Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive206

Speedy deletion of hoax pages during AfD

There are two pages at AfD which are blatant hoaxes. They are

• London City F.C, AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London City F.C and
• Ardwick Association Football Club, Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ardwick Athletic F.C. (page moved after AfD started.

Both were created by a sockpuppet of the much-banned The One & Only Fools and Horses.

I have seen items speedily deleted during an AfD before, but is it normal practice to nominate hoaxes, copyvios etc for speedy deletion while an AfD is in progress?   pablo_hablo. 01:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between hoax and copyvio speedies and other kinds of speedies? Or are you asking if any speedy deletion during AfD should be allowable at all? (I'm confused because you said you "have seen items speedily deleted during an AfD before".) -- Atama頭 01:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that these are different from other kinds of speedy deletion. At AfD, hoaxes, copyright violations, 'attack' pages tend to be more speedily dealt with; due, I suppose, to the potential harm they could cause to either the project or the subject of the page. Here's an example of a hoax at AfD. What I wanted to know was - if it becomes apparent that an article at AfD is a speedy candidate, should it be nominated for speedy deletion?   pablo_hablo. 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. My understanding is that there is no policy that governs this. There's nothing written at WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:DP, or at any related policy that states whether or not speedy deletions occurring during AfDs are allowed. The closest I can find is in the speedy deletion policy, where it states, "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations."

That suggests to me that speedy deletions should be allowed if an article has had a large number of delete !votes, meets one of the specific criteria, and nobody opposes deletion (I would consider a "keep" !vote to be equivalent to an editor removing a CSD tag). They should also be allowed for copyright violations discovered during the course of the AfD. Hoaxes and attack pages, while potentially harmful, shouldn't be given the same treatment as copyright violations because a copyright violation is a pretty cut-and-pastedry issue; either someone copied the text or didn't. Whether or not something actually is a hoax or an attack page is usually a subjective determination that can be determined in the course of the AfD itself.

This is my personal opinion based on the analysis of what is written in the CSD policy, and what I feel the "spirit" of the policy is. It would be nice if our existing policies directly addressed this issue. -- Atama頭 02:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion should be considered during AfD depending on the sort of speedy deletion requested. G7 or G12 are no brainers: just nuke it, assuming the trigger criteria are genuinely met. Others should stand if uncontested (G10), but never be used if there's a good-faith dissenting vote. I do G3 for obvious hoaxes if someone has asserted it's a hoax, it seems like a hoax, I can't verify it, and no one else defends against the allegation. In short, CSD-during-AfD is an art, rather than a science. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is nothing to stop an article being speedied during a discussion - generally this is because new information comes to light - eg a copyvio is discovered. Obviously this its a no-brainer, I'd personsally say deleting something as a hoax during an afd is fine. If someone doesn't like the outcome there is always DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I would generally tend to agree with Spartaz. If the AfD discussion has made it evidently clear that a subject is a speedy candidate, and no one is objecting, then I'd generally tend to speedy it—no use wasting time on finding out the obvious. If the issue is less clear cut, or someone has objected (for example, there's a comment such as "I think I've found a source that confirms this and am working on it"), I'd be much more inclined to let it run its course. But there isn't, and shouldn't be, any hard and fast rule against nominating an article at AfD for speedy deletion if it is speedyable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all.   pablo_hablo. 12:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree a little with Seraphimblade -- but it may be just a slight difference in emphasis. Unless it is proven to be a hoax during the Afd--which certainly do happen , I would regard the 7 full days of discussion necessary more for this than other deletion reasons, because for the minority of ones that turn out to not be hoaxes, it often takes a while for someone to come around who recognizes it. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Obvious hoax really depends on who considers it obvious. If it's outside of my subject areas (which is 99.9% of the time), obvious must be proven reasonably well. tedder (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The guiding maxim should be (with the exception of offensive BLPs) "if in doubt, don't delete". Granted, on some occasions factors (such as creation by a known vandal) will mean there is really no room for doubt.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's a proven hoax, tag and zap. If it meets the criteria of "blatant" hoax but someone sent it to AFD out of timidity and during discussion everyone says "why didn't you speedy this" or equivalent, tag and zap. Otherwise, let the AFD run the full week or until it gets WP:SNOWed under. By the way, it doesn't hurt to have one editor, admin or not, tag it for speedy when it's proven a hoax or when the consensus is that it should've been speedied in the first place, and have a different admin do the actual deletion. Unlike attack pages and copyright violations, there's no time pressure with most hoaxes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Malfunction on Murder of Meredith Kercher

Could somebody take a look at this article. A user is reporting that the edit history is not displaying anything since 16th December. It is displaying fine for me. See Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher#Malfunction of this Article on Wikipeida Processor. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks up-to-the-minute to me also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a cache issue on that person's local machine, not a problem with the article. Chick Bowen 03:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems like I had a similar issue sometime this month. I just assumed I was hitting a database with a stale copy. The problem went away on its own within a reasonable period of time. This was just one of several minor mini-glitches in the past month or two. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed File Warning Templates

Hi all. I noticed that we don't have a standard set of warning templates for users who repeatedly upload images without copyright status, fair use rationale, sources, ect. I've drafted several warning templates in hopes we will be able to use these to warn repeat offenders instead having to type out a block warning each time. Since these are still in draft form, it would be greatly appreciated if willing users could help to improve the drafts below. Thanks! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• User:Fastily/Sandbox/uw-ics1
• User:Fastily/Sandbox/uw-ics2
• User:Fastily/Sandbox/uw-ics3
• User:Fastily/Sandbox/uw-ics4

I've recently added notes to {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{Non-free use rationale}} showing that both templates are required for copyrighted images. This should prevent some instances of images being uploaded but missing one or the other template (made this mistake myself recently). Mjroots (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fastily, your templates look great to me. Nice work! — Kralizec! (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

getting consensus on blocking a disruptive user

AFAICT, there's no place to deal with long-term users that need discussion before blocking or banning. After a user has been warned many times and blocked a few times, what's the options? WP:RFC/U (aside from its issues) is best geared for users who are productive. As an administrator who is somewhat involved, where should I turn for an admin consensus of disruption? (ANI hasn't been too useful) tedder (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

