of the "involved administrators", Arbitration Committee Request/case pages where either (or both) are an involved party, Requests for Comment/User where either or both are a party, or similar pages where their comments are requested. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. The ban is indefinite, but for not less than 6 months - after which either party may request review or both may agree to request the lifting or suspension of the ban.
• A relaxation of the restrictions may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, by the parties in regard to certain topics from time to time but otherwise the above restrictions apply.

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

A copy of the above restrictions will be placed on the talkpages of both parties and

WP:RESTRICT

, and notices added to the talkpage of each "involved administrator".

LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) on behalf of the involved administrators.

Flagging admins to close discussions

Thread retitled from "User:Cunard".

There is nothing inappropriate about using a future timestamp if it is done for the purpose that Cunard is doing it for. NW (Talk) 15:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I discovered that Cunard (talk · contribs) is using a future timestamp so that he could prevent archiving. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 15:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC) ...And? Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Have they been doing so inappropriately? (I'll admit I've noticed Cunard's promptings and wondered if we should create a "Request for discussion closing noticeboard" ;>) –xenotalk 15:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC) You mean Cunard himself? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 15:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Yes - is Cunard using the ability to add a future timestamp inappropriately? If not, I see no need for further administrative attention. See {{ DNAU}}. –xenotalk 15:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I discovered that MuZemike wears a belt so his pants don't fall down. Any opinions about this? --Ron Ritzman (talk ) 15:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC) How'd you know? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 15:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Post close comment

I've seen some other editors do this and it's a shame this kluge has to be used. A better idea would be if the archive bots recognized a tag such as <!--noarchive-->. Probably an issue for

WP:VPR though. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 16:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

For Miszabot, at least:

Template:DNAU 121.223.214.122 (talk

) 16:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if <!--noarchive--> worked, I would prefer my current method of placing future timestamps in unresolved sections for the reasons I wrote here. I prefer transparency with the "future timestamp" to the other less visible options. A lack of transparency frequency leads to criticism and accusations of duplicity. Second, future timestamps will hopefully draw the attention of passing admins who know that the section has yet to be resolved. Third, editors who resolve requests frequently want to remove the "future timestamp" from the discussions so that archiving can proceed. If I were to use an invisible comment such as the one produced by

Template:DNAU, they would have to search for why the discussion has not been archived.

I like the concept of a "Request for discussion closing noticeboard" proposed by Xeno. However, I'm not certain if it will work in practice. WP:AN, which is widely watched, will allow more admins to close discussions instead of just a small group who might watch the "Request for discussion closing noticeboard". Cunard (talk

) 18:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Could have a simple template transcluded at the top under Template:CENT. –xeno^talk 20:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Requests on this highly watched page frequently go ignored for days or weeks. I'm not sure that a template would be more successful. However, I'm willing to try a template like that, though I don't know how many admins would respond to it. Cunard (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I feel a little silly. When I first saw this thread I thought the OP was talking about Cunard doing it on his own talk page which is what prompted me to make the comment about MuZemike wearing a belt so his pants don't fall down. If it's being done on noticeboards then it's not a trivial issue but not a huge problem either. However, I would prefer that signatures in threads have the right timestamps.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The future timestamp I place in each old unresolved request states: "Future timestamp to prevent archiving." It is placed not as a comment about the discussion but to prevent archiving until an admin addresses the request. In the past, I've seen requests fall into the archives and the editors who make the requests wonder why the admins have ignored the requests.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#RFC Closure Request for one example:

Could an uninvolved Admin take a look at the RFC Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Are Bus Routes Encyclopaedic? it's expired twice now although further comments were made after the first expiry. The points made need a neutral summation and proper close. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Cunard seems to think that only admins are allowed to close discussions. I don't think using a future timestamp per se is problematic, although certainly more elegant options are available to prevent archival of unresolved threads. Jafeluv (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have always used future timestamping for long-running RfCs in fast pages. I had no idea that there were other options. If you were so kind to explain them here so I can use them in the future...... --Enric Naval (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about {{Do not archive until}}, which can be used together with a written comment or even {{unresolved}} if it's really important. Another good option is to configure the bot to only archive threads once they've been marked as resolved. Of course, it all depends on what the archival bot supports. Jafeluv (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Jafeluv, I addressed why I do not use that template at this exchange, which I linked to above. Cunard (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

New Bot Task

At

Orphan image}} tag neither nominates a file for deletion nor does it mark a file as eligible for deletion. It only indicates the usage status of the file. -FASTILY ^(TALK)

00:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC on tendentious editing of policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability started

(moved here from ANI, not an incident) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Meant to post this here (as I did in the village pump and at Jimbo's talk) but got derailed (in one case with an article on trains!) by the watchlist. So here is belatedly the notification:

I have started an RfC on tendentious editing of policy Wikipedia:Verifiability with the view to impose community sanctions, this is the summary:

There is a lot of contention around

WP:V

, and the policy has been placed under protection because of edit warring. Since this is a core policy, such behavior is to be dealt with seriously by the community. The goal of this RfC is to get the policy placed under community sanctions as described below. These sanctions would apply to all editors in this topic area. The goal is to protect a core policy from tendentious editing, and to provide an environment that leads to positive improvement of the policy. This RfC is not intended to endorse the current version of the policy, and supporting this RfC cannot be considered as such, rather it addressed serious concerns with editor behavior in the talk pages and serious edit warring in the actual policy. It includes a general amnesty for involved editors, providing a clean slate from which better practices can emerge.

The RfC is here: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#RfC: Tendentious editing of policy Wikipedia:Verifiability

Some issues regarding diffs have been raised, and see my response to that, but input is welcomed.--Cerejota (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag

I recently closed some threads on this, and the incidents, noticeboard related to TreasuryTag (talk · contribs), hoping that the situation could be addressed in a more direct manner.

Today, I notice that inappropriate behaviour continued [78], and attempts to engage TreasuryTag on

fundamental issues were unsuccessful [79]

.

I have placed a 12 hour block for disruptive editing: [80]. –xeno^talk 19:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag submitted this unblock request via email: [81]. –xeno^talk 19:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I observed most of this activity related to my watchlist to include placing the block in real time. My initial impression, formed prior to the block, was that you (xeno), was too involved to place it yourself. I still hold this impression. My76Strat (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Admins do not become involved simply by virtue of administrative activity. Of note, I've actually unblocked TreasuryTag in the past, with an explicit reminder to be more circumspect in their comments [82]. –xeno^talk 20:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think xeno's block was improper, although perhaps his discussion with TT could have been handled better. That said, TT's behaviour is inappropriate - calling other editors 'stupid', or referring to their edits as 'crap' is clearly not helping to write the encyclopaedia. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree! I just don't think the urgency existed to override best practice, which would have been to get a ready available non involved admin to do it with propriety. The block itself is perfectly valid and lenient. My76Strat (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No best practice was "overriden". Previous administrative action does not create involvement, and it never did. Indeed, administrators are expected to follow up previous sanctions or discussion, and not just leave a mess for someone else to handle some unspecified time later. — Coren ^(talk) 20:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. My76Strat (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Involved or uninvolved, I've unblocked his talkpage; seems silly to make him run unblock requests through the blocking administrator by proxy. Ironholds (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I've declined his appeal, largely echoing the comments above. I noticed that TT has a history of this sort of misconduct; while individual cases may be minor, they add up over time and approaching him in good faith doesn't seem to work.
    a/c
    ) 20:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed; didn't see it turning out differently. The fact is that when we say "blocks are preventative" we mean "we block you for doing silly shit if we suspect you'll do the same in the future". Sad to say that that is definitely the case here. Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag is presently edit-warring to add personal attacks directed at Xeno to his talk page. See diffs which Xeno has presented on his talk page. Remove talk page access again and possibly lengthen block?

N419BH

00:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Er. Where? Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, the diffs are on Xeno's talk page and they regard statements made on TreasuryTag's talk page.
    N419BH
    00:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • "inaccurate revdel logs" are not a personal attack. That behaviour ended four hours ago. Ironholds (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
      • It ended because the page is currently at TreasuryTag's preferred version and Xeno hit 3RR.
        N419BH
        00:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

      Yes, TT has made a wildly inaccurate statement about my administrative actions on his talk page, and edit-warred [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] to remove all manner of reasonable clarification or correction. It is a serious allegation of administrative misconduct to claim that someone has revision deleted half of your talk page, and it is not appropriate to prevent them from responding to that false allegation in situ if you refuse to correct your remark upon request. Deleting my replies may give the false impression to future readers. I consider TreasuryTag's willful maintenance of this obviously inaccurate statement to be a personal attack on my integrity as an administrator (cf. [89]), and probably deletable per

      WP:TPO. Though, at this point I'm not minded to take it any further as it simply reflects incredibly poorly on TreasuryTag - as one wonders why he refuses to correct his obvious error, especially after reasonable requests to do so. –xeno^talk

      02:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 36 hours

As TreasuryTag continues to refer to all manner of justifiable scrutiny towards his actions as "harassment" [90], I have placed a further 36 hour block on his account [91]. –xeno^talk 11:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth, when you have a block log with as many entries as this user are you still getting 12-36 hour blocks? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

My optimistic hope is that the editor will realize they are being recalcitrant and seriously modify their approach to the project - but failing that, my intention is to triple the block length upon successive occasions. –xeno^talk 11:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, as he is now referring to your actions Xeno, and you are in an argument with him about that, it might not have been the greatest of moves to implement this block yourself :S --Errant ^(chat!) 11:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There are a limited number of administrators available and willing to deal with user conduct issues, and if admins become disqualified from action merely because a user claims they are being harassed, a user could effectively shield themselves from blocks simply by crying harassment at every opportunity. An administrator does not become involved simply by virtue of administrative inactivity. One of the reasons [92] for the twelve-hour block was TreasuryTag's current trend of referring to any form of justifiable scrutiny directed towards his editorial activity as "harassment". I will not enable this behaviour by considering myself involved simply because he has applied this trend to my most recent administrative activity; doing so will encourage this behaviour and give the inaccurate impression that a user can shield themselves from administrators just by falsely claiming harassment. If TreasuryTag feels he is being harassed, he needs to engage the appropriate dispute resolution processes. –xeno^talk 12:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

