Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive230

Hi all, we have an old unclosed deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 23, please could someone oblige? All the best—S Marshall T/C 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

IP address, in its third edit started merge proposal on Kosovo article talk page. Bit later, User:PersonPaOpinion, (make-believe new user) in its eight edit starts supporting, while citing wikipedia guidelines. While article was carefully spited few months ago, on the agreement of the great number of editors, (with vast sockpuppets attacks), i am asking for admin help in stopping this new line of empty words, wrong unbacked POVs and false consensuses, that may create again. My proposition is that some unrelated admin interfere, and stop the agreement, close it, or guide it. I would close it, and if someone who is not sockpuppet or ip nationalistic warrior wants to propose it, but with arguments and reasons, should do it. As you know, Kosovo is under ARBMAC editing restrictions, and sockpuppets are not welcomed on its pages, because of the known reasons. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 23:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, i just spent an hour browsing internal WP pages trying to figure out HOW to deal with this problem. but since WP is not set up in any welcoming or helpful format, i am putting the problem here. So, someone can slap me around and tell me where i should have placed it. User:Harvardcrimsonfan has been adding names of Harvard students to multiple articles as Notable residents, and notable alumni..note these are merely students who are being listed as Vollyball players or whatnot.HarvardCrimsonfan contribs These are not yet notable persons and are just cluttering up the articles in question. I have corrected the few pages that i watch but I do not want to start an edit war by correct all of their edits. I feel these edits are poorly thought out and not in the spirit of WP. Can anyone tell me where to report what i consider consistently poor editing choices? thank you EraserGirl (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably

here, though I don't see much point in moving this report now that it's here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい

) 02:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems rather innocent on first look.

WP:NNC is the correct thing to do. Going forward, the only thing that appears necessary is leave a {{subst:welcome}} template on their talk page plus add a personal note about adding non-notable folks to articles. --64.85.216.114 (talk

) 17:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your helpful answer. I have not had good experiences when it came to internal WP issues. I have been keeping myself to myself but this seemed a little over the top to ignore. EraserGirl (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone explain this edit from an IP that is registered to the Wikimedia Foundation? NawlinWiki (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, a WMF conspiracy...Doughnuthead is working for the WMF! <laughs evilly> HurricaneFan25 23:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Because

XFF. --MuZemike

23:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought the software didn't believe XFF's except from a carefully-chosen hand-picked and validated set of source IP addresses of ISP proxies? If XFF is being used to forge source IPs, the devs need to stamp on it immediately. Can someone please bring this to the attention of the Wikipedia ops team? -- The Anome (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted WMF about this? LadyofShalott 23:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Let me know if you see any more edits from other WMF IPs. Prodego ^talk 23:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. Can you tell us a bit more about what the problem was, and how it got fixed? -- The Anome (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That squid server was not added to $wgSquidServersNoPurge when it was deployed, causing it not to be a trusted XFF source. MuZemike's statement above touches on the problem (it does involve XFF), but is otherwise incorrect. It is a much less serious issue, fixed by wmf staffer Reedy by adding the server to the list. Prodego ^talk 01:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you, that makes a lot more sense. -- The Anome (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Would someone please look at

I recently closed an AN/I topic ban proposal as follows: "For obvious and repeated

Dolovis is unhappy with these clarifications. I believe they are necessary to prevent further recurrences of problematic behavior and are quite fair given the consensus at the AN/I discussion. Nonetheless, I have offered to put my closure and clarifications up for review here. If consensus is that the closure and clarifications are unfair or otherwise unnecessarily broad to prevent disruption and gaming, then I will be happy to adjust them accordingly. 28bytes (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable clarification to me. What is the problem? Is there some argument that it's unclear/ambiguous, or is there some desire for Dolovis to do a bunch of other diacritic-related edits? (the former seems reasonable enough; the latter is something we ought to prevent). bobrayner (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

28bytes's closure and clarifications appear fine to me. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Point #9, Dolovis shouldn't be barred from hiding/deleting diacritics from North American based hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not saying the closure was incorrect, but it leaves an awkward situation. Personally, I'd like Dolovis to be able to request moves at WP:RM in some situations. Say he creates "John Smith" about an Eastern European hockey player. That person's native name is "Jöhn Smíth" and someone moves the article to that title with the summary "diacritics". Now, even though Dolovis is the only significant contributor to the article, he is unable to revert (fair enough) or even take it to discussion. I'd propose that Dolovis should be able to propose moves at WP:RM when he is a significant contributor to the specific article and it has been recently moved without discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• I like the restrictions, but I have a much different take on the consensus, so I must disagree with the interpretation. The ban concerned gaming more than advocacy. The discussion at the bottom of the ban is relevant (Question on scope of topic ban). Here's my take.