From a non-admin but ANI-contributor view, I raise an eyebrow whenever this happens, which is often. From WP:UNINVOLVED-- In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process. Problem solved! Things done with discretion from outside parties at the existing incident boards! ...But not. It's sadly obvious this happens less than 0% of the time. Alternatives given there are an RfC/A or RFAR but I'd assume this was meant to be rare. Even the existence of such place for discussion would be a confession of "above the law" status... I'd have to agree with that, and my opinion of sysop work in the Encyclopedia are incredibly high versus most users. ArbCom? It's unlikely it was ever thought that day-to-day civility disputes that involved familiar usernames would stalemate constantly and get a shotgun wedding to them over one half-controversial block. Same of long-time friendships between users causing a "no consensus". cont.

Why not work it the same way as with any other users? No one ever demands mass consensus for what are "obvious" infractions where a block is common, so why a desperate fight over any length of any sanctions whatsoever for an admin? Admins are normal users at their core that can do silly things or act the fool like anyone else, after all. What's stopping actions done at low levels? Blocks on 3RR, civility and disruptive editing that are short and precisely-defined if done to a "normal" user should not differ at all for some persons or admins... but do. Some things I've seen let slide are really ridiculous... it happens a lot. Users see what those people can get away without sanction, act the same way, get blocked and are rightfully upset about the double standard. ...This is just op-ed; I don't understand why normal methods aren't used, and I'm in no position to offer possible solutions. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think ANI is the only real forum for that situation. Admin or not, the best tools here are clarity and good diffs. Succinctness helps, too, but is usually beyond me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrator identification questions

Wikipedia:Administrator accountability has recently been marked as {{rejected}}. I've posted a number of questions on the talk page (here: Wikipedia talk:Administrator accountability#Questions for the future) to consider. If anyone can provide insight into some of these questions or can contact someone who can, that would be very much appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Experienced users and admin help needed

I've been trying to deal with an enforcement request concerning conduct on Mass killings under communist regimes (an article I am unconvinced can exist safely) and I do not believe it is properly within the auspices of arbitration enforcement. I do think the article and the dispute needs a lot of volunteer eyes, so I am asking for the help of those with sufficient clue and fortitude to intervene. Expect some infighting to follow below.--Tznkai (talk)

• (Rhetorical comment) "with sufficient clue and fortitude to intervene" (beautifully said) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• This was already the subject of an ANI report prior to the AE report Tznkai mentions. This is a legitimate content dispute, no one is being disruptive, formal mediation would be the appropriate venue to handle this, not admin intervention. --Martin (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Formal mediation requires the assent of all parties. If ya'll could manage that, you wouldn't be at AN, AE, or ANI.--Tznkai (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case, no one has attempted formal mediation, so it can't be said that assent was impossible to obtain. --Martin (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Then please, attempt it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has a number of legitimate content disputes. These have been proceeding relatively normally given the article, and are currently uncovering new textual sources and broadening the understanding of existing textual sources. The original ANI, and Request for Enforcement were about a very limited set of behaviour by one user: User:Termer who has a habit of repeatedly mischaracterising, misquoting, and selectively quoting important secondary works and other users to the point that his actions disrupt the article. For example, while the Request for Enforcement was ongoing, Termer was busy requesting that a user to supply extensive quotations, and when these were made, attacked the user on a [Too Long; Didn't Read basis]. The effect of Termer's engagement in this thread was to derail it from an evidenced discussion of the credibility of a particular academic source, and redirect it into the discussion yet again of Termer's conduct and random quotation of policy (this time, primary). We rely on Termer to quote and characterise accurately in an article that is fundamentally reliant on an accurate literature review of academic sources, and he has not done so. We rely on Termer to participate in the article without mischaracterising and misquoting the immediate previous statements of other editors. Termer is incapable of doing this, and the result is disruption. Other editors with similar opinions to Termer within the content debate are perfectly capable of civil, appropriate discussion, and in my mind the content discussion will eventually resolve itself on the article talk page (the primary content disputes resolution method) through reference to highest quality reliable sources if the climate of discussion is not damaged by disruptive conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Fifelfoo's characterisation of Termer. Unlike Termer, Fifelfoo has actually been recently reported to AN3 for edit warring the article in question. This is real disruption, not questioning Fifelfoo's interpretation of the sources on talk. Fifelfoo has pursued Termer on ANI, then AE, and now apparently here. This WP:wikiviolence must end. --Martin (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Also forum shopping etc. on what is a content issue best suited for informal mediation (which takes a fraction of the time that formal mediation usually entails). A completely outside editor willing to concisely state what the issues appear to be, and working with them on a one-by-one basis, can make things work (see Talk:Judaism for what I consider an example of separating the issues). Collect (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:wikiviolence is not an appropriate accusation in this case. There's no doubt that Termer's behviour is dispruptive. However, I think he is also a bit of a lightning-rod for more general issues. Mediation may help, but since the basic question is really "should this article exist or not", I say: good luck to the mediator. I suspect the article in question is just one for "evidence why Wikipedia is not always so great". "Hope no-one ever looks at it" might be the best that can be achieved. --FormerIP (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I definitely have disrupted the editors who after the third failed Afd [1][2][3] keep arguing on the talk page that the article should be still deleted, and meanwhile keep massively blanking sourced material [4]from the article instead of adding any alternative viewpoints to it. Just that anybody who has accused me, please make a difference between disrupting Wikipedia and disrupting the disruptive editing by attempting to engage in a discussion about the changes in the article instead of going along with the edit war. Other than that, I haven't taken this witch hunt on me personally that has already made it to a third notice board, it just tells me that whoever has chosen to use me for a "lightning-rod" (according to FormerIP) just don't have any reasonable arguments about how the article could be improved. And the bottom line the way I see it, as it is now, the article is pretty much unreadable due to massive blankings and a long lasting edit warring.--Termer (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh.... It never stops, does it? What we have here are two sides with opposing viewpoints on what the page should contain, and both sides legitimately believe their version is correct. As such, it is natural for each side to believe that their side is the one that is policy abiding and that the other side is biased or against policy. And since each side is deeply rooted in their editorial stance and believe that their opponents are the policy-violating ones, it is natural that they will accuse the other side of edit warring, disruption, vandalism, etc etc. And since that other side being accused believes that they are in fact the ones who are right, they in turn accuse that other side who is accusing them of battleground-ing, harassment, personal attacks, witchhunts, etc. And this goes back and forth ad infinitum.