While I've no doubt that it might be a good idea to have another admin get involved in this matter (in the – probably vain – hope that this helps TT cool down), I agree with the principle expressed by Xeno here. Allowing an editor to manufacture a "dispute" with an administrator that is doing normal policy enforcement to disqualify them as "involved" is a opening the door to gaming of the worst sort. — Coren ^(talk) 13:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is merely an attempt to force Xeno to the sidelines. That said, given the number of other admins who have been on TT's talkpage lately, I would say that attempt will be ineffective even if he did gain support to have Xeno declared to be involved. TT is at a point where he can either take NewYorkBrad's advice on his talk page, or go down in a blaze of glory. I hope the former, but suspect the latter. Resolute 13:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag submitted this unblock request via email. I've suggested they review Wikipedia:Harassment#What harassment is not and the caution provided at Wikipedia:Harassment#Accusing others of harassment advising editors to avoid making false or dubious claims of harassment. –xeno^talk 17:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If I was an admin I would turn down the request. He seems to be getting close to a

POINT violation here --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk

17:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've declined the unblock request.

twinkle

) 17:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

← In light of TreasuryTag's agreement to moderate his behaviour, I've reduced the block to time served. The block should be re-instated (and with an indefinte length) should he renege on the agreement. (See #Unblocked) –xeno^talk 17:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Meta discussion

Better continue discussion at WT:Blocking policy to avoid splintering the discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

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

---

I've made a proposal on the blocking policy talk page along these lines - by asking for a minimum of a 1 week block after a user has been blocked 3 times without being unblocked. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

...and it was incredibly annoying to have 2 edit conflicts while you re-worded it, twice :-( (

BWilkins ←track

) 11:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Three strikes laws are a very very very bad idea that may profit the sanctions apparatus, but not society as a whole. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 11:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please go and read the proposal and make comments there. Firstly blocks expire after a year, and secondly unlike the US where you get life imprisonment for your third strike in this case it only escalates to a week. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

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

TreasuryTag community ban

Not needed at this time, appears withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For all of this for some time now, I think that its time for a formal ban. I would say 6 months. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk Contribs 13:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Support: As proposer. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk Contribs 13:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Oppose - as ridiculous. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC) I am repelling this proposal after more thought. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk Contribs 13:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've negotiated an unblock agreement (reproduced below) and unblocked. –xeno^talk 17:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• If you agree to stop calling every single request for you to moderate your behaviour in line with community norms "harassment" (excepting if you make such claims only in the course of initiating or responding to legitimate dispute resolution processes such as a report at a noticeboard, request for comment, or request for arbitration - i.e. do not simply collapse or remove material from your talk page and call it "harassment") AND endeavour to politely, positively, and constructively explain using civil edit summaries why you are removing material or reverting edits, I will reduce your block to time served. –xeno^talk 17:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah, go on, why not. I hereby agree to abide by established Wikipedia policy as regards harassment and personal attacks. Although I maintain that it is a breach of (at least) the spirit of

  WP:UNINVOLVED for an admin to block for 'false' claims of harassment against themselves. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet

  ─╢ 17:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

  Unblock summary got cut off - it should read: Reduce to 'time served' in light of editor's agreement to stop referring to justifiable scrutiny of their behaviour as harassment; agrees to properly and civilly explain editorial actions in edit summaries going forward; editor shall be reblocked for an indefinite period if they renege on agreement. –xeno^talk 17:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

Following TreasuryTag's actions on

WP:ANI#Sarek, speedy-keeps and WP:INVOLVED). Since this ordeal broke just about every term in his conditions to be unblocked not three hours ago, I can only endorse the block. — Edokter (talk

) — 19:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to question the judgement but I am not sure that Sareks actions were any better in this case. He was clearly contributing to an edit war. Treasury tag was certainly not innocent in continuing to pursue the AFD but IMO he has a right to submit the article to AFD. Not that I necessarily agree with it but considering the state of the article it doesn't seem unreasonable that someone would submit it for AFD. I see no reason why Sarek would refuse to let it run its course rather than proceed into an edit war. --

talk

) 20:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Submitting the article to AFD was TreasuryTag's only option given his intention to have the information removed from Wikipedia. He should have gone to the talk page of the article, which he failed to do even once, instead of filing the AFD. It was pretty clearly filed in bad faith and I don't think it's a stretch to consider the continued blanking of the article vandalism.

twinkle

) 20:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can't even go three hours after getting a warning that continued misbehaviour was going to lead to an indefinite block without doing so then frankly you deserve it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well bad faith or not this could have been avoided if a couple folks would have gone to the AFD and said keep. Personally I am more of an inclusionist than a deletionist and wouldn't have bothered to submit the article for AFD knowing it was coming out in a week. But in his defense leaving it does sorta fall under

talk

) 21:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Users going to the AFD to vote keep does not change the fact that the AFD was made in bad faith and was the starting point of a wave of disruption.

twinkle

) 21:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

One could be well over 99% certain it would be notable, given it was an episode of Dr. Who. The chances of negligible coverage are ludicrously low. It approaches sophism to claim the chance of significant coverage was unknowable tbh. Egg Centric 21:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well thats fine I'm clearly the only one that thinks that this situation was blown way out proportion but its no big deal that a couple of editors followed another one around and seemingly reverted or contested every edit. It agrivates me because it happened to me a few months ago and and almost caused me to say the hell with Wikipedia. TT has about 50, 000 edits so clearly they have made some positive contributions over the years and I wonder why its only in the last couple weeks that this has become a problem. I wonder if perhaps he finally got fed up with 1 or 2 editors following them around and Wikistalking them and got fed up. Thats just a guess after glancing through the last couple weeks of edits. But I doubt anyone bothered to look and just took the admins word for it. --

talk

) 21:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It hardly needs an admin's word on it that the next episode of Dr Who is going to be notable....so a reasonable person might read back in the history to try to suss out why this individual has apparently decided to take such a strange course of action. Have you tried reading the last 2 weeks worth of edits - one might reasonably doubt you had bothered to look and just taken the word of the editor in question. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerns with TT's conduct aren't exactly a sudden ("last couple of weeks") and capricious phenomenon. He has been blocked many, many times over the last few years, both under his current account (TreasuryTag block log) and his previous accounts (Porcupine block log, Rambutan block log) for a combination of combative editing and persistent abrasiveness towards other editors. While I gather that he has made substantial contributions, it is apparent that he also has had difficulty assimilating some of our key conduct guidelines. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, subjects can be notable before they're built, elected, released, or meet other subject-specific milestones. Notability is based on coverage by independent sources; if television fiction can get extensive media coverage even before it's broadcast, then it can be notable before it's broadcast. (Disclaimer: One of my articles, about ships that haven't even been built yet, is currently at GA review) bobrayner (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

An important part of

WP:CRYSTAL is where it states, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." I think that criteria has been met in this case. -- Atama頭

18:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Help needed from Commons admin

The Ted Kaczynski page looks broken now because the main image and another image have been deleted at Commons as copyright violations. If someone with admin rights at Commons could take a look at those images and see if there are free or fair-use equivalents available (or alternately, move the deleted images here if an appropriate NFU rationale can be made), it would be greatly appreciated. 28bytes (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Main image (MSNBC), alternate image (The Star). Both are copyrighted to the Associated Press, so I won't be uploading them to Wikipedia, but there they are if you want to do so. NW (Talk) 18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a commons admin, but when I look at the commons log it appears that maybe a free image was replaced with a non-free image. Perhaps a commons admin would restore (revert back to) a free version of the image and leave the non-free deleted? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

All three versions of the main image are different versions of the same photograph; all are non-free. NW (Talk) 19:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Sorry to waste your time. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. NW (Talk) 20:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks NW! Neither of those images look indispensable to the article IMO, so I'll just remove the references to them and swap in a free image for the main one. 28bytes (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U uncertified beyond expiration time

Based on the fact that it's now 3 days after the certification deadline, can an administrator please review Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JohnLloydScharf and make a final disposition of the RFC/U. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. If the users who commented there need a copy of what they wrote, I'll be happy to email their comments to them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Request closure of ban discussion on ANI

Resolved

 – Done.Black Kite (t) (c) 00:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved admin please close

WP:ANI#Proposal for community sanctions? The conversation long ago tipped over to the bad side of the heat-to-light ratio and become a place for general criticism from all sides. As I said at the very end of the last section, I am more than willing to discuss my own involvement in those articles, including whether or not my I'm following policy, but feel that that needs to be done in a different section and possibly a different forum. The problem is that the shift in topic has left the original ban discussion in an unclear state, and it would be great for someone to determine whether or not there is a policy-backed consensus to impose sanctions on ThisThat2011. Qwyrxian (talk

) 23:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for spamming

It was so funny that I had to share it... deleted talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What do we call that? Barnspam? Spamstar? Promiscuous Wikilove? -- Atama頭 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It must be a knockoff. MER-C 02:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Lowest price, free shipping for two pairs according to the user page. How can you pass up on that? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrator insight requested — Article for Deletion

I'm really uncertain if I'm in the right place to be asking this, but I didn't think asking in random Admin talk pages was the best idea. I listed an article for deletion. Shortly after doing so, I realized that, because the article was deleted once before, it's very possible to have simply listed it for Speedy deletion under G4.

My dilemma is this: The AfD discussion is already underway. Is it possible to bypass the AfD and simply list the article for Speedy deletion instead? If so, what happens to the current AfD? If it gets closed, and the article fails to pass under G4, will I have to list for AfD again as a "3rd nomination"? Or will the AfD discussion be deleted and any future AfD listings will be the "2nd nomination" as it is now?

I'm a bit confused about this and probably thinking too hard about it, but would like to have the article issue resolved ASAP. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 01:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A speedy deletion tag can be placed on an article with an active afd. If the speedy is acheived, the AfD will be closed early. If the speedy deletion is declined, the AfD can proceed with no effect at all from the speedy sideline. In other words, it's no problem. LadyofShalott 01:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to say what the article is, I can take a look and see if a G4 deletion looks appropriate. LadyofShalott 01:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Corre (professional wrestling)--intelati^talk

02:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a G4 candidate. It's not the same article that was previously deleted. Another admin may want to take a look and weigh in though. LadyofShalott 02:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe I'm missing something, but the current version does seem to closely resemble (IMO) the version that was AfD'ed. 28bytes (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thing is the one that was AfD'd was before they'd even aired, and this version talks of the demise of the group. It's that part that keeps it distinct enough to me not to G4. LadyofShalott 03:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case, letting the new AfD run its course makes sense. 28bytes (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

80.65.103.18

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 week. 28bytes (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody block

WP:AIV Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.

07:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

the transfer and merger history

transfer and merger history of

Abpakhsh to Ab Pakhsh please. -- Hamedvahid (talk

) 07:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Jafeluv (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A block that isn't a block

The question has been answered. Let's stop now before we cross the line to clearly offensive. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

---

I blocked User:Debresser for 48h at 18:39UTC last night for edit warring - his previous block had been 31h. As the user who reported him to AN3 has pointed out on my page, due to his religious beliefs Debresser does not edit on a Saturday. Given his time zone, that means the 48h block is effectively a 24h block. Would it be rational to extend the block to account for that? I have to admit I can see both sides of the argument. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be over-thinking things too much; down that road, madness lies. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That was my first thought as well. Obviously I over-thought it :) Black Kite (t) (c) 17:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to think about your statement too much; recursive over-thinking might make my head explode. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that block lengths should not be formulated or adjusted on this basis. (I suppose I can imagine an extraordinary circumstance where an editor was repeatedly misbehaving just before going offline, but in that event the block lengths would wind up escalating anyways.) We are definitely better off not going down this road. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with NYB. If someone uses the fact that they do not edit on (a) certain day(s) to game the system by violating the rules just before such a break, they will be sanctioned with long enough blocks soon anyway. Otherwise we'd treat editors different based on their religion, beliefs, ethics etc. instead of their actions and that is, as pointed out above, a path we should not go. And Debresser is an experienced editor, despite such problematic behavior, so they know that any try to use this to their advantage will fail anyway. Regards SoWhy 18:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That was pretty much my thinking as well, but I thought it was an interesting enough point to bring to wider notice. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That it certainly was. When applying rules to people, there is often the question whether applying the same rule to different people is fair and honestly, I never thought about such a situation before, so bringing it here was certainly the best idea =) Regards SoWhy 19:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• The purpose of a block is to prevent immediate damage to Wikipedia. If this person is going to voluntarily stop editing for a day (for whatevr reason) then they will not be damaging Wikipedia, and therefore that is an argument for making no block at all, rather than extending it. Because the only reason to extend it would be that they 'deserve' to be actually prevented from editing for 48 hours: but blocks are not supposed to be punitive. In short, don't extend the block; if they stay away from the computer rather than pining away at being unable to edit Wikipedia, then good on them. ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 19:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocks should not be set for length on the basis of religion or any other grounds. If a person died, then the block should extend to one day past the Resurrection? Collect (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I should think one day before the resurrection would make more sense... Rklawton (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• If a person has a habit of (say) making a string of bad edits on a Friday night, then disappearing until the following Thursday, then it would make sense to block them for a week, to ensure (a) you got their attention and (b) you avoided another hard Friday night for RC patrollers. In this case, I would have said it would only be an issue if you were blocking the guy at sunset on Friday, when the Sabbath started, because to meet the two criteria above you would have to block for 48hrs. As it is, you've presumably got his attention because he couldn't edit last night, and the fact that he doesn't edit on the Sabbath isn't really an issue.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Banned user Mikemikev

Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) socked at ANI, claiming that his ban was imposed as a result of incorrect evidence. I've blocked the IP sock for a week. I've also left instructions at Mikemikev's talk page for how to go about an appeal through the correct channels. If Mikemikev wants to appeal the ban, then it would appear to be Arbcom territory. I'm taking no sides on the merits of this appeal, or the imposition of the ban. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Through his drawerfuls of sock accounts (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mikemikev, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mikemikev), Mikemikev has made antisemitic postings on wikipedia that have had to be oversighted; he has created attack-only accounts like Comicania where images on Commons had to be immediately removed (by Moonriddengirl and Philippe Beaudette); he reposted those images on ED.ch, where he was subsequently blocked and the attack page deleted; and he created an antisemitic attack page on Stormfront (website) requesting participants there to edit race-related articles on wikipedia. In view of his racist remarks off-wiki under the same username (here is a sample of comments on video channels [93]), there seems to be no prospect of a return to editing on wikipedia ever. In the past there have been one or two editors that have spoken up on his behalf and it is possible that might happen here. Mathsci (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

When someone resorts to wikilawyering one specific aspect of the ban resulting discussion in an attempt to overturn the sanction, and ignoring the other evidence presented, it is apparent that their intent is to return to WP to continue their campaign. That they resort to socking to present their appeal in the hope of recruiting a good faith supporter or two, it indicates that they have either exhausted the "proper" channels or are simply aware of the futility of doing so. The fact is that there is consensus for the ban, based upon the totality of the evidence available, provides that finding a few "cheerleaders" will not effect the result. In short, Mikemikev is banned and will stay so - more especially if they violate policy in an effort to have their complaints aired. Don't sweat it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee community member changes

Pursuant to the motion concerning advanced permissions and inactivity, the appointment of Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs) to the Audit Subcommittee is terminated effective 3 September 2011 and his Checkuser and Oversight permissions shall be withdrawn. The committee has been unable to contact Bahamut0013, and this action is taken on the basis that he is not currently active on this project.

talk · contribs) is appointed in his place in accordance with the April 2011 Audit Subcommittee appointments motion

. The Arbitration Committee thanks Bahamut0013 for his contributions to the Audit Subcommittee during his tenure, and thanks AGK for agreeing to accept full membership in the subcommittee for the remainder of Bahamut0013's term.

Supporting motion: Casliber; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; David Fuchs; Elen of the Roads; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Newyorkbrad; PhilKnight; Risker; SirFozzie; Xeno.

Not voting/inactive: Cool Hand Luke; Coren; Iridescent; Kirill Lokshin; Mailer diablo; Roger Davies.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 22:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Sean Peyton Ross

Moved to WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Richard Winsor

I need an admin to tell me if the newly created

WP:FOUR

) 04:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'd say they are about the same person, they both link to the same IMDB locator page (which is a broken link, by the way?). But do we really need to document speedies in article history when there was no restoration or overturning of the speedy? Courcelles 06:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll take care of the
    WP:FOUR
    ) 06:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm confused — why do we need to document this? Not a criticism; I'm simply asking for help to understand the process. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I removed the article history template there. It gives no useful information whatsoever and only helps to clutter the talk page. The speedy had nothing to do with the current article (same subject, but the reason for the speedy was not relevant for the current one). Adding templates to talk pages which are of no use to later readers or editors should be discouraged.
        Fram (talk
        ) 08:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed

An arbitration case regarding Manipulation of BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

1. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
2. Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist
   the BLP noticeboard
   and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
3. To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
4. If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Edit-war at the DYK page

Could someone step in and stop it please? Lots of editors appear to be involved. Just the latest. Tony (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Fully protected for 24 hours. Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It only appears to be move protected, not fully protected. Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

really? Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

So why didn't I get the red background when I clicked on edit earlier? It's working now though. Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Q on a strange thing

Can someone please double-check what I did on Control-Alt-Delete? It's weird to have an article hijacked and turned into something actually pretty decent, and I'm wondering if I got something completely wrong. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It was hijacked by being replaced with a copy-paste of Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic), which already is dab-able from the top, so I think you did the right thing. Looie496 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I must have been sleepy, since I didn't notice that hat link at all. Good thing we can have naps today, Labor day. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

the transfer and merger history

transfer and merger history of

Khvormuj please. -- Hamedvahid (talk

) 10:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Although the two articles do appear to be on the same topic, they should not be history merged. The two articles are not the result of a cut-and-paste move, but have unique and parallel histories. See

Khormuj (seeing as there are no references, doesn't look like there's anything mergeable to me), then simply replace that article with #REDIRECT [[Khvormuj]] to make it redirect to the correct article. Jenks24 (talk

) 11:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks. Hamedvahid (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding CFDs need a closer

There are two discussions still open at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 25 and due to involvement most of the regular CFD closing admins are unable to close them due to being involved in the discussions:

• Category:Alumnae of Cheltenham Ladies' College (Declaration of interest: I am supporting the proposal)
• People by school parent categories (Declaration of interest: I am the nominator)

If any help is needed with implementing the closure decision please let me know. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Both closed by Vegaswikian. Jenks24 (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't open a page to delete it

How does one delete User:CommonsNotificationBot/tracking log.js? It crashes my browser (presumably because it's so large, 889,514 bytes) whenever I try to open it. I know that I can go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CommonsNotificationBot/tracking_log.js&action=history and click the delete tab, but there's no way for me to know what criterion is being claimed for speedy deletion, let alone whether that criterion applies. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the reason claimed is as I can't spot a tag or claim but a c&p of the start of the page is as follows:

Extended content

User:CommonsNotificationBot/tracking log.js From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < User:CommonsNotificationBot Code that you insert on this page could contain malicious content capable of compromising your account. If you are unsure whether code you are adding to this page is safe, you can ask at the appropriate village pump. The code will be executed when previewing this page under some skins, including Monobook. Template-info.svg Documentation for this script can be added at User:CommonsNotificationBot/tracking log. Note: After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. Internet Explorer: hold down the Ctrl key and click the Refresh or Reload button. Firefox: hold down the Shift key while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R). Google Chrome and Safari users can just click the Reload button. For details and instructions about other browsers, see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. File%3ADavid_beeri.jpg|1315256841|1314745621|None|None|{}|{} File%3AKubrick-Paths-camera.jpg|1315256804|1314209561|None|None|{}|{} File%3AJoseSaramago.jpg|1315256796|1314187405|None|None|{"reason": "Deletion requests July 2011", "type": "nominated"}|{} File%3AAuerLogo.gif|1315256817|1315154272|None|None|{}|{} [Then many many many more such File entries]

Timrollpickering (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the cause of the deletion request is, but I can find no such request on the page, nor can I find anything in the history where anyone requested deletion OF that page. You may want to buzz the botop who runs that bot to see what's what. --Jayron32 22:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• The template {{
  CAT:SD are smart enough to realize that there's something off before we delete that page in the meantime. Cheers. lifebaka++
  13:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