1. Disagree. Dolovis may not create any article (or redirect) that has a diacritic in its title. This is to prevent gaming. He may create articles without diacritic titles. I am reading no diacritic article creation into the ban. Basically, Dolovis does not like articles with diacritcs, so he would not reasonably be creating such an article (except to game).
2. Agree.
3. Disagree. Dolovis may make a nondiacritic redirect to a diacritic article. That allows Dolovis to contribute by making diacritic names accessible. The ANI issue was Dolovits salting diacritic titles; he was not salting nondiacritic titles. The language in the ban proposal can be read either way, but the trouble is "Editing redirects currently at diacritic titles". He may not make a diacritic redirect pointing to a diacritic or nondiacritic article.
4. Disagree. Dolovis was originally banned from moving any article July 13, 2011,[3]. The ban allowed him to request moves via RM. That ban was modified to only cover diacritic articles on October 8, 2011.[4] If the relaxed modification is in place, he may move a nondiacritic article to a new nondiacritic name without going through RM.
5. Disagree. Dolovis may invoke BRD on a move when diacritics are not involved. (Same ban modification argument.)
6. Agree. Dolovis may not use an agent to avoid a ban. Under the earlier ban, if he wants an article moved, he must go through RM. He has no other avenue.
7. Disagree. Dolovis may request any move (including diacritics) via WP:RM. There was some discussion about Dolovits being disruptive in his advocacy (I made such a comment), but the ANI was not about his beliefs but about him gaming the system by salting moves.
8. Disagree. There was concern about overzealous advocacy, but no limitation on RM discussions. (Frankly, I think this limitation is a very good idea and Dolovis should follow it.) A comment was that the ban should not prevent Dolovis from civily and constructively participating in discussions. The keys being "civil", "constructive", and "participate". His POV pushing was mentioned at the start, but the disruptive nature of his advocacy was not addressed in the ban proposal nor did it get many comments.
9. Agree. Changing diacritics in an article is not stated but is implied.

Glrx (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

While Glrx's reading of #9 is not quite so clear from the ban, I fully agree with the rest of it. And given the fact that the history is of Dolovis trying to force his prefered titles by making moves into the diacritic-containing names impossible for non-admins, I'm not sure that this is necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The wording of Glrx's #1 concerns me. The problem (broadly) is Dolovis' stance against diacritics. This restriction (if it allows creation at all) thus needs to prevent Dolovis from creating articles that omit diacritics where consensus holds they ought to be present. First and foremost, the ban should prevent this. I'd have no problem with him doing it the other way (using the accepted diacritics), although it seems unlikely, given past behaviour, he'd even wish to do this. Dolovis should still be permitted to create articles on topics where there are simply no diacritics involved (and "I didn't know he used diacritics" would be a poor excuse, likely to cause the ban's extension). For any articles involving diacritics, known diacritics, or personal names of Eastern European ancestry and a "reasonable chance" of diacritics, then he ought to stay well away. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu re #9. I see this as a broad reading about changing diacritics in titles. If there is a wiki-link within an article, that wiki-link involves the title of an article. It seems a bit absurd to say that D must use RM to move an article to his preferred title, but he may change any wiki-links to the title spelling that he prefers. Yes, non-admins may revert those changes, but "otherwise changing titles, broadly construed" may cover wiki-link titles, so 28byte's clarification is reasonable.

@Andy Dingley re #1. I'm sympathetic, but the ban is not about using or not using diacritics -- it is about behavior. The diacritic issue is unsettled, and ANI isn't there to decide the issue. Dolovis should be able to add content without butting up against the diacritics issue or having his nose rubbed in it. Dolovis is probably more clever than I; he is certainly more motivated. If someone is allowed to create diacritic articles, then I can see a way to turn those diacritic articles into salted diacritic redirects without violating the bans.

Glrx (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dolovis was banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles". Broadly construed or not, it seems like a real stretch to interpret that editing a wikilink would somehow change that article's title. Jafeluv (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeing the games played makes the post "Request for move 'Føö' to 'Foo' as all the articles use the redirect 'Foo'." a real possibility after alld of the links have been edited to use the redirect. - J Greb (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That would fall under "otherwise changing the titles", wouldn't it? In any case, I don't think it would be appropriate to try to interpret the restrictions beyond what the ban actually says -- especially when at the same time people are accusing Dolovis of wikilawyering and gaming the system. Jafeluv (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• And this is a perfect example of what Dolovis does. He will find any possible ambiguity or perceived weakness and argue about it over and over again in a clear attempt to tire out what he considers his opponents so they give up and stop debating with him. There were a number people in that discussion that advocated for a full out diacritics topic ban. So I believe the restrictions he was given were fully in line with that. I think 28bytes answers were fine, they even allowed him to !vote in RMs which a normal topic ban wouldn't have allowed so if anything they were laxer than people requested. -DJSasso (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• I'd made a few comments when this was running on Dolovis' talk page - [5] - regarding providing him an extremely limited venue to use t o try and gain back the community's good faith. These are reliant on
  WP:HOCKEY/PPF#Diacritics
  . I'm incorporating those here.
  1. I agree with Glrx. By stated stance , Dolovis does not want articles with diuretics. While it is unlikely that he would create an article with such, there is no reason to leave this as a loophole in the ban.
  2. Agreed.
  3. Mostly I agree with Glrx. The creation of reasonable redirects under titles without diacritics that point to existent article under a title with diacritics is a productive area. "Reasonable" though is limited to needed or likely needed redirects. Based on WP:HOCKEY's guideline, such redirects can, and IMO should, be used in the non-Quebec North American team and tourney articles.
     • Common sense though with 2 and 3 though is that he is not to create redirects with diacritics in the titles. Full stop.
  4. Articles - and I'd say pages - with old or new names with diacritics are off the table for him to boldly move. Full stop. So should article, or pages, that have, or are likely to have, diacritic titled redirects. Beyond that should be fair game.
  5. As with 4 - not with pages with a diacritic title, a redirect with a diacritic title, or like to have a redirect with a diacritic title.
     • Side issue A) I am not too adverse to him stating in a RM request that it is BRD based - as long as he clearly states the move is to be duscussed and that he is using RM as he is under restrictions.
     • Side issue B) I do have an issue with him bemoaning his being curtailed in the application of BRD - an essay that is trated as a de facto guideline - while he has no problem with preventing the use of
       WP:BOLD - guideline in fact as well as name - by other editors at his own whim. (Yes this was pointed out to him see [6]
       .)
  6. Agree
  7. Also agree with Glrx, though with the same side caveat A as with 5.
  8. I still hold to the statement Glrx quotes. I'd rather Dolovis participates in the discussions and remember how he participates is something others will be looking at.
  9. I agree, to a degree. There is a very limited articles set that currently has any level of consensus about the use of diacritics - see the HOCKEY guideline I pointed to above. GoodDay has pointed out on Dolovis talk page that this is an area where Dolovis can be productive and allows for the removal of diacritics on some articles.