Termer, you have indeed harassed your content opponents with vexatious complaints. You opened up 2 AN/I threads, a frivolous RFC/N thread and a baseless sockpuppet investigation all against a certain editor. It may well be that Fifelfoo is harassing you, I don't know. However you need to realize that you are guilty of exactly what you are accusing your opponents of. Triplestop x3 01:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're correct Triplestop on one thing that I have overreacted on Wikipedia once after I was insulted with name calling. But I've learned my lesson and don't see such insulting remarks as anything that should be my problem really.--Termer (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would point out again, this time to Triplestop, that what was advocated for "Communist genocide" is simply to relate what reputable sources state regarding the subject. Instead, the "topic" was assaulted on the basis of requiring some formal "definition", etc., etc. This is not about opposing viewpoints, this is about editors waging every Wiki-lawyering point they can to censor content. There's no conflict in "beliefs" here—that is, however, what the content censors would like you to believe.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite understand - are you saying that the inclusion of all genocide by totalitarian regimes (a stable feature of such regimes of whatever political hue) has been censored by those fools who want to portray Communists as being uniquely evil unlike the cuddly fluffy right-wing totalitarians? Guy (Help!) 23:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to realize that this is not a one-sided issue like you believe it is. There are valid arguments that one could argue for not including certain things (synth, pov, or, undue, indiscriminate, etc) yet you believe that what you are advocating is the only right way, hence your accusations of censorship. My comment above applies to everyone. Triplestop x3 00:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

To JzG, I was stating that there was a reputable non-controversial manner in which to deal with a topic and it was ignored in favor of arguments stating sources did not exist, no definition, et al. regarding communist genocide.

   To Triplestop, I am not advocating my personal right way, I am advocating the proper manner in which to construct an encyclopedia article regardless of the subject. It is when editors begin to create their own definitions that the issues start. The "definition" of a subject is the compendium of what reputable sources state about it.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears that most of the article is compilation or overview of other articles. Little of the content prior to the "Causes" section ties together the different regimes' genocides. It might be better refactored into a WP:List-class article, content in the specific articles, and a succinct new article discussing the common characteristics of such events. Such a new article might be better if it included all stripes of regime, not just communist. If they come after your family, you don't care much about their motivations. LeadSongDog come howl 19:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that nobody can ever bring themselves to create an article on foo under totalitarian regimes, but always feels the need instead to make out that it's only the Left who do this? And that's before you get into the crap about how the Nazis were obviously socialists like Obama because they used the word socialist in their party title. It would be really nice to see an occasional political article that wasn't surrounded by the ground-down nubs of a thousand axes.

I wish I could exist in that world too. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We checked. List class articles follow the same rules on there actually being an object of study. The presence or absence of an object of study (the Synthesis argument) is a major debated point. So listification won't solve the problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Quack, quack

Róbert Gida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - a "brand new user" whose first act on Wikipedia is to tell us we need to add to the biography of Barack Obama that Obama is personally responsible for the fact that more banks failed under his administration than under that of Shrub. Clearly a disruptive WP:SPA but also almost certainly a sockpuppet. Does anyone recognise the style sufficiently to help identify the sockmaster? Incidentally, Jzyehoshua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also needs reining in, he's pursuing a neocon agenda on Talk:Barack Obama and seems unable to understand that being a liberal is not actually evil as such, so there's no need to use {{evil satanic communist}} on the article... Guy (Help!) 10:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Róbert Gida; RBI per WP:DUCK, and perhaps adding a request to a friendly CU? As for Jzyehoshua, being a self declared liberal I doubt my input would be regarded well (although I suspect that anyone requesting a reigning in of neocon comment will automatically find themselves categorised as a liberal - it is a mindset appealing for those who find thinking hard work.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that by comparison with Jzyehoshua Ronald Reagan was a liberal. That's not such an issue as his apparent inability to see the difference between the New York Times reporting the National Right to Life Committee as saying that Obama "supports infanticide", and the New York Times saying that he supports infanticide. He seems to think that the reporting of this particularly extreme view in some way validates the POV or makes it fact. That is a serious problem, and given his very limited contribution to the project it's hard to see him learning better. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better approach would be to direct their attention to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation#How to avoid being subject to remedies, and particularly bullet point 4? The discussion has been had, the consensus is that the reported interpretations of a few fringe organisations and individuals regarding Obama's views on abortion is not sufficiently notable within the context an biographical article - per the stringent application of WP:BLP - to be included and that further insistence on discussing the matter (let alone editing it into the article) leaves them liable to sanction under the probation. The sweetener would be a promise to discuss the issue again should it become a topic raised within mainstream opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed admin commandment: Thou shalt not block ... for being mocked

Note: A little humor is healthy, but over-extending a joke and edit-warring over it is disruptive. Lets all stop now. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• FYI: Wikipedia:Thou shalt not block for being mocked (Inspired by this topic: an "essay" by an admin.) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, look at that horsie! tedder (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

{{resolved|Nonsensical time wasting.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)}}