86.128.16.180

(moved to ANI) (

BWilkins ←track

) 12:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange behavior of Siddhant2010

At the first he made an unconstructive edit onUser talk:Prasannjit.gondchawar, then he apologized me for his "mistake". Then, he repeated similar edit again, and also apologized to Tide rolls (who didn't reverted his edit) by the same text he posted to me. If you ask me, that's a little strange, he made the same error twice in a row, and (what is probably even stranger) same apology for us both... Alex ^{discussion ★} 18:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything nefarious going on. The editor is a member of Wikipedia:India Education Program, a project that gets students as Pune University in India to work on Wikipedia articles, and is experimenting with technical Wikipedia features that he doesn't really understand. (Trying to give a fancy welcome message to another student.) Looie496 (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for admin to close a merger discussion

May I ask for an admin to take a look at the

American Akita and decide if a closure is due. It would be great to be able to get back to work on the article. Cheers, Keetanii (talk

) 05:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I was referred here from a help request on my user talk page. If this is the wrong place or wrong way to flag for an admin to look at closing a merger discussion could someone please say so, either here or my talk page? (and preferably tell me the right place to flag for it) Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a cromulent place to request an admin close a discussion. Convenience link: Talk:Akita Inu#Merger proposal: July 2011. –xeno^talk 18:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Merge done and article embiggened. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, SilkTork! Cunard (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou so much :) cheers, Keetanii (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for the Creation of 2011 FIA GT1 Race Reports

Was told to come here to request for the creation of race reports for the latest and future events of the

2011 FIA GT1 World Championship season. At the moment, only administrators can create these pages and I would like to create them as I have done so before with all the results from the qualifying and race as well as background to the event(s). --Danny 93 (talk

) 16:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I might be missing something here, but there appears to be no reason why you, or someone with knowledge of that event, could not create the articles. 2011 FIA GT1 Ordos round, for instance, is not under any protection level. Did you get an error attempting to create this article? Resolute 19:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Who or what told you to come here? I'm not sure if you mean that another editor told you or that you got a software message telling you. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps something to do with the title blacklist? Graham87 01:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh, what do you know? This is in there: # ATTACK TITLES AND/OR PAGE MOVE VANDALISM TARGETS .*2011 FIA.*

I guess that would do it. Presuming that entry still needs to be there, perhaps it would be useful if Danny 93 starts the articles in their user space, then requests a move to article space? Resolute 02:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am still puzzled though as to why "2011 FIA" was added to the black list because I have gone through the history of most of the "2011 FIA" titles and I haven't seen much vandalism, either that or I haven't looked closely. Hopefully somebody could explain. --Danny 93 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Because of persistent disruption by indefinitely blocked user SebastainTorres (talk · contribs), who has socked for the past several months to keep repeatedly adding the same hoax over and over and over and over again. –MuZemike 04:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Request review of move closure

Hi. I closed a move earlier today ([94]), and my decision has been challenged ([95]). As per my usual policy, I'm posting here to request review from the community of my action, and to accept any necessary correction. Thanks in advance for any input. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the almost unanimous opposition to the move, I really don't see how you could have closed it any other way. Your expanded rationale seems perfectly sensible to me. 28bytes (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

While I personally would have !voted in favor of moving the article, there was certainly no consensus in favor, and I doubt more discussion would have changed that. I think the close was clearly reasonable. (though I can see an argument for no-consensus as well) Monty₈₄₅ 05:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly within the bounds of administrator discretion, and I probably would have close the same way. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Echo all above. I'd prefer to lose the Swami but the consensus seems resoundingly clear to keep it. Closure and rationale both seem fine to me. --160.39.17.21 (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Since I raised the question, I suppose I should clarify why I did so. While I'm sure GTBacchus acted with the best of intentions, it was not evident from the edit comment on closure why it was necessary to close an ongoing (albeit somewhat frustrating) discussion or which arguments were persuasive. We don't know if it was a procedural matter (such as some prescribed amount of time having elapsed without establishing a consensus), or whether the arguments against the move were in some regard more convincing than those in favour. I simply sought clarity in the reason for closure. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your comments.

I didn't think the discussion was ongoing. There hadn't been any new posts for over 24 hours. I guess I could have waited another day or two, but there's a large and growing backlog at WP:RM, and I was looking for discussions I could close. If I was premature, I apologize, and I'm glad you asked for an expanded rationale, LeadSongDog.

I'm wondering, though... Would it be better if we were to set a certain amount of time that must pass in order for a move discussion to be considered no longer ongoing? If that were written down somewhere, then it might obviate some misunderstandings, and it would give people something to fall back on. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's probably not a good idea. A move discussion could then be kept open indefinitely as long as comments keep coming. I think the consensus was clear in this case and the move closed correctly and at the right time and that should be good enough for now. No sense in getting overly bureaucratic with the process. --rgpk (comment) 22:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. For future, though, I'd suggest that holiday weekends may not be the best time for making such closures. Editors are not expected to remain online 24/7/365. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Why "we should care about copyright"

(This is intended for all established editors; AN is the best approximation of that I could think of.) You may all be interested in a piece published in yesterday's Signpost entitled "The copyright crisis, and why we should care" (by User:Moonriddengirl) about instilling a respect of copyright within the community at large. Since established editors are often in the copyright enforcement front line, it should make for a particularly interesting read.

The Signpost is a weekly community publication modelled on traditional print media (I am its current, interim, editor-in-chief). If you would like to subscribe to it (as many hundreds of Wikipedians do in some form), seeWikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe . - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss}

.] 09:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect Request

Please redirect TNA to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling article on Wikipedia instead of the TNA Disambiguation page that comes after I search for TNA on Wikipedia,the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling article is one of the most viewed on wikipedia and is being constantly vandalised by semi autoconfirmed users who want to make it look bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.206.77 (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the wrong page to make such a request. Furthermore, three-letter abbreviations are generally almost always redirects on Wikipedia. For example ATP used to redirect to adenosine triphosphate (the most well-known ATP by far), but no longer.. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Multilingual Admin needed.

2.224.12.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been temporarily blocked here (heading for an indefinete) and is on a longterm block on the German Wikipedia for deliberately inserting false or crystalball information about local government issues (districts/municipalities). He/she is apparently on a statice fastweb id and it looks like the same beahviour is occuring accross several wikis. Sofar I have checked frWiki and can see similar edits so I suspect other language wikis are effected too. As his edits superficially look legit and the activity field is rather unwatched I would need someone who has knowledge of procedures on those wikis where he is active who can alert the relevant projects to doublecheck his edits. Agathoclea (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this is then a case for http://meta.wikimedia.org .. there are admins there who can lock the IP cross-wiki, and you are more likely to be able to find one there who speaks those languages (I can do Dutch, and some German, my French is not the best, and I am not able to lock the account cross-wiki anyway). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The place to request a global block is at m:Steward requests/Global. --Jayron32 16:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree, request a global lock at meta. In future, if you need someone speaking a certain language, you can look at Wikipedia:Local Embassy, which lists a lot of users speaking certain languages. Regards SoWhy 17:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on this listing of contributions and blocks the IP is currently blocked on all the individual Wikipedias where he is currently active (in the last two weeks). If someone wants to take the time to study their contributions perhaps the block here on enwiki should be extended to at least a month, possibly six months. Being blocked in so many different places suggests they are up to no good and are not listening to any feedback. I would have no objection to a six-month global block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of requesting it at Meta. Regards SoWhy 18:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks blocked now. I just cleaned up edits on simple. Leaves the other languages. Agathoclea (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Per this list a global block was issued but only for two weeks. I've extended the local enwiki block of this IP to three months, but anyone can modify that if they want to change the duration. The latest block on the German Wikipedia was for three months, and there is no sign that this editor is changing their behavior over time. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to note this for the archive. There is a second (now dormant) IP 94.88.178.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with similar behaviour dating back to 2009 Agathoclea (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange world. In June no one at meta cared. NNW (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Another 2 Italian IPs 84.222.42.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 195.62.170.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) the latter vandalizing as far back as 2008 and still active this July. There must be some sort of connection as this is a very specialized "anorak" subject. Agathoclea (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 123#Comment needed: What should we do about processes (such as XfD) created in violation of banning/blocking policy, but had at least a handful of other valid supporting views of nom?

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 123#Comment needed: What should we do about processes (such as XfD) created in violation of banning/blocking policy, but had at least a handful of other valid supporting views of nom? has received substantial input and was listed on Template:Centralized discussion. Would an admin close and summarize the consensus in the debate so that editors will know how XfDs created by banned or blocked editors should be treated? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), for closing and summarizing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for ITN evaluation

Resolved

Arbitrarily requesting evaluation over at the buried ITN/Bastrop County Complex fire discussion. No wrongdoing is assumed or alleged; just trying to make sure that some more eyes see this before it's no longer relevant.   — C M B J   13:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

CAT:EP

can we get some more help with Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests? there are 58 pending edit requests between that and its subcat. Thanks ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible POV Pushing on David Irving

Resolved

Can I ask an administrator to take a look at the edits that are happening on

Deadly∀ssassin

13:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor,

WP:RFPP. This IP has never participated on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk

) 20:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Although the IP does not cite a source, this material is pretty much the thesis of Shermer and Grobman. And they bend over backwards to be fair to Irving, saying that he has been forced to pander to the extremists because he has no mainstream source of income; they point out that to historians he is an excellent finder of sources, a writer of some ability, but absolutely not a historian. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Poor admin judgement/need the all-clear to finish developing template

Resolved

 – Please discuss here. — Scientizzle 18:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been warned for edit-warring by admin User:Reaper Eternal on Template:Highest-grossing films franchise. I consider this warning not very even-handed, and counter-productive. As you can see from the edit history of this template I created, I am in the process of developing it, and until this evening I was the only editor working on it. The creation of the template was born out of Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Table this discussion. This evening an editor starting making alterations to it, moving it, accused me of ownership, and finally nominated it for deletion. I reverted these edits because they interefered with the final stages of development of this template. I don't know why this editor started targetting this particular template that will ultimate perform a useful functiion in an article, and simply the task of data entry. Anyway, Reaper Eternal has warned me for edit-warring on this template that I am developing, but not the other editor who was disrupting the development! I'm now facing a quandary, because I feel it will be very difficult to finish off the template while "under penalty" by the admin. I also find it bizarre that the editor who created the template and has undertaken the dvelopment has been warned, but the disruptive editor who did not particpate in any of the discussion leading to the creation of the template, and doesn't understand the purpose hasn't been warned! I can only assume that the editor and this admin are "pally", and he decided to back up his pal, since he clearly hasn't been even-handed in handling this dispute, and his actions aren't logical. I want to see this admin relieved of handling this situation, and I would like the go-ahead to get back to developing the template. Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be best if you kept this discussion in one place, i.e. the AN/I discussion. 28bytes (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really about the dispute, it's about the admin taking sides. ANI can handle the dispute, but I want this admin taken out of teh equation becasue there is clear bias in his handling of it. I'm not after sanctions against him or anything like that, I just want him removed from this dispute and someone with some clear judgment in. Is lunacy that he takes the side of someone who has never worked on the template against someone who is developing it for a specific purpose. Betty Logan (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

(

WP:FORUMSHOPPING, even if unintended, is a bad idea. Fragmented discussions will only cause problems. — Scientizzle

18:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Just finish the development in a sandbox, while the fuss dies down. Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC).