- J Greb (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• J Greb, you seem to be under the misconception that I have been actively BOLDLY moving articles away from diacritics. That would be wrong, as it is others who are moving the articles without consensus. I drew their ire when I reverted some of these moves, as was my right until they successfully implemented a ban to prevent me from challenging their moves. I do not disapprove of diacritics, but I am an advocate for the use of RM when moving articles away from their COMMONNAME. Dolovis (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  Cmt: bold moves by Dolovis to a non-diacritical title not preceded by a move to a diacritical title: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  The double standard being placed upon me is obvious and disturbing. Other editors and bots, such as RjwilmsiBot, continue to make[12] hundreds, if not thousands, of second edits for the purpose of redirect tagging. As has been identified here and in ANI, this has the effect of preventing non-Admin editors from making BOLD moves, and thus (following the logic for my topic ban) is disruptive. I was blocked for one week, and now have a wide topic ban, for placing four redirect tags. What administrative action will be done to prevent those other thousands of “disruptive” edits from being made? Dolovis (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  That bot doesn't have a history of purposefully doing it to be disruptive like you do. You admitted to doing it solely to stop people from making moves. The fact that people can't make moves after the bot edits is a side effect of its edit, not the purpose of its edit like yours were. You were shown you can't be trusted to edit properly thus you are now held to a higher standard, that is how the wiki works. You had a chance to contribute constructively instead you

  battled with people and ended up with sanctions. -DJSasso (talk

  ) 17:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  Is there a diff for the "You admitted..."? I missed it in the earlier discussions, and it seems relevant here. Glrx (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  In October 2011: "...I was banned for making double-edits to redirect pages (which I did in an a naive attempt to slow down the controversial moves)...". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  Beat me to it. Also relevant is his promise "I have heard the concerns and I promise to not create redirects (see WP:REDCAT) using multiple edits." from his original ban. -DJSasso (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The terms of the topic ban remains as clear as mud. Let me try this one question at a time. Am I able to make diacritic related move requests though RM? Yes or No. Dolovis (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No. 28bytes' #7 is crystal clear. Don't play that game here. Glrx (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Response by Dolovis

I am an experienced editor who makes constructive edits to Wikipedia. Any careful review of my edit history will confirm this. I was not able to actively take part in the topic ban discussion because I was blocked for one-week for making proper redirects that follow the instructions of

When I create and edit articles, I follow the policies of Wikipedia, including the policies of

On January 5th, 28bytes' placed the following topic ban on my account: You are indefinitely banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles, broadly construed."[25]. His statement that the topic ban would be “broadly construed” terrifies me as it might mean that I could be blocked the moment that I make any edit to any article that contains any modified letters. Upon requesting clarification, he informed me that I was additionally banned from:

1. creating English-language redirects pointing towards an article that uses diacritics;
2. from using the core Wikipedia policy of
   WP:BRD
   to contest a controversial move (and even from requesting another editor to undo controversial moves on my behalf);
3. from even making diacritic-related move requests at
   WP:RM
   ;
4. from fully participating in move discussions; and
5. from freely editing articles (under this restriction I could be blocked if I even add an additional reference to an article which does not further support the diacritic-form of a person's name).

The true fact is that I am being held to a higher standard than any other editor on Wikipedia. This ban prevents me from openly voicing my opinion in discussions, where I have advocated that the existing policies of Wikipedia should be followed. This ban amounts to censorship against me, and must be reviewed by uninvolved, unbiased, and informed editors. I thank you for your review of this situation. Dolovis (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have serious reservations about your notion of "fully participating in move discussions". Your advocacy is overzealous. Glrx (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  This is an example of my oponents throwing out unverifiable statement about my editing. Show me the dif where my advocacy has been disruptively overzealous so other editors may draw their own conclusions. Dolovis (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Dolovis, you should probably appeal your ban to ArbCom. If anything is to be learned from this type of community discussions is that they usually result in "no consensus to overturn the ban". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Dolovis, if it was a toss-up between being restricted by means of a topic ban, or an indefinite block, which would you prefer? Personally, I would support you being allowed to raise possible moves at
    WP:RM. Your past behaviour has led to you being placed under these conditions, so don't moan on here that you are being held to a higher standard of behaviour than other (non-disruptive) editors. The topic ban is indefinite, which means "without a set length of time before it expires". Should you prove that you can edit in a collaborative way and accept consensus over the use of diacritics, then the topic ban may be looked at at some point in the future. Mjroots (talk
    ) 14:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