• There is not consensus for that, Santa says. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed admin commandment: Thou shalt not block ... for being mocked

"God is not mocked," but thou aren't Her. (smiling seriously)

• Example: Mocking
• Example: Displeasure
• Example: Collapsing incorrigible foolishness (hab expansion down)
• Example: Blockable mockery?
• Example: Blockery of said mockery

Perhaps I should add preamble-atory commentary here about the contemptuously-collapsed L'affaire Fatman — which illuminated the clear dichotomy of administrator perspectives: humour vs disruption. Nah, that covers it. lol -- Proofreader77 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. (as initiator) Proofreader77 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Hell, yes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
3. If you can't take some mockery, enough of the moppery. DuncanHill (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
4. The 11th commandment. (X! · talk)  · @813  ·  18:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
5. This should be similar to not blocking editors or using admin action in disputes for an article to which one has been a significant contributor. Judgment is altered when an admin is called names, or that judgment is called into question, however crudely, by another editor. Blocking for mocking is punishment, not protection. --Moni3 (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Moni puts it well. Nev1 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Already covered in the "don't block someone with whom you are having a dispute", so this would just be WP:CREEP. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   (Ah, yes, important point.) What if an uninvolved administrator arrives on the scene and attempts (badly) to mediate ... and then is mocked for it? The uninvolved administrator was not in a dispute with the mocker, but is now the subject of mockery. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   Then I would oppose based on WP:CREEP as that situation is already covered under WP:CIVIL. We simply do not need yet another rule when everything about this is covered under existing ones. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this as a clarification, not a new rule, and repeated complaints at AN/I and elsewhere show we do need it. This is not a good occasion to rehash them, so I do not link. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

1. I beg to differ. WP:CIVIL is a possible constraint (see first bullet under Discussion) on the mocker, not the blocker. It would seem (to me). :-) Proofreader77 (talk)

   Maybe it's just the way I read it, but I can see WP:CIVIL being applied both ways. It would be uncivil to block someone for simply mocking you. Me, I would just ignore it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   A wise interpretation. How rare and beautiful. (no joke) But wisdom is not a requirement for the bit. :-)

   Ah, did you read the Wikipedia:Civility/Poll. Civility policy is highly contentious. lol (See paraphrase of my comment in Signpost/2009-12-07 "Proofreader77 points to a potential reason the Civility policy has been slow to change: objections might be regarded as uncivil."

   ORIGINAL: "(In keeping with my paralogic comment at the WP:Civility/Poll ...) There is nothing insightful/useful that I could say about civility policy that someone would not find reason to save the dif for use as proof that Proofreader77 should be blocked indefinitely or sitebanned. (Although perhaps that covers it concisely, while smoothly skirting the danger. Perhaps. :-)"

   So, yes, 日本穣 (Nihonjoe) has poked the pointy end of the mop at the right place—however the "wisdom" of the interpreter cannot be assured ... hence my (light/"paralogic") comment for the Civility poll suggesting tax-code-version of civility policy. Wisdom not required to interpret one of those.
   -- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Can WP:CIVILITY be adjusted to compliance with this "commandment?" Proofreader77 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Your subject heading makes no grammatical sense. The implied object of "block" is the person who has been doing the mocking, thus it should be "Thou shalt not block for mocking" or "Thou shalt not block after being mocked," if you want to revert to the subject of the sentence as also the subject of the final clause. Note that abusing grammar and syntax for the sake of a rhyme is a blockable offense (or at any rate it should be). Chick Bowen 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  (I respectfully request time to ponder a reply worthy of this most excellent criticism. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• If this were an actual attempt to amend or extend existing guidelines, I would have serious objections to the proposal as presented. However, I assume that this thread is intended to be a light-hearted commentary on the recent events surrounding TFMWNCB, and therefore I won't be a Scrooge and interrupt the good-spirited fun. Abecedare (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Hear hear. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How long and how vigorously?

Perhaps this is the handle of the mop? (Good coppery vs bad "moppery"? (le rime ala DuncanHill ;-) Proofreader77 (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. More unnecessary drama and joking. All I did was point out the fact that TFMWNCB was being an asshole, called him out on it, but then the cartoon cavalry came in to produce no useful discussion, as I see this will result in soon enough. We should let dead conversations stay dead, because nothing came about from all of that, and nothing will come about out of this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not unnecessary. Were The Fat Man or one of his less sober IRC admin friends so inclined, you would be blocked for calling him an asshole in this line of logic. I have seen too much admin action used to silence dissent under the guise of civility. Admins acting like hall monitors and classroom snitches. --Moni3 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

He thrives on being referred to as such. I doubt anyone other than you will bother saying anything about it (with any serious intent). This proposal is just another time sink that has no purpose.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[pre-mockery advisory] Requesting checkuser. Ryulong's too perfect a foil for this topic not to be a sockpuppet of Proofreader77. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be an idiot.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you're mocking him! :o  ;) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(note: Proofreader77 laughed for 93.2 seconds after reading the above) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I object to the insinuation by Proofreader that Ryulong is Proofreader's sock. I think we've been over this before. ;-)Oberonfitch (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Overruled. (Oberonfitch has recently been accused of being a sock of Proofreader77 at ANI. What happens in ANI stays in ANI. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(always wanted to try these templates :-). Proofreader77 (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedy for Scroogish incivility (above)

Regarding this comment above. Clearly in breach of WP:Civility, I propose the following:

1. Summon a steward. (Perhaps Mike.lifeguard) to ...
2. Remove Ryūlóng's sysop bit for 10 seconds. [N/A]
3. Give Ryūlóng's removed bit [old admin bit from bit bucket] to Proofreader77 for 10 seconds.
4. Proofreader77 will then block Ryūlóng for 10 seconds for the above breach of WP:Civility
5. Remove sysop bit from Proofreader77 and restore bit to Ryūlóng
6. Install cool pirate flag of ex-admin on Proofreader77's userpage.