Non consensus changes made on Community Portal

On September 2nd, Pretzels made [| this] change to Wikipedia Community Portal. I looked on the talk page [| and saw no consensus ] for the fairly sizable change he made. I reverted him and placed a note on the page and [| on his page ] stating that I'd reverted him, that I thought he really needed to get consensus first, and that I would voluntarily observe 1rr on that change. He pointed me to the community portal talk page where he said he asked. It's just him and one other individual, and their response is [| neither yes nor no, but more along the lines of "I don't care" ]. This morning he changed the page back to his version. No one else has posted, (and to his credit he did actually place a note in the village pump [| proposals section] which linked back to the community portal.

What I'm looking for is to have an admin (or even a non-admin) take a look at pretzel's change and see if consensus was indeed established for it (or if it's really needed for this type of change ) if it is, hey, I'll continue not touching the page. Thanks @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 11:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

PS: Yes [| Pretzels has been notified of this post as well ] :) @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 14:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, please don't revert something just because no active consensus was reached first, if you have no opinion about the actual change. Pretzels has gone out of his way to make sure no one objected. He posted to the talk page in July; in a month and a half, only one editor said "meh". He then posted to the Village Pump on 9/1, and after further silence made the change on 9/2. No complaints. You reverted (while expressing no problems with the change) on 9/4. He's now waited 4 more days, with still no complaints from anyone, nor further rationale from you. What more would you have him do? Insisting on an active consensus of multiple editors for changes no one seems to care about is not how things are done here. If someone comes along who actually disagrees with the change, they can revert and discuss it with him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, actually, I do have an opinion on the page, that's why I changed it back to the long standing version, and that's also why I voluntarily observed 1rr on it. As to what I'm looking for, I stated that in my original post I'm looking to see if consensus was established for this change. Per the page itself it states that large changed need to be discussed, and, I would assume, a consensus would need to be established.

Yes, he's done all the right things, to be sure, but he has (near as I can tell, and this is what I'm checking on ) no consensus to make that change. Please note that

this guideline

lays out the requirements for changing a visible page such as community portals. Is that clearer ? @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Narn (Loyal Bat Squad Member)-@ 16:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as I was the only one who expressed a strong opinion on the matter, there is consensus for the change - nobody expressed opposition. Consensus isn't a magical minimum number of editors. As Floquenbeam says, it's not like I didn't offer ample time and promotion for discussion. — Pretzels ^Hii! 16:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to look at

Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle and especially Wikipedia:Consensus - where consensus is noted as being when a change is made to a page and it is either accepted or challenged; it says nothing about agreements found on a talkpage previously. As consensus is only determined once the edit is made, then any challenge deprecates a new consensus and the status quo is returned. Per WP:BRD, you should not have reverted but instigated a discussion to find if there is a consensus for the edit. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 17:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not true. You supported the change, I did not, so no, there was not consensus (Per

WP:CON

)

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.

I actually don't think you had consensus, that's what I'm here for. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Narn (Loyal Bat Squad Member)-@

• Well now I'm confused. KoshVorlon, is your only objection to the change that you don't think it has consensus? Or do you have other objections to it, which you have not yet stated anywhere? If it's the first, then I stand by my comments; Pretzels had implied consensus since no one disagreed, and your revert was wrong, and his reinstatement after waiting for a response to his talk page comments for 4 days was OK. If it's the second, then either I've misunderstood, or you've miscommunicated, or both. But in the second case, since Pretzels has already started a discussion on the talk page, your next step is to state why you disagree with the edit on the talk page. It's not sufficient to say you disagree without saying why. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Resolved by motion at

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

that:

The Date delinking case is amended as follows:

Remedies 16 and 18 (as amended) are terminated, effective immediately. Ohconfucius is reminded that this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, and that he is expected to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines, especially those concerning the editing and discussion of policies and guidelines, and the use of alternate accounts.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466 closed

An arbitration case regarding the conduct of User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 has been closed and may be viewed at the link above. The following is a summary of enacted remedies:

1. Cirt is topic-banned indefinitely from making any edits to articles related to new religious movements, their adherents, and any related biographies of living people, broadly construed.
2. Cirt is further restricted on biographies of living people if the articles are substantially about, or Cirt's edits introduce material relating to: politics, religion, or social controversy. Cirt is permitted to edit articles incidentally related to such topics provided the articles, and Cirt's edits, are not biographical in nature. The Committee may extend this restriction if BLP-related problems continue, and Cirt may request relaxation of this restriction after one year from this date if there are no further problems.
3. Cirt is desysopped for admitted violations of the
   requests for adminship
   at any time.
4. Jayen466 is reminded to strictly adhere to dispute resolution processes in any future disputes.
5. Cirt and Jayen466 are subject to an interaction restriction wherein they may not communicate with each other, nor comment on each other, or each other's actions or edits, directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. Comments on the same page are permissible provided the previously mentioned restrictions are upheld. Neither party may respond directly to any violations of this or any other remedy, but shall report any violations via email directly to the Arbitration Committee.
6. Any violation of these restrictions may be enforced by block, to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee,

a/c

) 00:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Second opinions solicited

A user has questioned a few speedys I declined. Examples here, here and here and believes I am wrong about this because other admins have (apparently) acted on these in the past. He/she wants a second opinion and I'm obliging with this solicitation: can a few people comment here, whatever your sensibility. Thanks in advance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I used to comply with his requests for deletion of redirects so he could "start new" (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) until I began to realize that it was not per policy to delete them and there is/was no real reason on Yankees10's part. I denied his final request (here) last month, and he went behind my back to a different admin to request deletion of the Nathan Eovaldi redirect (here). These requests are clearly not per policy and Yankees10 should cease from this behavior in the future. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

These are completely different requests. The ones I have recently asked to be speedy deleted are completely different situations. They are all currently redirects that are no longer play for the teams they re-directed to, so I saw no point in them existing anymore. And not for nothing Eagles I am not sure why you have to call it "behavior". It makes it sound like I was doing something that was horribly wrong (which it may be), but you obviously didn't know the rule either, since you just didn't give me a no in the first place.--Yankees10 01:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I found this

powwow

01:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright I read up some more and I think I understand why Fuhghettaboutit declined the speedy deletions. Sorry for the trouble guys.--Yankees10 02:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's no problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, glad it helped.

powwow

02:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Could someone create a list of the affected articles/redirects? The merges need attribution per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. I'll work through them gradually. Flatscan (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Move a Fair Use file from commons

I need to have

WP:FOUR

) 02:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Just upload it afresh. Since there was no creative input from any Wikipedian involved in creating the file, there is no crucial copyright-relevant contribution in the Commons history that would need to be preserved for attribution reasons. Of course, an informational note like "Previously uploaded as commons:File:XYZ by User:ABC on date soandso" might be useful. For correct copyright tagging: (a) for the photographic work: include proper attribution to the Flickr user and mention their license; (b) for the sculpture: use {{Non-free 3D art}} and a fair use rationale (along the lines of "Image is used for illustrating a dedicated article about the artwork pictured", should be sufficient.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Request to lift topic ban for non-free images for software topics such as Norton Internet Security

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfoley4 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to create page of วีรวัฒน์ กนกนุเคราะห์

I would like to create the page of วีรวัฒน์ กนกนุเคราะห์ which relate with Verawat Kanoknukroh .

However I cannot, please unlock this page for me.

Thank you for your service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isa2011 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look at

Wikipedia:Tutorial. - David Biddulph (talk

) 13:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

... and

WP:CITE. Assuming the article doesn't get deleted before long, are you asking for a redirect to be created. I see no harm in creating such a redirect, but if created, it should be edit and move protected at admin level. Mjroots (talk

) 17:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The article had a speedy tag placed as a hoax, and the combination of wards & degrees looking doubtful to me also, I deleted it -- not having realized the above discussion. Seeing it, I have restored it with an "underconstruction" tag. It needs 3rd party references in any language to support the claims. I advise you to fix this very quickly, before the article gets nominated for deletion by a regular deletion process. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Late AfD Closure

Just a heads up

Head90 | ^{Another way...}

19:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 19:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP topic ban for La goutte de pluie

Per

WP:ANI community decisions are binding. It was 7 days since the proposal arraign. The ban will be 3 months, but will become indefinite if problems persist. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs

19:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Per my comments in this part of the RFC. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support: As proposer here, and as supporter there. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
  _Contribs 20:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The above user may not be the most impartial editor to start the RFC, and has yet to elucidate his or her own arguments, other than pursuing a witch hunt against me. See such comments that Ebe has made like this one and an Ebe's attempt to cover the comment up. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I had the right to remove it,

WP:TPO permits it. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs

21:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Not that I want to get involved in this particularly, but there were 21 minutes between your addition and subsequent removal, in which time other editors had not only viewed but contributed to the page. TPO advises you not to substantially edit your comments after the fact, by saying 'it is best to avoid changing your own comments', and that you should consider striking text instead of deleting it. Complete removal of comments can be seen as both discourteous and deceptive, which is why TPO firmly suggests using other options.

talk

) 04:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I was the one who suggested this at the RfC, but I suggested it for 3 months, to be changed to indefinite if the conduct in question resumed after that. I also suggested that since the editing in question involved the deliberate and persistent addition of negative material, it be interpreted to include talk pagers of articles on LP, and deletion discussions about those articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  I am adding that.