    With over 30,000 constructive edits I have demonstrated that I do edit collaboratively, and that I do accept the consensus over the use of diacritics, which is spelled out at

    WP:RM for controversial moves. Dolovis (talk

    ) 16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

    I'll see your 30,000 edits and raise you my 100,000 edits. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

    • Number of edits don't show you edit collaboratively. A person could have 1 million edits and never talk to another user. Editing collaboratively requires discussing topics in a civil manor and not resorting to attacking user and trying to find loopholes to get your way such as your admitted use of double editing redirects to stop others from being able to move articles. Such edits show that you actually go out of your way not to be collaborative. Many users have asked you to stop your disruptive methods and discuss your issues in a centralized location civilly. You did not do so. As such you now find yourself in the position you are in now. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

    • Indeed, he made such a request in the past, and the community agreed to relax his original restrictions. Our trust was subsequently abused, so here we are again. I would add that I endorse 28bytes' interpretations. Dolovis' response is precisely why we use the phrase "broadly construted" on these things, because he is showing he intends to try and wikilawyer around the edges of this as far as we will let him. Resolute 14:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

      • My stated concern here is that Admin 28bytes has over-stated the topic ban, and that the topic ban he has defined if too vague and too broad. My stated arguments are supported by facts and policy. You don't like my policy-supported logic, so you call it wikilawyering. Even though I disagreed with the previous ban, I followed it without exception. That demonstrates that I do follow a consensus even though I disagree with it. I followed the ban - I did not abuse your trust. I was subsequently blocked for one week for performing proper edits that were not ban restricted. No one else has ever been blocked for creating a perfectly valid redirects, double-edits or not - and I was blocked without warning. In any event, multiple edits to a redirect cannot be considered disruptive because all controversial moves should go through

        WP:RM. Dolovis (talk

        ) 16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        Dolovis, I once wrote a very short essay, and I think it applies to your approach to dispute resolution on these redirects as well. As for the other issue, complaints that community restrictions are too vague and too broad are not unheard of, and are within ArbCom's remit. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3#Motion for example. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations to

A redir is necessary, but I don't think redir to the song is appropriate, as that makes a minor song article into a BLP. It's mother's song, send the baby redir to her. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, if there are no objections, I'll go ahead and do that. Given the repeated attempts at an article, does anything preclude a protected redirect? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've created the redir. Personally, now that it's a redir, I'd be inclined to unprotect or at least reduce to semi. As it's an R-to-section, semi would allow regular users to fix that when the Beyonce article gets its sections renamed. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I've semi-protected the redirect. Thanks all. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Hello there,

There seems to be a lot of aggressive editing by IPs on the Indians_in_Afghanistan page, with one IP continually violating the three-revert rule. Can the article be made semi-protected?

Kind regards

--Rvd4life (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Page semi'd by
  WP:RFPP will get you a quicker response.) I'm marking as resolved. --64.85.214.165 (talk
  ) 10:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just keeping you in the loop; we're going to be testing another change to the Article Feedback Tool on starting today, January 11. So far, we've done a bit of small-scale experimentation with the actual design of the tool, as announced on the blog, the village pump, and on various mailing lists. This has all been on a tiny fraction of articles (~22k total articles, about 0.6% of the English Wikipedia), and a lot of really useful data has been gathered without bothering the vast majority of editors or readers. Ideally, that's what we'd aim for with all tests :).

Even with Wikipedia readership reaching half a billion users per month, the feedback form its current position (at the end of the article) doesn’t see a whole lot of activity. In this test, we’ll be experimenting with a more prominent way to access to tool. When a user loads the page with the test version of the Article Feedback Tool, they will see an “Improve this article” link docked on the bottom right hand corner of the page (please see this for a mockup). Since this link is docked, it will stay with the reader while they’re reading the article. The introduction of this link will undoubtedly increase the amount of feedback. We need to, however, understand how it affects the quality of the feedback. We genuinely don't know what the impact will be, which is why we're doing these tests :). As with the last tests, it'll be on a very small subset of articles and probably won't be noticed by most people.

If you do encounter it, and it does bug you, you can turn it off just by going into Preferences > Appearance > Don't show me the article feedback widget on pages. If you've already ticked this option, the new link shouldn't appear at all; please do let me know if it does. We are working on a way to disable it "in-line" as well so you can simply dismiss the link without going to preferences.

We’ll also be doing some preliminary analysis on whether such a prominent link cannibalizes editing behavior. The team is very aware that the new link may compete with the edit tab and section edit links. Since the test version of the tool is deployed on a limited number of articles, we will only get a rough read on how much, if any, cannibalization takes place. Per our research plan, we’ll continue to monitor the tradeoff between giving feedback and editing.

If any of you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me or drop a note on the talkpage.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't sure where to bring this. Can someone go

Yeah, hidden text is not that unusual.