This would appear to be a "wise" solution (to me) lol Proofreader77 (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been desysopped since May. You should know that because you link to diffs where it is said and I called TFMWNCB a m:dick for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Modify 2-3 for updated information. (I didn't get the memo.) Skip desysop step (give Proofreader77 bit from bit bucket). I know of no diffs but the ones in this topic. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2009 (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.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

The above user conduct request for comment is now live and open for community comment. I sincerely hope we can have a civil and productive discussion regarding the issues described there. While acknowledging that User:ChildofMidnight makes excellent content contributions to Wikipedia, the RfC argues that there have been some serious problems with this editor's behavior, particularly with respect to issues of civility, general style of discussion with fellow contributors, and a "battleground" mentality.

If there are any problems with the formatting or set up of the RfC (I'm new to this) please let me know. Also I'm only posting this note here per the RfC instructions, but if it should be mentioned elsewhere please let me know that as well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The instructions were a tad bit outdated with respect to announcing here (as we didn't have the list of RfC/Us transcluded to the top of this page at the time). Making a note here that the RfC instructions have been updated since this posting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Long term abuse

Documented here. 22:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam S. White (talk • contribs)

Could someone please ban this guy and his sock ASAP. Things are getting real creepy real fast. - Schrandit (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer's actions are intended to get my IP blocked: look at how she decloaked on the ChildofMidnight RfC. So, don't worry, a block is forthcoming. In any case, it doesn't matter how big an asshole she was; what she said about you is true. As usual, you attack others to deflect attention from yourself. - Carrie 69.121.221.174 (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant links:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/69.121.221.174
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sam S. White (approved by clerks, checkuser underway)
• poor man's checkuser
• WP:PLAXICO

Cheers, Durova³⁸⁶ 04:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC) ;)

Durova, if this were solely my concern, you might have a point. But it's not, so you don't. If you look at Schrandit's talk paged, you will find that the following people complained about his tag-and-delete tactics: User:71.139.35.53, User:Thesoxlost, User:Spotfixer, User:Dr.enh, User:Benjiboi, User:Otto4711, User:Exploding Boy, User:Tony877, User:Hiroe, User:Scarykitty, User:Badmachine, User:Reinoutr, and User:Awickert. This is a real problem that must be evaluated on its own terms, not some stupid feud. I know you're probably just trying to help, but all you're doing is protecting Schrandit by helping him focus attention away from his many, many bad edits. With all due respect, you're being played. - Caroline 04:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk • contribs)

Have manually readded the autosignature.[5] Note also.[6] Please do not revert this manual post. Cheers. Durova³⁸⁶ 04:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser completed, admin needed to implement

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sam_S._White Multiple holiday socks in the Christmas drawer. One hung itself on a nail at the Child of Midnight RfC. Seeking admin to pick up the presents left behind (in plain English, please blank the drama-stirring posts per WP:BAN). Ho ho ho and troll the ancient yuletide carol. Cheers, Durova³⁸⁶ 05:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I just did this, before seeing your note. Their ban status may be a little fuzzy, but I think it is very much the right and fair thing to remove their comments. Jehochman ^{Make my day} 05:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. :) Durova³⁸⁶ 06:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above. A summary of the decision may be found at the Arbitration Noticeboard.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Mailer Diablo 17:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock

Generally, is what is them acceptable upper limit for users caught in a rangeblock? I calculated a block and it came back with ~32000 IP's blocked. That seems high to me, but I'm not sure what the norms are. TNXMan 18:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the circumstances. The largest allowed by the software is a /16, but with a little elbow grease, one can often pare that down quite a bit. It also depends on the collateral damage, which is why if your are planning a large rangeblock, it pays to make a Quick request at WP:SPI to see if it is advisable. What in particular are you considering? -- Avi (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

These IPs in particular (109.79.137.215, 109.79.170.218, 109.79.174.61, 109.79.193.159, 109.79.245.126, and 109.79.234.115). The details are on my talk page (bottom section) and involve a banned user evading his/her block. TNXMan 19:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That is part of a pretty dynamic /15 block, let alone a /16 block. You could cover all of the above with an /18, a /22, a /23, and a /24 for 18,176 instead of 65,536 IPs of a /16, but I'd have to see how busy the ranges are. -- Avi (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Check the actual range first using ARIN or the appropriate WHOIS authority. The blocked range should be no bigger than what the authority reports, unless you are deliberately blocking multiple ajacent ranges as a shortcut to blocking each one separately. That's an upper limit. In practice the range is smaller or reduced to a single IP. If the block range reports /16 and you can't shrink it, you may be stuck with the choice of blocking a single IP or not blocking anything, due to collateral damage. A few weeks ago there was a case where someone blocked a /16 when ARIN reported the block-size was /21, and innocent people were unnecessarily caught in the block. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

ARIN reported size is a /15, IIRC, thus the issue :) -- Avi (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. It doesn't seem like I have a lot of options. The user has jumped to a new range entirely (again, see my talk page), so a rangeblock may not even be a good option now. If anyone has any suggestions though, please drop me a line. Cheers! TNXMan 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

With very dynamic IPs such as that, there is not much we can do, but play whack-a-mole and block the individual IPs for a few hours. :( -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Or semi-protect the requisite pages for 24/48 hours, and see if it lets them lose interest. SirFozzie (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've ended up doing for the past hour or so (and have semi-protected the page in question indefinitely). It appears to have died down, so maybe I'm in the clear. Thanks to both of you for the advice. TNXMan 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation

Resolved

 – User blocked per WP:DUCK at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/68.204.29.215 Momo san ^Gespräch 21:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Vianello (Talk) engaged in a serious 3RR violation, and I don't know how to report it, as there seems to be no mechanism. It was done at 68.204.29.215 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iambadatpickingnames (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is the 3RR board.. but let me take a look at the situation here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User has been blocked per WP:DUCK at the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/68.204.29.215, so it's pretty much resolved now. Momo san ^Gespräch 21:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

the curse of AFD relisting

I've seeing quite a few AFDs that have been relisted three times. At what point should they just be closed as no consensus rather than relisting? I mean .. really? A month+ AFD? tedder (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think if an AfD attracts no notice, it should be procedurally relisted once. I would procedurally relist an AfD that has attracted notice but in which no clear consensus has emerged once. I'd stop with once, unless there was ongoing, productive conversation, in which case I'd think relisting again could be appropriate. It's hard to imagine AfD sustaining ongoing, productive conversation for a full month, much less more than. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought - if an AfD is relisted and still has no !votes, shouldn't that be akin to an expired prod... and deleted? Not that I've done this, just thinking. Tan | 39 16:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Rarely does a relisting produce much more than maybe 1 or 2 additional comments (if you're lucky). It is more likely to produce nothing at all. The problem with a lot of AfDs is simply lack of awareness. Even though anyone can freely browse through the list of open AfDs, very rarely do the people whose input is most urgently needed become aware that a relevant AfD is going on. The articles that are most likely to get an AfD with little participation tend to be obscure topics with few people outside of the article's creator having it on their watchlist--even though other editors interested in the main subject area may have relevant input. Yes, we have deletion sorting, article alert services and other ways of notifying people but for some reason we still seem to have a vacuum on participation. I don't know if there is an easy solution for how to increase more awareness and participation but relisting itself doesn't produce much results because it isn't trying to tackle the root cause of low participation. Some how, we need to address that issue instead of continually relisting an AfD. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agne, there's a category for relisted AFDs. Perhaps that's one way to draw attention. I do agree, I'm not sure there are any advantages to relisting multiple times due to inactivity. Not sure what to do about it. tedder (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more broadly advertizing the category (maybe Village Pump?) could offer some benefit. Maybe occasionally a bot could put a notice listing the number of active AfD and request "urgent" attention to the relisted AfDs kinda like how a bot puts a notice on the admin board when WP:DYK is overdue. It is a thought. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tan, a !voteless AFD should be treated just like a prod, if no one cares to say it should be kept in a week, how is it any different. relisting it just prolongs the inevitable--Jac16888^Talk 17:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends. If the article was previously prodded and contested prior to AfD then it really shouldn't be treated as a prod and just deleted without discussion. If the article wasn't prod and has run due course without any comments then it probably is an uncontroversial deletion. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it depends on specific circumstances. I recently restored CyanogenMod, which had been deleted twice before following AfD's. I figured it would end up in AfD again, and did soon after I restored it. This time through, the article survived because notability had in fact changed. The third AfD helped sort this out. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just piling on in support of not relisting repeatedly and deleting an article if nobody has bothered to defend it. I think the low participation at AFD lately is a side effect of how contentious AFD has been in the past, although it doesn't seem as bad right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  Also agree with Tan, Beeble, etc. Wizardman 00:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears, note the discussion is (was?) about relisting the same afd more than once, not creating a new AFD. tedder (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A careful application of WP:BEFORE, especially the options for merging and relisting, can be a good approach to many of these articles. I would not say that "nobody has bothered" to defend an article unless I knew for certain that everyone previously involved in the article had been notified who was still active, & the workgroup had been notified effectively. And, if it is still undefended, if I were handling it like a prod, I would investigate myself before deleting, as I do with expired prods that are not totally obvious. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just found that WP:RELIST says, in bold, "no debate may be relisted more than twice". tedder (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• My personal opinion is that relisting should be done with common sense, on a case by case basis. Either an AFD gets closed as no consensus or gets relisted. I don't think it hurts to relist when you need those 1 or 2 extra !votes. -Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 03:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• I like the idea of treating uncontested but low-discussion AFDs as expired PRODs after 14 days, but for anything else, the decision to close or re-list needs to be at admin's discretion. However, I don't think something that is 2 "delete" and 1 "keep" should be closed as "delete." We've had conversations along these lines at WT:AFD in the past few months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would think it should depend on the circumstances. If an AfD for a local television show has one "delete" !vote that points out that there is absolutely zero coverage in independent sources, a second "delete" that points out that the show was canceled after 2 episodes, and a third !vote to "keep" the article because they saw it as a child and liked it, I'd think that the result should close as "delete". -- Atama頭 00:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Relisting has been a fairly frequent topic in the past few months. See WT:Deletion process (Multiple relists; Made change to relist policy: stay open for 7 days; WP:RELIST wording: only one or two commenters; Another idea to make relisting less of a problem: default decision) and WT:Articles for deletion#AfDs without replies. Flatscan (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles listed for deletion (why deletion and not discussion?) should IMHO be publicised at the relevant Wikiprojects. Possibly this needs discussion by the community though. Maybe it could be made incumbent on nominators to publicise the fact that they have nominated an article for deletion at the relevant Wikiproject if that Wikiproject is not subscribed to Article Alerts via the bot. Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is fine if there is an existing wikiproject tag on the talk page or the person taking it to AFD can easily figure out the appropriate wikiproject. This isn't always obvious.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Idea for widening participation: have relisted deletion discussions listed at Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask. Fences&Windows 19:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. I had a couple suggestions that might result in more AfD attention, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#add_categories_from_articles_to_AfDs and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Enable_single-click_watching_of_all_pages_within_a_category. I'd also had the odd idea more with respect to the problem of biased samples but which could work for this, that "It could be interesting if there could be some random assigning of editors to articles and AfDs, if that would have an effect. There are no doubt ones I don't take the initiative on out of lack of interest or particular expertise that I conceivably could participate in, TV shows I don't watch or religions I've never read about that I could quickly read up on (essentially this is true of some of the ones I edit already), although some things like the finer points of astrophysics I'd probably be lost. But people might resent the imposition, even if it were optional." Another way of implementing that would be that people could subscribe to random assignments, like WikiProject newsletters and other things bot-posted to user talk pages, or in the left-hand bar with the Navigation, Interaction, and Toolbox there could be a "Random task" one could click, operating like "Random article," which could be subdivided into "Random relisted AfD," etc. Incidentally, I tried a few searches to get an idea of how often it happens that an AfD is relisted three times, but the number of times that has happened and it was commented upon (at least with these wordings) hasn't been especially high: "third relisting" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, "third relist" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, "relisted three" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, "relisted 3" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The total number that mention relist* prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is 20,414, but sometimes that word is used to refer to subsequent AfDs on the same article or may be used in other contexts as well. Шизомби (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of "Random task"!