  I seem to be attracting opposition based on the intentions, rather than actual behaviour. Can someone inform me where they have reverted me (or raised concerns on a talk page) because of such concerns? I am puzzled because the talk pages -- which I am often the major poster on -- remain empty of the supporters of the proposal here. Have they attempted to use a) article discussion b) and on that matter, why prohibit discussion? This seems to go against the spirit of the project. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support along the lines of DGG. Agathoclea (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning oppose as I stated on the rfc, I'm not convinced that LGDP is actively adding inappropriate negative information. She did some inappropriate stuff with the tools, and has voluntarily given them up after recall. She has voiced an opinion which does not represent the spirit of WP policy and Jimbo himself has weighed in pointing this out. As such, I'm concerned that there will be a pile on support - where it may not be correct. I'm already concerned that some of the rfc contributors are "out for blood". I'd prefer that we make it clear that we do not "punish" good faith editing, even when it does not meet our standards, and revisit if issues reappear. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

  After a short conversation with LGDP, and her clarification below, I am confident that whilst she may hold an opinion regarding COI, she will edit in accordance with policy. Wikipedian's are not banned from areas based on the opinions hold, only if they edit tenditiously. I do not see evidence that she has edited BLPs in such a manner. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  Really, though? How about "(adding) tribute to govt resume-style" by stating "Government officials are eager to point out that all Singaporeans should hold this obviously highly talented minister in the most greatest esteem"? Is that not tendentious editing to "punish" COI on a BLP? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  Yep, really. I agree, the edit you point out is not a good one - introducing a definite POV statement where it was previously a resume. If I'd seen it, I'd have reverted it. But even so, a topic ban on all BLPs broadly construed appears excessive for the level of issue. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  I agree with Worm. Except that to the extent it matters, I would oppose a ban right now. My76Strat (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  That's

  assuming that she still makes such edits in good faith. What I've seen does not indicate such, in my view. Strange Passerby (talk • cont

  ) 22:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  I have never opposed or sought to "punish" good faith editing. Though frequently we can observe (with certain exceptions) that people with undeclared COIs generally edit out of bad faith. For that matter, I have always sought to comply with

  WP:V. You could explain point out which edits (not opinions!) of mine have warranted this ban. I am curious, because so far all of this seems concerned about what I may do, and not what I have done. I reassure everyone that my editing will comply with policy, and I will collaborate with anyone concerned. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free

  ) 23:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This has been a long-term issue and needs to be dealt with with a long-term solution, and this is a start. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You have never explained your support for talk page restrictions, nor are you actually addressing any of the arguments here. Consensus is not a vote. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for two reasons. First, I'm increasingly seeing BLP being used not for its intended purpose, but as something to bludgeon opponents in an argument with. That meta-point aside, I too am not seeing any evidence that she's added negative, unsourced information to articles. She's removed some positive information from some people's biographies, but in the main area of contention (Singaporean politics), there is a very real problem with IPs adding overly promotional material to these articles as well, and while some removals may not be good it's not hard to see how she could make a mistake sometimes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support 3 months is a fair amount of time to allow the community to discern the real issues in the topic area and protect it from what amounts to "reverse vandalism": Over-zealousness in this case turned out to be as disruptive if not more than the actual issue being dealt with are/were. 3 months is a relatively mild topic ban, specially in the background of the continued combativeness of LGP and her
  seeming inability to get the point, so arguments that people are "out for blood" are simple exaggeration. I see nothing punitive in this. --Cerejota (talk
  ) 23:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you point out which edits of mine have been disruptive? How can edits that comply with policy be disruptive? Where have I been "overzealous"? I am sorry for my repeated entreaties, but people here have cited my opinions on COI editors and not my edits. I do not think I have been obstinate, as you allege. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support, and I agree with Cerejota. Virtuaoski (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Tony Tan Keng Yam. Could you present some form of argument, perhaps explaining which edits you found warranted a ban? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free

) 00:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have already stated my views in the RfC Q&A, and described your use of inappropriate sources, and your use of original research, which I now view in the context of your desire to "punish COI editing". In my comments in the RfC, I referred to my comments in the talk page for Tony Tan Keng Yam, pointing out your edits that I found problematic: your putting words into Tony Tan's mouth to "fight some of the promotionalism on this article", driven by your view of the other editors. I was disturbed by your baseless accusations, your weird edits, and refusal to admit consensus. I found your edits to "fight some of the promotionalism" in that article, followed by your insisting that you were editing in accordance with policy, most disruptive. I note that despite my many efforts to explain my views in the RfC and the various talk pages, you are right now accusing me of "jumping on the bandwagon" and insinuating certain motives to me because you 'opposed' me (whatever that means), and further that you are asking me and other editors here for clarification despite these issues being well described in the RfC. I have already read your response to the RfC, and I think the issues raised in the RfC still stand. Virtuaoski (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose conditionally. Elle absolutely needs to acknowledge that "punishing COI" or "eradicating COI editing" by unsound editing are not appropriate goals on Wikipedia. However, adding relevant content and especially balancing articles with a strong POV are not inappropriate, and much of what she's done may fall into that. Which in my mind is not truly "punishment" since the next good editor should have come along and done something like that anyway, without any special point in mind - more a diplomatic failure than anything else. But if she doesn't acknowledge that, eventually harsher action is inevitable. Wnt (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support. The idea that we should 'punish' people for conflict of interest editing by adding negative information to their biographies is abhorrent. While Elle has partially backpedaled from that view, the backpedaling has only been partial, with weak claims that we should do it only by adding information to make the articles neutral - the motive of punishment has not been rejected, and indeed continues to be defended. That view, if held generally by Wikipedians, would be incredibly destructive - and rightfully so - to our reputation. We must always been ethical and above reproach, sensitive, supportive, loving and kind to all, and this vindictive spirit has no place in our work.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Jimbo, perhaps you have not substantially edited an article for long, long time. Perhaps it's been a really long while since you have directly dealt with aggressive, anonymous COI users who repeatedly come back across in different incarnations and across a wide range of unblockable IPs, and try to masquerade bad faith edits as good faith ones. In this case, blocking can only do so much as a deterrence against such behaviour. I am all for Wikilove for editors (and yes ones with a COI) who seek to cooperate with the project. It is entirely a different matter for those who wish to game the project's policies at every turn. As Wikipedia's importance increases, the incentive to subvert the project by those with no real interest in "noble editing" will only increase. I propose other remedies too -- expanding the scope of CheckUser to investigate such abusers' real life identities in especially egregrious cases, and attracting the attention of the press -- see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress, which I myself started. Many people were of the opinion that more active actions than mere blocking should take place. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

    • I am an active editor, doing content edits almost every single day. My primary area of interest as a content editor is the UK

      WP:AGF works - approaching people with kindness and professionalism and respect changes their minds in most cases, and that most COI editing starts with a valid grievance that can be addressed with neutrality. It is a shame that rather than reconsidering what the community is telling you, you are attacking others, including me. As others have noted: the goal of resolving problems with COI editing is a noble and justified goal. But your combative approach is not the right way.--Jimbo Wales (talk

      ) 12:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

      • May you not understand, that a full BLP ban is completely wrong. Do you really edit Wikipedia everyday almost? If so, I'd be surprised...

        Anyway, the violations in question don't just warrant a full BLP ban. Respectively, Hinata talk 00:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support, the three month time limit seems about right. The comments about "punishing" people with a conflict of interest were made only a few weeks ago, which IMHO is still a fresh attitude. When the ban expires, it would be helpful to see a more collegial attitude. --Jayron32 04:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • After I expressed my opinion here, La goutte de pluie's comments above have only strengthened my opinion that she be banned from this topic area. It is clear that her "us vs. them" mentality isn't conducive towards collaborative editing. Yes, people do frequently misuse Wikipedia for promotional purposes, but her attitude evidenced above is NOT how we fix that problem. --Jayron32 04:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I have a reconciliatory approach to most COI editors -- please see the many articles tagged for speedy deletion which I saved with my own research, and my many friendly advice I gave to the innocent users involved, even those with COI. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support - this returning user has been a train crash since the very first returning edit. Desyopped and now apparently on a mission to rid the project of promo COI additions.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 05:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  We can certainly debate the methods which she has used, and I too have misgivings about some of it, but are you seriously telling me that removing promotional material from biographies of living people is a bad mission to have? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support I was on the fence about this, but the below 'Previous consensus to punish COI' sub-discussion started by La goutte de pluie indicates that this is an ongoing, and serious, problem. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you point out this problem in my editing behaviour by citing a few articles or diffs instead of guessing what I will do based on my opinions? I am merely proposing more aggressive means of dealing with COI -- I intend to start a Village Pump proposal when appropriate -- and I intend to refer all contentious matters to the community. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Oppose. Reason: I have changed to Oppose the ban, because I think this user is discussing the issues in a relatively calm, thoughtful manner, across multiple WP languages. This ban gives a 3-month delay from BLP-punishment rewrites, until other users can decide (consensus) how to deal with
  witch hunt" against COI editors, many of whom seem to be helping WP in other ways. However, the ban should allow discussions and editing lists of troublesome BLP articles. Let the discussions continue. -Wikid77
  06:04, revised 16:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I never edited Dominique Strauss-Kahn. I did post on the talk page and encouraged editors to work with the French Wikipedia to discourage systemic bias on both projects; the French have their own version of the article, with the "French point of view". I am amenable to more fruitful remedies. All any person has to do is use the article talk pages. So far, except for Singaporean politicians, no one has opposed me in article talk pages or through reversions for making COI-related changes to a BLP.

Why do you assume I would be out to frame a wealthy, famous person? I simply wish to write neutral articles (I have never backpedaled on this issue). I do not witch hunt COI editors.