Help:Hidden text gives some reasons when and when not to use it. 28bytes (talk

) 21:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

False vacuum (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Note that you don't need the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/" business in the redirect; I'm not sure if that's why it was giving you an error message. 28bytes (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The incorrect format is exactly why it was giving the error message: there's an edit filter to prevent that sort of malformed redirect. --Carnildo (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As well there should be. Sorry for being stupid. (I've created many redirects before, so why I screwed up this one is a mystery to me.) False vacuum (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I am reporting

They have been blocked for edit warring by Daniel Case. TNXMan 19:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

See [26], the revdel done on January 3 seems highly inapropriate, the summary the admin doiong them used makes it clear that they completely do not understand what revdel is for, as they indicate that their edits were "silly mistakes" so they went and removed them entirely, even coming back and removing their own username from the page history. This is exactly what revdel is not for, I can't imagine why he thought it appropriate to use it in this manner to hide his own mistakes. I would revert the revdel myself but I recently had a minor disagreement with this admin so I'd like fresh eyes on this. I did try to discuss this with them first on their talk page but they seem to have taken a wiki-break and have not replied to my inquiries about this.

I agree with your interpretation. The very first warning on the revdel page reads: "Redaction to hide block log entries or hide mere poorly considered actions, criticisms, posts, etc, outside these criteria and without required consensus, or agreement by the arbitration committee, will usually be treated as improper use and may lead to arbitration and/or desysopping." (emphasis mine) TNXMan 19:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, that's not what revdel is for. It appears the admin misunderstood RD6. 28bytes (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think what we've got here is a well-meaning admin who took a long break from using their tools and came back to a Wikipedia they didn't really understand anymore. Our initial disagreement was over one revert I made of an edit of his, next thing I knew he was over at ANI accusing me of wheel warring. [27]

talk

) 19:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that is not a valid use of RevDel and those 3 entries should be undeleted. GB fan 19:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Would someone care to do that and then inform him of the results? I don't think he is interssted in listening to me so it would be best if someone else handled that end of it.

talk

) 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it. 28bytes (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

talk

) 19:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I originally posted this on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, but perhaps I am more likely to get an answer here.

I have recently started an RFC/U for an editor with what I perceive as a pattern of problematic editing (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shakehandsman). After failing to have the RFC/U shut down with threads on AN and AN/I, the editor has now declared that they have left Wikipedia. I am concerned that this editor may simply wait for things to settle down and return to editing, or just create another account in order to avoid the RFC/U altogether. I suppose my question is this - if an editor ducks out of an RFC/U by falsely claiming to leave Wikipedia, can the RFC/U be re-opened once the editor commences editing again (with the same or a new account)? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I know of at least one that's being put on held indefinitely (though I don't think he'll come back, it's not impossible). There's also an arbitration case in this state as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can put RFC/Us on hold. Despite the number of editors who think they'll just duck out until it all blows over (partly driven by their erroneous belief that there's a strict 30-day timer on RFC/Us, so if they take a 30-day wikibreak, they can ignore the whole thing), it's not commonly done, but the usual process seems to be adding a short note to the page explaining the situation and then removing the link from the list of open RFC/Us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it safe to assume that the same principle applies even if an RFC/U is not explicitly put on hold? If an editor returns after an RFC/U has been closed due to inactivity (i.e., the editor left), the RFC/U is no more or less resolved than one which has explicitly been put on hold. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• As the admin who placed it on hold, you might have just asked me or at least bothered to let me know about this thread. If you actually bother to read the statements I made on both the RFCU itself [28] and the talk page [29] you would find that I made all this perfectly clear when doing the close.
  talk
  ) 19:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, I think anyone who looks at the RFC/U which I linked above will see that. I am sorry that I didn't notify you of this thread, but although prompted by the Shakehandsman case, the question I have is more general. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It was also already answered, so I'm a little unclear on why you felt the need to ask it at all, let alone go to arbcom about it, but whatever.

talk

) 19:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you find thread annoying, but read my question above. That is the question I am asking and it has not been answered. If you believe your statements at the Shakehandsman RFC/U answer it, please spell it out for me because I can be a little slow sometimes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• There is another example of an RfC/U on permanent hold at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/YellowMonkey. Perhaps it would be worth having three categories for RfC/Us – open, closed, on hold. --JN466 20:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but does "closed" mean "closed" or "on hold" if an editor returns to editing? What if an editor is found to have returned to editing with a new username, but their RFC/U was not placed "on hold" because it was believed that they left the project? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any new categories or procedures are needed. If the situation you describe were to come to pass, the old RFC could be re-opened, or a new one with links to the old one, or, more likely straight to arbcom since it would be clear they did in fact leave just to shut down the RFC. Something like that has happened, in the case of

talk

) 23:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that many of

 Done TNXMan 16:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Not strictly an administrator's item, but probably of great interest... In order to allow time for the WMF to technologically support any action taken regarding

If they've been editing without trouble since 2006, I'd certainly be happy to let them keep their username. 28bytes (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. I suspect the user may be related to be

talk

) 17:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way of searching all registered usernames to find ones that (1) have the @ character, and (2) are not blocked? Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? As far as I know, it is not possible any more to create user names with "@" in them, so all you'd find would be user names that have been created before the rule to forbid them was established. Therefore there'd be no reason for us to do anything about it. --Conti|✉ 18:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need to go there with this name, but for future reference we do have a dedicated noticeboard for such discussions at

talk

) 19:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My point was that we could find all the existing usernames and let their owners know that they're grandfathered, lest someone later come along and try to block them because of the policy. Nyttend (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend had a point there. If all user who have e-mail addresses as their username and are grandfathered in could be sought out, then the fact can be recorded on their talk page so that if another editor stumbles across them and attempts to report them, they will be aware that there will not be any action taken over the user name. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a good idea. Now back to the question of how to do it....