A SuggestBot-like bot could put AfD suggestions on the talk pages of editors who sign up based on their article editing and/or prior participation at AfD (but I don't know how to program bots). Fences&Windows 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• In general, if a discussion is up for a second relisting, only in extremely rare circumstances should it not be closed as "no consensus". Whether by even split or apathy, if no consensus is forming, then close it as such. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think Atama, in her/his post above is on the right track: if there are only a couple of comments in response to a nomination, but they set forth persuasive arguments to keep/delete, then the closing Admin should not worry overmuch about the light participation. (Just to comment on Atama's example, while I wouldn't give much weight to a low profile in a Google search about a tv series, I would be interested whether any notable show biz persons were involved. But then, if I were the closing Admin & this point was important to me, I would investigate it before closing.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close de-adminship process proposal

A 'Community De-Adminship' process proposal has been under consideration and development for some time.

A motion has been raised to declare the proposal discussion closed and retire the proposal. A vote on the motion is underway on the proposal's discussion page. Participation is welcomed, encouraged, and requested at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC#Motion to close. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please keep discussion of the proposal on its talk page.

Will you support the gentleman's motion to call the previous question? Or shall we table it, taking up new business, not excluding business old business previously tabled? Protonk (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I reserve the right to substitute Queensbury Rules for Roberts Rules. Jehochman Make my day 22:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Seconded. -- Avi (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Are we going to kill off all attempts to have a deadminship process, despite opposition the status quo at the RfC? Fences&Windows 23:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Can we please confine discussion of the proposal to the linked discussion page? I made a good-faith, thorough effort to post as neutral a notice as I possibly could (and I got mocked for it, too). Please save your arguments for the appropriate venue; we don't want to duplicate the discussion in two different locations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion today showing up on C:SD

Can someone check why Wikipedia:Deletion today is showing up at C:SD and fix it? It first showed up on there when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia was tagged G6 (someone repurposed an old AfD and transcluded, and that was tagged G6). I just reverted to the closed AfD, and removed it from the day's logs; given that this was the only edit by the AfDer and the fact that the article wasn't even tagged, I figured nothing more was required. However, while the other transclusions fell off C:SD, the Deletion today page doesn't seem to get off and I can't find any reason for it to stay on there. Maybe I'm missing something or did something wrong? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 03:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you redirect this?

This page is protected

to

[7]

Hyperstar 18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Philip1992

We don't usually do cross-namespace redirects (as with this one, from an article named "This page is protected" to a Wikipedia page). The only link to that title is this page and related admin pages, so it's unlikely that the lack of a redirect is causing confusion. Ironically, This page is protected does not actually appear to be protected, which seems bizarre. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It also does not appear to exist, which would explain why it is not protected.—Finell 21:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ceci n'est pas une page protégée. Deor (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it doesn't exist, then we should rename it to This page does not exist  :-) SteveBaker (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

New guideline/goal for 2010

Moved to WP:VPR. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 16:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User Bowei Huang/A1DF67

Copied here from User talk:MBisanz On December 15, User:Bowei Huang requested that his username be changed to User:A1DF67 because he wanted a more obscure name.[8] Since you were the admin who actioned that request I thought I'd address this to you.

Bowei Huang has been on a crusade to automate everything which, while commendable, has caused several problems because his method of doing so has caused numerous errors requiring multiple reversions in multiple articles. He first came to my notice when he attempted to automate the approximate population of Australia which resulted in, at the time, an easily confirmable error.[9] After I reverted that mess, he made other changes on different occasions, all of which were subsequently reverted.[10][11] After seeing several warnings on his talk page I was a little suspicious after his name change request. Despite his request for an obscure username, User:A1DF67 hasn't made a single edit.[12] Instead, he has continued editing under User:Bowei Huang.[13] making mistakes and not correcting them and conducting testing in articles, rather than a sandbox.[14][15][16]

Getting to the main reason for my post, what we now have is a user who has requested and been given a name change. The new name hasn't been used but now holds all of his past edit history and more importantly, numerous warnings, while the old username has been cleaned of warnings and has effectively been given a fresh start. There is no indication by either username that it is an alternative account of the other. I don't think I need to connect the dots. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue I am copying to WP:AN. MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Bowei Huang (talk · contribs) of this discussion. On the face of it, the choice is simple - which username does this editor wish to use? The other one needs to be blocked indef. Can a name change be undone? The block logs for both accounts appear to be clear, so there's no block history to note. Maybe a 1 second block to permanently note the connection, but that would sort of defeat the original purpose for the change - of course, so does the editing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it is directly relevant, but Bowei Huang is also, ahem, well-known at the refernce desk. See for example this thread discussing what is the best way to deal with the user (there have been many such discussions over the past 2 years : [17]). Abecedare (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, Brickfield (talk · contribs) is probably a sock account of the user. (Should we shift this thread to ANI?) Abecedare (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:124.168.169.61 is either yet another sock or someone curiously intent on blanking A1DF67's talk page. Bielle (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've inquired at Changing User Names for additional guidance. I'd like to hear from the editor before taking any action, if possible. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This guy is a difficult case. While he makes lots of editing errors and causes a ton of problems - and can also annoy the heck out of people with his borderline trollish behavior - there is absolutely no evidence that any of it is in done in bad faith. To the contrary in fact - he seems to be extremely well-meaning. However, he's really unresponsive to requests to change his ways - or requests of any kind really. He deletes complaints about him from his talk page without responding to them - but that's not contrary to our guidelines either. The result is someone who can be exceedingly annoying and quite disruptive without actually falling afoul of our rules. This name-change thing is typical of this user's modus-operandii. Reluctantly - although my heart says "Get this guy out of my face - indef. block the sucker" - my head says that we must once again, WP:AGF and continue to gently nudge this fellow into more 'normal' editing patterns. SteveBaker (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Having read the related thread at WT:RD, I have to ask this, Steve: has anyone followed your advice & pointed out to him that his behavior is problematic -- either gently or any other way? If so, & he has responded constructively (by which I would include his wont of deleting the message but, more importantly, changing his behavior), then we should try to work with him. If any attempt to engage him has failed then, I regret to say, he deserves an indef block until he stops being exceedingly annoying & quite disruptive -- we (& the Reference Desk) have better things to do than to handle someone who won't cooperate with us. WP:IAR works that way: we can forget about proper procedure & just boot him out the door. -- llywrch (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre-PUMP question