P.S. I am in fact rather sympathetic to the idea that the whole thing might be a setup, but you need to use reliable sources. Some French newspapers however, have echoed this view. Where were you opposed? I have no opinion on DSK, other than that BLP is being invoked excessively to suppress reliably-sourced criticism. At the same time, statements from French sources alleging a conspiracy (which I heard first hand through an esteemed friend at the Sciences Po) should be allowed, provided they are from reliable sources. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have reversed my decision, and now Oppose the ban, to support you in continuing to discuss and resolve these COI issues. Thank you for your patience: it is a complex situation to see what has been happening. -Wikid77 16:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support The attempted cherypicking from a 5 year old RFC (below) sealed it for me. LGDP has gone from the sublime to the absurd in one apparently easy step. Any concept of
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 10:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support per RfC, the discussion here, and the editors responses to both; unless La goutte de pluie indicates that they have an understanding of consensus, and its application, and specifically where they disagree with said consensus, I feel it would be disruptive to allow them to edit any area where they disagree with the other editors - they do not seem capable of editing to any other viewpoint on an issue other than their own, and are prepared to vigorously argue every point and to ascribe motives other than good faith and dedication to the project for any contrary viewpoint. I would not have supported if there had been any indication that the editor was prepared to accept the consensus of others, even while maintaining their position within discussions and dispute resolution processes, but there is no evidence of it. I would adjust the language of the proposed ban, in the light of my observations, to that of "Indefinite, to be reviewed not before a period of 3 months." but will accept the language proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I'm completely uninvolved in this issue as far as I know, but having read the RfC, the current RFAr, and the statements made by Elle on this thread and elsewhere, it is clear to me that she is not willing to surrender the idea of "reverse POV-pushing" to punish COI. Despite her assurances that she edits according to policy, she also seems to be saying that as long as her "punishment" technically toes the line of policy, she feels she's in the right to carry it out. No, that's not ok. We're an encyclopedia, a neutral one, not a black-ops organization. We don't punish for the sake of punishment, we don't hurt, and we don't violate the spirit of our policies just to get back at someone who annoys us - whether that person is operating in bad faith, good faith, or just ignorance. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)
• Oppose. I sympathize a great deal with Wikid77 below; we sanction disruptive behavior, not untenable viewpoints. Although the idea of using article content as a direct and deliberate deterrent is utterly wrong-headed (for reasons outlined many places elsewhere, and which I shall not repeat here), the proper response to that is for the community to reject, rather than penalize, those ideas. I will strongly urge Elle to drop the argument here, and keep in mind that continuing to argue for an idea after it has been rejected may be considered disruptive in and of itself. However, I don't see that Elle is causing any harm to the BLP articles themselves, and so I feel this topic ban proposal overreaches. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose- Wikipedia has always defended itself against spam and vanity, which is proper, but LGDP has probably gone too far in enforcing it. I do not like the idea of using mainspace content to punish or deter people and I've said so elsewhere. However, I have not seen any evidence that LGDP has damaged the encyclopedia in doing so. We don't ban people for holding unpopular opinions. I oppose this proposal but I think LGDP needs to drop this line of attack. Reyk _YO! 21:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, instead impose 1RR on all BLP articles. Looking at the issues here, I tend to agree with Reyk's and The Blade of the Northern Lights's comments. I propose an 1RR restriction for edits originally made by other editors and a 0RR restriction for edits originally made by herself. This will allow her to edit freely, remove edits by others that she feels are inappropriate, but playing tactical games won't work well under this restriction. Count Iblis (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support on article page, but allow her to continue on talk pages - Elle still seems to be in a state of denial and has not demonstrated the ability to accept feedback on her "Punish COI" mentality. I note that the extensive list of people giving her this feedback even includes Jimbo Wales. That makes it hard for me to believe that she would be receptive to other feedback on COI editing. Fighting COI by removing said COI and introducing opposing COI does not help the article. Article stays unbalanced, just swaying in the opposite direction. Either both go, or both stay, within wiki policy of course. Her idea of punishing COI hinges on twisting the article in the opposite direction to compensate for past COI means any COI issue will never go away, as we keep looking at the past rather than looking for ways to make sure how the articles can be improved for now and the future. She seems unable to edit objectively on articles relating to Singapore politics, as evidenced by the attention she drew to her questionable edits from international editors and admins. But seeing at her edits elsewhere are more objective, a topic ban would reduce the damage she may do with her COI edits to Singapore Politics (ironically, which despite her denial, a number of admins and editors have identified her as hacing personal COI issues), while still allowing her to contribute to other articles, and still can draw attention to what she feels needs to be corrected on topic she is restricted from directly editing. DanS76 (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The views of e.g. Wnt, Reyk, Count Iblis, Sjakkalle, Northern Lights and Worm strike me as products of more highly evolved, more enlightened thinking than the reactionary tut-tutting from the opposers. Also I have warmed to LGDP's candor. I like that she has stayed engaged here and explained herself. I like her brain. Overall, she's a great asset to WP and she's done no harm to it. The proposed BLP ban is absurdly excessive. We should all just get over ourselves and move on. The goddam project isn't so flimsy (yet) that it'll fall over if we do. Writegeist (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. We should not bear the burden of an editor who wishes to use Wikipedia for punishment. Binksternet (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Reyk and Sjakkalle. I've not seen solid evidence of significant mainspace problems. Strong opinions are fine even if outside the norm by a wide margin. And as my own personal view is that there are way way too many puff pieces here, I think someone beating that drum (outside of mainspace) is a good thing. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose but support a final warning and 1RR restriction. POV-pushing is frustrating, and in areas with few active editors other than those pushing it can be a severe trial for an admin. That does not mean we're allowed to ride roughshod. Bring future concerns of this nature to the Admin boards or raise an RfC. Yes, it takes longer, but you get a solid consensus that is more likely to stick and more likely to bring fresh eyes (and more help). Guy (Help!) 19:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Rather unfortunately, I'm sure Jimbo's support on its own shifts many opinions around here. That said, I find myself agreeing mostly with Blade and WormTT - a full BLP ban is rather ridiculous. However, I'd probably support a temporary 1RR restriction on BLPs. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 21:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• oppose --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC) After two full days, the tally is 15 supports to 12 opposes. I'm going to suggest that the proposal does not have enough consensus to pass.
• Oppose as utterly disproportionate response. I agreed in previous dispute resolution that Elle needed to slow down and take more care in her use of admin tools, which she has now regrettably relinquished. Nevertheless, Elle is a good editor with a differing (but not destructive) perspective on combating problem areas and advancing the project. A BLP ban is completely inappropriate. Ebe121 is also reminded that endorsements on an RFC/U do not denote consensus, as the RFC/U rules clearly indicate that opposition is not to be posted in responses. I do not see consensus for a BLP ban in Elle's RFC/U commentary in any way.
  talk
  ) 04:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose unless further evidence is presented. Only one diff [96] has been given to show problematic editing on BLPs. Whilst it is true that this edit inserted an inappropriate sentence it's hardly sufficient by itself to support a topic ban. The idea of adding additional negative content to BLPs to punish COI editing is a very bad one and is certainly not in accordance with policy, but we don't hand out topic bans to people who hold controversial or unpopular opinions, we hand them out to people who are actually causing a problem. Hut 8.5 13:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I would change my vote to Oppose if LPDP would at least show some form of practical acknowledgement that her idea of punishing COI is being questioned by editors. I think a number of the Oppose votes feel the same too. But she has stayed stubborn throughout, and I just fear that if she gets out of this without even a warning, she would take it to mean that there was nothing wrong with punishing COI and turn it into more actual edits. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per everyone.OpenInfoForAll (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this is too broad if what we want to do is stop the "punishing COI". Instead, we can resolve, as we have, that "deliberately punishing perceived COI is itself a COI", and use 1RR/0RR to ensure this is complied with. This editor can do many other useful things. eug (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Evidence required of "punishing COI" edits

Since the subject repeatedly requested evidence showing her editting to punish COI, I suggest a separate list be set up for this.

• My first incident encountering her "punishing COI", or "punishing promotionalism" as she puts it back then, was in the Vivian Balakrishnan article. LGDP made [this edit], of which I specifically reverted and edited [this section]. The discussion on Talk between me, her and another editor (iirc it was Strange Passerby) resulted in the first instance I saw LGDP make the comment about needing to punish COI and to use the article to make a point. Somewhere around the June 23 period. Unfortunately that article had some serious BLP copyvio issues around the same time, so one whole chunk of Talk history was removed (not even archived I believe) and I cannot pull out her specific reply. If I had access to those old Talk entries, I would have put her reply here directory. Maybe some admin with access can help here, its an entry by her on Talk for slightly after June 23.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing evidence of "punishing COI" in that diff. The image she removed was deleted as a copyvio, and the piece she rewrote read like a thinly veiled resume; it had all his achievements in separate, one-sentence paragraphs, which is a strategy used to emphasize awards/achievements on a resume. Her rewrite seems more neutral than the original to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That depends on your opinion of her insertion of the following line Government officials are eager to point out that all Singaporeans should hold this obviously highly talented minister in the most greatest esteem given it was only 18 months later that he became Chief Executive Officer of etc etc which alleges that the govermnent is attempting to glorify the subject. Not exactly something that would put the subject in the best of lights, considering her assertion that all prior positive content were made by same government bodies/representatives. As I mentioned, LGDP herself best explained her motive for the edit in the removed talk history, which I have no access to now. Zhanzhao (talk)

After the umpteenth reversion by a sockpuppet to a non-neutral, copyvio, plagiarised version, without any action from an administrator -- I of course, could not semi-protect the article -- it was my attempt at invoking editorial compromise by including a greater mention of the government's point of view, and the source of that POV. It was a temporary measure to be later modified through the

Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. However, the IP editors simply skipped the "discuss" stage. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free