talk

) 19:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure its a great idea. Do we have any evidence that such users are being inappropriately blocked? If they are not, I think we can leave well enough alone; this sounds like a solution in search of a problem. I patrol UAA fairly regularly, and I and several other regular admins there (AFAIK) are pretty concientious at looking for grandfather issues and are highly unlikely to block borderline cases like this outright. --Jayron32 03:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a note at

WP:UN saying that it is not possible to create such usernames now and any that are found have been granted grandfather rights would suffice to cover the situation? Mjroots (talk

) 08:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

They are grandfathered in. I don't know where that is documented, but I know we don't do forced renames or blocks for this sort of thing. MBisanz ^talk 13:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFCN and in most cases should be left alone. --Jayron32

20:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin please have a word with this user? I have tried twice [30][31] to speak to this user about using edit summaries, only to be summarily reverted. Given their penchant for multiple edits to a single page, it's rather annoying to have to look at each edit to try and figure out what they're doing. Will notify. → ROUX ₪ 17:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess my question would be - are there specific issues with their edits that are masked by their non-use of edit summaries? I don't believe that edit summary use is enforceable by any current policy. I didn't see that they have ever used edit summaries, and their blanking of the talk notice indicates that they have read your note. Syrthiss (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I read and blanked the talk notice. Since I don't know what an 'edit summary' is, I am glad to see the use of edit summaries is not mandatory. Victoriaedwards (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

For your edification, I present the English Language wikipedia players performance of

WP:ES. I do note that Roux's notes did not include a link to that, but at the same time I view the statement of a long-term contributor not knowing what an edit summary is with some bemusement. Regards, Syrthiss (talk

) 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Syrthiss. As a long-term contributor, I have been 'briefly describing the changes I have made' using 'Edit summary', and will continue to do so. (: Victoriaedwards (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I see where you have occasionally done so, but it would be helpful to other editors if you did so more consistently. Looking at your last 200 or so edits, it seems like you only do so about once every 25-50 times you edit an article. This isn't really a good thing, you should enter an edit summery after every edit. In the edit summary box below the edit window, please write a brief description of what you do, and do so each time you make a change to an article. Doing so is helpful to other editors, which is why you should do it. Not doing things because they are, in your words, "not mandatory" is not a good way to work in collaboration with thousands of other people. It would be best if you did things that were helpful or useful for others, instead of demanding to be forced to do them. --Jayron32 20:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi!

It's been so long since I last page protected anything, I had to resort to going back to New Admin School! Anyway, I have semi-protected

It's showing up OK for me. Cache issue, perhaps? 28bytes (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably. I have refreshed the page on my PC, and it still isn't showing. I suspect that my PC needs to be upgraded to something a little faster - maybe a modem attached to an abacus. Still, at least I managed to do it correctly, even if I did need to check I had done it right! Cheers

Coming...

19:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ooooh! A 300-baud acoustic-coupled modem? Awesomeness! (

BWilkins ←track

) 21:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Could we have an uninvolved admin, preferably one who has not edited or discussed with the conflicting parties, to close the RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#RFC_on_Recognizability_guideline_wording? This is the very start of a policy.

The unhappy brave volunteer who answers this call will find a great deal more has happened since, chiefly bitter protests against the poll, and revert-warring on the page itself. But I do not want to raise behavioral issues; this has had quite enough drama. I think that if we have a closure on the poll, the rest of the matter will go away. JCScaliger (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. That short-lived RFC was started in good faith to resolve an issue that had not been settled in unruly discussion that preceded. It was immediately subverted, in controversial circumstances, and I for one explicitly abandoned any involvement. A travesty of due process cannot be thought to reflect consensus for a major provision of core titling policy.

The accompanying disputes have been carried on at diverse pages (including here,

WT:TITLE

until there is a moderation in behaviour.

If the matter is to be reviewed, let it be done thoroughly and let it be done centrally: perhaps here, where we might expect participants' conduct to be better. At least it would be under scrutiny.

Noetica^Tea? 00:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Duplicate. This is a duplicate request. Another request for closing this RFC has been listed here since January 4th, above. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I have added a note at that other request, suggesting that it might be considered superseded. This new request supplies more detail. Noetica^Tea? 03:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action is it possible to add it to watchlist notifications? Bulwersator (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There's already a project-wide banner ad, but in any event the place to ask about this would be

talk

) 18:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be better to duplicate it as maybe somebody disabled irritating banners Bulwersator (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I came across this AfD. It's untranscluded, but reading some of the comments I don't think that transcluding it is the right step to take. Could an admin do what they think is the best course of action for this? — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added an AfD header and listed it in today's list so that it gets a full 7-day discussion. --MuZemike 00:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Transcluding it is always appropriate, unless one of the speedy keep criteria apply. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Personally, I think the "Improve this page"

Perhaps this? You can leave a message on the talk page for the people who are developing the tool. --Kateshortforbob _talk 12:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, Please explain me something,

For the last few days I have been trying to add some information about sex toys to wikipedia. All information were significant, not intending to promote brand, but to write about milestones that have been made. And I have add really small information about three gadgets - 2 vibrators and 1 dildo. 1st vibrator is a vibrator that received a very important award for its design - for a first time a sex toy was awarded!, second is a male vibrator (you have not mentioned it in your text, than there was a dildo which is a first art piece design by a street artist that is at the same time fully functional dildo. There is nothing like this in the world.

You ask for references and links to prove a person knows what one writes, yet you reject information from the source itself. If I wanted to promote brand, I would add any photo and any vibrator just to show the brand. I am showing something historical. If you talk about historical thing such as turning original "green outfit" of a Santa Clause to a "red" one everyone knows now, by a commercial company, since it was made by Coca Cola, you reject it in Wikipedia since it's a brand that is being promoted this way? Yes, it's coca cola in their advertisements changed and promoted "new Santa"!

I dont understand why I have to be no-one and have nothing to do with the brand to be reliable source of valuable information. Yes, I do know the brand - I do photos for them and keep Facebook Profile for Polish funs alive. I am a sex educator and had been doing sex education for years before I found out about Fun Factory. For me finding really fun stuff on internet and wikipedia is a great value - I have always appreciated idea to have been able to get to know really hot interesting stuff. When I stumble uppon Delight (Red Dot Award winner first time in history for a sex toy), Jim O. (dildo by Boris Hoppek street artist) and Duke (male vibrator) I was wondering WHY noboby wrote about things like that on wikipedia. As a sex educator I woul LOVE to know these things. I would LOOOOVE to see those gadgets.

I believie this is highly unfair and shortsighted rejecting information just because it comes from the source and only because it comes from a commercial company look at this as filthy self-promoting brand. I believe this kind of information, if it makes knowledge wider, should be desired at any times!

I do not agree with throwing out my contributions to Vibrator (sex toy) definition. They were significant in meritorical sense.

Regards, Anna Moderska 78.8.160.55 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Were you editing under another IP/Account? The only contribution uder this IP was to AN.Animusv3^{Talk to me! Contribs} 01:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In fact, are you User:Morderska? Animusv3^{Talk to me! Contribs} 01:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Read up on

reliable sources. These are our policies, and they apply equally to all articles (as best we can). If you can learn to write within these policies, you will more likely succeed. Best wishes. Rklawton (talk

) 01:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the difficulty that such articles have had, arises in part from the difficulty of finding reliable sources. It is possible to write them: if, and only if there are good 3rd party sources. If the award was one notable in the mainstream, not just this field, and if it was covered in substantial coverage by mainstream reliable sources, not just press releases or based on press releases, do that one first. Try it as a subpage of you userpage, by starting the page User:Mordovska/whateverthenameis and let someone experience look at it. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin please close

 Done. Jafeluv (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This was proposed by my 6-year old at breakfast, prompted by my "Ask Me About Wikipedia" shirt:

Whenever I color someone's Wikipedia blue that means they didn't do a good job. They get a zero. Whenever they get a pink circle that means they did really really really bad. If they get this color [holds up yellow marker] they get a one THOUSAND.

Fellow editors, you are placed on notice: the time for screwing around is over. I've notified the Foundation of course, in the usual way. Please, let's make this a yellow day. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything to obtain "OVER 9000!"? Blackmane (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It is probably as good a system as the feedback tool that was introduced last year. Is she open to bribery? Something that would survive a journey across the Atlantic? - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the shirt read "Ask me about Wikipedia."? I don't believe that there is a need for capitalisation and the period is missing. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Mine says, "ASK ME ABOUT WIKIPEDIA" (no punctuation). So I guess I'm shouting when I wear it. Any complaints should be addressed to the Foundation, as they ordered the shirts. -- Donald Albury 17:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked them all. All that shouting is disruptive. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have one :) If I did then perhaps "Ask me about Wikipedia?" would reflect my nature best. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC) ::::::You don't have one cause you didn't get to hang with the cool people in Boston, all expenses paid. Kid at the grocery store asked me if I worked for Wikipedia--I guess the proper answer is no, no? Drmies (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia asks me Blackmane (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not reporting anyone (just yet) but I've been accused of WP:OWN on

HELLO?????? Anyone here who can help? The user has now reverted back the citation needed tags and yet no one here can help? Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I imagine this hasn't been replied to because it is not an "issue affecting administrators generally"; this would be considered an "incident" so probably belongs at AN/I. (But it would have been nice if someone would have told you that right away....) Looking at the accused user's talk page, am I missing something or were their first messages they received warnings and a block? I see no welcome template or (hardly) any other personal notes -- most everything is a warning template. That's disappointing.

I see they have opened discussion on the talk page, but really that should have been your first action. No comment on the {{

cn}} tags, but the {{pbneutral}} template goes on the talk page, not the article. And the {{Advert}} template? The article is three sentences, I don't see any weasley wording, so I must be missing some history between you two on that. What I see here is two editors vested passionately in the same article but have different opinions and an utter communications disconnect. To answer your question: This will be best handled at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Rgrds. --64.85.216.193 (talk

) 14:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. Also, an

Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions

) 17:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The advert tag is for the "episode" summaries which displays it as such. Thanks for replying, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 20:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No hard feelings.

Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions

) 00:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, he is edit warring. He said he will no longer edit war, but he wilfully continues to do so. 24 hours was not enough of a block. He should get an indefinite block or something. This needs to stop.  MegastarLV  (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC).