) 08:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not allege that "all positive content" were made by government representatives. Actually I believe I represented Vivian Balakrishnan's personal stances pretty well and quite neutrally if I may so myself, using his own blog. But much other content was copied or closely paraphrased from a copyrighted, non-neutral government biography, and the IP editors' constant reversions to that content kept on being un-noticed. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 09:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Zhanzhao, the majority of that linked edit was good copy and significantly improved an otherwise poorly written section of the biography. Yes, part of it contained inappropriately written content, which you subsequently removed. You appear to make a connection that this particular text was 'punishing COI'; I don't agree. It was bad writing and inappropriate content but I can't in good faith see that there's an underlying agenda to inflict punishment. If anything, it looks like a snarky response borne of frustration more than anything else.

talk

) 04:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Its hard to assume good faith when the defendent herself admits to having entered the line to draw attention to the COI in the article, when her additions without the questionable line itself would have been sufficient to fix the COI she identified. Even COI tagging the page would have ccomplished that. Regardless of the rationale, be it editorial COI, snarkiness or carelessness, the end result is the same. The article is being treated as a plaything for editors to "prove their points". The fact that she thinks it is fine to carry on pulling stunts like this is making it hard for editors and admins to monitor the quality of the articles. Instead of watching out for COI from one front, we will all of us be fighting a multiple front battle, as long as editors think it is right to introduce opposing COI edits to compensate for prior COI.Zhanzhao (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Previous consensus to punish COI

The idea is hardly new. See these comments from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress, which I started:

• clearly if we dont punish this, its just going to egg on more public figures to hire PR firms to regularly POV push on WP. ALKIVAR™ 08:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• We need to make every effort to point out these disinformationists, embarrass them and their employers publicly, and point out how terribly wrong their actions are. Sukiari 09:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• I concur. A one week block is not sufficient. Forever? While that's a nice, feel good idea, I think in practical terms, they've already got PR Boiler rooms ready with botnets to eventually get around the blocks. (My 2011 comment in retrospect: blocking would be impractical; other remedies are required.)
• I especially agree about the threat of organized misinformation. There must be some sort of system we can used to oppose that threat. ZendarPC 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• I wonder if it is possible to obtain the names of vandals who are assigned these congressional IP addresses through the Freedom of Information Act (United States)?
• I hope the staff responsable for this are found and listed. GinsuGuy585
• I endorse this summary on the grounds that there is undeniable evidence (in a rather overwhelming amount) regarding the misbehavior of these individuals. Although a ban would probably be the wrong way to go about these things, they deserve whatever they get.
• humiliate them in the media. Let's get this into the New York Times. (Baldghoti)
• And I am afraid to say that more drastic actions is necessary. SYSS Mouse 04:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• While I endorse this blocking, I'm not sure how much it will do to curb this problem.... Punishment is necessary. I don't think we should block all government IP's. To do so would be irresponsible. sohmc 15:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• "However, it is unlikely you will dissaude for long those who are determined to edit articles in their favor so long as they can remain anonymous and go virtually unpunished...Since the correction of biased attacks articles does require time and effort, I don't think it's unreasonable to require a financial donation from abusers." (2011 comment: I do not recommend this either, but it reflects a previous consensus to punish.)
• "A more effective "punishment" would be to permenently retain, on the relevant talk pages, notices of past attacks by congressional staffers." User:JeffBurdges
• An excellent general principle is that in order for abuse to be controlled, there MUST be consequences for abuse. If Congress fails to control the abuse from its network ITSELF, wikipedia MUST defend itself by imposing consequences. User:Elvey

This is just a sample of the 126 people who endorsed the statement I wrote in that RFC, many of those who agreed that punishment is necessary in the face of organised threats to the project. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That rfc is from over five and a half years ago - things have moved on a lot since then.

Off2riorob (talk

) 05:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand a lot has changed in the last five years, but perhaps we should have a new RFC on the general matter of aggressive, organised, hostile COI editing -- currently the harshest we can go is to implement blocks, and we are prevented from doing much further with CheckUser data. From what I understood, my actions were backed by consensus. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that it is an issue in 2011 - other policies have been strengthened rendering such a position without value.

Off2riorob (talk

) 05:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

These policies were not useful in preventing astroturfing from government ministries and government-linked users with apparently very privileged access to a wide range of commercial networks that were impossible to block without widespread collateral damage. (Commercial broadcasting and telecom companies are government-linked in Singapore -- see Censorship in Singapore). Had these astroturfing incidents occurred in the US, rather than in the less well-represented nation of Singapore, the massive outcry would be on my side -- and the abuse the US Congressional staffers did was comparatively mild compared to the massive edit warring that these anonymous editors pursued. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have not known this RFC to be superseded. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the smattering of comments there as a consensus support for the idea of "punishment". What Michael Snow said there is remarkably close to what I was just saying: "This should not be about punishing anyone; the only issue should be how to improve Wikipedia articles and/or prevent harm to them." Certainly edits to mainspace articles can be "punishment" in only two ways: a) by being good editing that should be done anyway and needs no vengeful explanation, or b) by being bad editing that shouldn't be done. Wnt (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The people who endorsed the statement were supporting the idea of blocking the whole US congress for an extended period because of a dozen bad edits. Even this idea --which I think would get essentially no support today--is not quite as destructive as punishing them by inserting negative material in their bio. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Dangers of Punishing COI

I am basically copying e points I raised in another area against punishing COI by editing in the opposite direction:

LGDP, your insistence on "punishing COI" is not helping your case, as pointed out by Jimbo. You may not have realized it, but if your behaviour was allowed, it could set dangerous precedence. I'll take this chance to highlight the less than obvious dangers of allowing the "punishment of COI". Lets say I have something against a particular person. Instead of doing the obvious like adding negative comments about him/her, I would instead pose some positive glowing comments. Then, I either wait for an editor like you to come in to turn the article negative as punishment, or use an alternative account and do it myself, then claim that the negative parts must stay for a certain period of time as a punitive measure. Instead of taking the proper action of just neutralizing the COI edits. I feel this is a large can of worms we cannot afford to open.' I cannot imagine how Talk pages could devolve to with such "punishing COI" allowed. Will we be arguing on points like how much "punishment" or how long the "punishment" should last? Or may we even need to impose a "punishment" on the original "punishment" writeup? Where does is end? Its clearer to just neutralize the COI content.

If anyone has a better idea of preventing the problem I raised against punishing COI, please enlighten us, I am sure we are all interested in finding out. Else I am against anything that makes the jobs of admins and editorial policers unnecessarily tougher, more complicated and even more vulnerable to subjectivity than it already is. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The corrective measures will always be based on sourced, reliable content. Ideally, what would happen is that "naming and shaming" in the case of abusive COI editing would occur prominently on the talk page (as proposed in the United States Congress RFC) or referral to CheckUser or the press for real-life sanctions. You seem to imply that such punishment would be mutually exclusive with "neutralising COI edits" -- it is not. They go hand in hand. If significant negative sources exist on a subject that has seen mostly promotionalism, they should be included for neutrality and to balance the article. Significant negative information, if existent and sourced, should in fact should be included for all articles -- as per

WP:NPOV, but we are of course slow or unmotivated to add them or "fix" the issue most of the time. Articles with COI simply get greater priority and motivation for rapid correction; this is partially as a rapid remedy to solve years of abuse, and partially as deterrence. Perhaps User:Jayron32 might understand this analogy best. The thing that COI affects is "kinetic" motivation for the edits, and their rapidity; not the ultimate ("thermodynamic") "long-term outcome" of an article. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free

) 08:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that analogy doesn't work. What would work is if you treated every single editor at Wikipedia like an individual, even those who misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose. Furthermore, the fact that you keep bringing up concepts like deterence, motivation, and punishment shows that you have the wrong attitude altogether. --Jayron32 15:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

LGDP, if articles with COI gets greater priority for rapid correction, that is easily addressed by a COI tag, and/or following up with a notification in the relevant board. I see you have argued for/against the use of COI tags in different articles in the past, which means you are familiar with such tools. What you are doing, by adding FURTHER COI to the article to attract attention, is akin to setting new fires to new areas when you feel the fire department is not coming fast enough to put out the first fire you see. That is not right. Zhanzhao (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent analogy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if not involved non-admins can comment here, if not please remove. The discussion seems to be about two completely different things, one side concerned about the quality of articles, and optimal ways to reach concensus and a better wikipedia, the other side focussing on the effects in the real world (like the singapore elections) which do not depend on the final article but rather on which versions were online during a specific period, and for how long. In that context also, the statement about punishing COI seems to have been rather narrowly (or broadly) interpreted, judging from the BLP ban proposal and discussion. just my two cents.. DS Belgium (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Punishing user for trying to punish COI users

Although the claim has been that a topic-ban of 3 months is "not punishment" (some say), it can have that effect, and thus the intention to topic-ban

WP:AfD of "Amanda Knox" then I would have thought that additional discussion, in my case, would expunge the false claims of improper canvassing, but instead, that false charge was used as "gunnysacking" of blocks to increase the next topic-ban against me as being indefinite (over 3 months so far). The overall effect is "punishment" of me, because I am hardly a danger or disruption to the project, with over 30,000 edits in numerous tedious articles and complex templates. Plus, let me note, how difficult it is to discuss issues when every crime article, or place in Italy, or college-student arrest might be considered part of the topic-ban. Similarly, BLP concerns are found in numerous articles, so a BLP topic-ban would almost certainly exclude participation in over half (1.8 million) of all articles. That shutdown, of article editing and talk-page discussions, is in effect a punishment against a user, who is being noted for trying to punish COI users. Beware, "Violence begets violence" and the vicious circle stops when someone offers an olive branch to cease the hostilities. Stop this proposed BLP topic-ban against User:La goutte de pluie, and, instead, try to reach a peaceful consensus. -Wikid77

17:04, revised 17:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well said. I full endorse this statement.

talk

) 05:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Intelligence and humanity. Peace and reconciliation. An example to us all. Writegeist (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

1RR

This is a standalone request to impose a 1RR restriction on BLPs to La goutte de pluie. This shouldn't be as bad as a full ban and will keep trouble away. The restriction would be indefinite "by definition", because it will not automatically expire. However, after 3 months, the user's contributions would be reviewed by the wide community in an AN thread, and an admin would decide whether to leave in place or remove the restriction,

assuming good faith. A mentor may also be assigned to keep a watch on the user's contribution. — Kudu ^~I/O~

22:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• meh - not reading above that editwarring is a serious part of the problem. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)