Yes. They need to be blocked from these pages. They are disrupting others and are being ignorant to guidelines and want the pages to be updated to their liking/their fitting. Its wrong.

Jar

20:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Bocked 1 week for continued edit warring. --MuZemike 20:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This behavior has been ongoing since 2009. Wingard only purpose on Wikipedia is to slavishly update the episode counts for soap operas, and will revert anyone who tries to do it before him. I'll agree with the one week block, but think if the behavior is continued after the block and indefinite block should be placed on the account. AniMate 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, this would better be suited to

WP:ANI if the edit warring were somewhat slower than 4+ per day. Nyttend (talk

) 23:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

To note that Risker (talk · contribs), NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) and myself have closed and summarised the discussion around the proposed site blackout, all revealed at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action#Summary and conclusion. Please note our request that all administrative actions that have a time period for consideration be extended past the normal time period for the period of the blackout (24 hours). — billinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_data_storage

Some dork vandalized this article. Can someone restore this article to it's pre-vandalized condition, because i don't know how? kthanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.130.121.48 (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed at 10:55 by Shadowjams (talk · contribs) -- Luk ^talk 11:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

[[32]]. Possibly trolling, but needs prompt attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've emailed the foundation. In the future, per

WP:SUICIDE, we should always just forward on the claims to them and let them figure out what to do (unless we have some reason to believe the threat is very serious, than a brave and committed person might also contact local authorities). Qwyrxian (talk

) 01:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I've already done that. Posted here and the e-mailed immediately - I think the instructions suggest doing both... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative#Note_on_excluded_pages. If we exclude pages from the blackout, we'll need to protect them in a clean state before the beginning of the blackout. Cenarium (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

So, like it or not, we're on strike tomorrow. One question to consider is what about our time-bound processes? That's basically RfA, PROD and AfD. The RfA that is currently ongoing, MikeLynch, there is consensus to extend it by a day, so it'll close on Sunday rather than Saturday. I'm going to suggest that we do the same thing for deletion: let's just extend all ongoing PROD and AfD periods by a day. Admins should just slow down and not close AfDs or delete PRODs started before the blackout for an extra day. That seem like a reasonable solution?

Any other things we need to tidy up before the blackout starts? —Tom Morris (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually prefer to ignore the lost day on AfD and PROD. It's just one day, I think our processes can survive being visible one day shorter once in 10 years. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We should at least not close any time-bound process for 24 hours after the blackout ends. -- Donald Albury 11:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence of the administrator's closing note at

Ghost

11:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

@Albury: Apart, obviously, those that are already a day late. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll be able to get around the blackout relatively easily (if the implementations I have seen are what is going to happen). So we can still close AFD's and block vandals etc. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you won't be able to edit even if you can read. The write API is going down too. There'll be no edits, no blocking people... and no

WP:ANI! —Tom Morris (talk

) 11:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, only stewards and sysadmins will be able to edit English Wikipedia during that time. vvv^t 11:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Martijn Hoekstra, we should just carry on as normal here, if a discussion is close then extended it by a day (in the case of AfD, just move it to the next days listing, the one RfA has been sorted already, as for PROD's more offten or not they don't get deleted on the dot of 7 days so use discretion with deleting them. The more we get hung up on the internal policies of this this the less effective it becomes.

Mtking ^(edits)

01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Our community and social processes will be delayed by a day, but the technical processes won't as far as I understand; for instance, blocks and protections set to expire during the blackout should still have expired by the time we are back online, i.e. they cannot be extended by a day like our deletion processes can be. Needless to say, we'll have a few more PRODs and AFDs to handle when are get back online. --MuZemike 12:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Guess that means I'll be adding 24 hours to any blocks I issue today. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Does it, though? If the purpose of the block is to give them a chance to reevaluate things, the reason why they can't edit should be immaterial. Having said that, it would depend on the reasoning behind the block, I suppose. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This climbing-the-Capitol-Dome political stunt feels like a 24 hour block for every Wikipedia volunteer and user. Edison (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We need to make sure that the bots we depend on don't crash when the site gets locked. --Rschen7754 19:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears the bot owners are already discussing those issues.

talk

) 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You guys realise that SOPA's been shit-canned right? So all you're gonna accomplish here is pissing off a lot of people... HalfShadow —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC).

Reasons for concern [33]

Nobody Ent

00:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not cancelled and it never was [34]. It still poses the same existential threat to Wikipedia as it always did. 87.115.118.8 (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA isn't dead, and the US Senate still intends to vote on PIPA. The issue is not dead, unfortunately. Resolute 01:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

If blocks are extended due to the SOPA blackout please include a note to that effect in the block log summary.

Honestly, I wouldn't bother extending any blocks myself. It seems more punitive than anything to do so. Resolute 01:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, anonymous editing has been disabled for last-minute cleanup.
  cool stuff
  ) 04:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )

This is highly visible and it's attracting some vandals at the moment. RPP is too slow in view of the upcoming blackout.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I got it for 3 days; it may well need further protection after the blackout it over, which should be able to be handled throuhg normal channels. And this shall be my last post before we go dark. Good luck everyone, in that weird, wild place we call the real world! Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

We go dark in 91 minutes as of this post. Good luck!Jasper Deng (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone know where I can get one? Apparently I'll need one tomorrow. Seriously, what are we all going to get up to? I intend to spend some time over at Commons doing some cat checking etc. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)