Before I post this on the technical pump, would it benefit the project if there was a way to block an editor from everywhere except dispute-resolution pages and his own talk page? The intent is to allow those who are blocked pending the outcome of a dispute-resolution process the ability to participate in that process. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• We've done this in the past by transclusion. How often would it be used? Guy (Help!) 09:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Peppylemew reverting and refusing to post to talk

Please help As you can see, Peppylemew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account only used to edit a handful of articles on Eels (band) and generally to revert changes. Some of these are helpful (e.g. this application of WP:EL), but most of these edits are removing germane and sourced information from articles. I have posted several times to the user's talk page and he has refused to post on any user talk or article talk pages to discuss exactly what he wants changed or why. I'm at the end of my rope and have warned the user that if this constant reversion without any rationale continues, I would seek someone's intervention, so I am doing as much now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again

Please help (again) See these two edits: 1 and 2 after being admonished twice thrice on his talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

reported Peppylemew at WP:AN3. Koavf, next time you have to post an edit warring report at WP:AN3, or a page protection request at WP:RFPP. You will get a much quicker response. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Thanks everyone for yet another successful year on Wikipedia. We've met new issues, but as ever, we find some way to resolve them and move forward. Our articles have continued to improve, and in spite of seemingly continuous criticism, we're slowly but surely becoming a more reliable and credible resource.

With that, I'd like to wish everyone a merry Christmas, happy New Year, or otherwise just a pleasant few days. Cheers! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandal account

Please take a look This new user with a somewhat controversial name—Big Brother Maroc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—just appeared setting off the repeating characters tag four times on Aminatou Haidar, itself an article with recent edit wars and POV disputes. Someone may want to investigate this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The general rule is to warn starting from level 1 to level 4, and then report to WP:AIV. Twinkle makes this process much easier ;). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting move of today's featured article

The name "French Texas" was apparently made up, as it doesn't seem to appear in any sources. The article should be moved to Fort Saint Louis (Texas). There's some discussion on the talk page with no opposition. I would have done it myself but the page is move protected... --NE2 05:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the {{Texas History}} template's terminology, it would seem preferable to leave it where it is, notwithstanding that it may be strictly incorrect. --AlisonW (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I recommend waiting until it falls off the main page, then opening a discussion on Talk:French Texas and/or WT:WikiProject Texas. A move while it is on the main page would be highly visible and wouldn't be worth the disruption. Also, WP:NODEADLINE applies here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What disturbs me is how this problem was overlooked in the FA review process. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't. See Amerique's comment and the discussion underneath it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/French Texas. As the discussion indicates, there is no obvious ideal solution, and so the current less-than-ideal solution was adopted, even though other suggestions were also in the air. In order for the FA process to be halted, though, someone would actually have to have opposed over the title, which no one seemed inclined to do (probably because titles are so rarely a serious issue at FA). Chick Bowen 20:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyes on a WP:SPI case

User:Mljet, the latest (very obvious) sock of User:Ragusino is wreaking havoc and editing all over the place (as quickly as he can before he gets blocked again, I assume). In case there's any doubt, there is no question whatsoever as to his identity, he fully fits the standard "Ragusino template" (same articles, same POV, same edit-warring, and yeah - he hates me with a passion :). The user also keeps copy-pasting some HUGE nonsense conversation he and his banned buddies had on some forum, so there's really no room for doubt. I filed a WP:SPI report [18], but it isn't getting any attention, probably because of that MASSIVE illegible forum stuff he keeps copy-pasting everywhere... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked per WP:DUCK, but perhaps you should continue with the SPI in case there are other sock maturing in the meantime. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly possible. The SPI is there, awaiting attention. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed siteban for Logicus (talk · contribs)

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 am closing this discussion, as somebody has to ultimately - it's been open for 7 days (longer than a typical AfD and similar to an RfA) and this is AN, a high-volume noticeboard with usually a quick turnover. There is a clear consensus in favour of a siteban. Editors supporting as well as the RfC have identified major conduct issues extending over a long period of time. Alternative proposals did not attract significant enthusiasm. If the editor objects, he can still edit his own talk page and there is always the option of taking it to ArbCom. Orderinchaos 06:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Logicus has been editing disruptively at various articles since 2006 (original research, refusal to accept consensus, tendentious editing). Basically he has unorthodox ideas about the history of science and insists upon interpreting primary sources. Similar problems recur wherever he edits. He refuses to engage in dispute resolution; he just ignores it or raises nonexistent procedural objections.

• First conduct RfC
• Content RfC
• Second conduct RfC

Ample diffs of disruptive editing are available at the second conduct RfC, which is unanimously supported by all involved and uninvolved editors other than Logicus himself. A review of the dispute resolution attempts and User talk:Logicus demonstrates that the problem is much worse than usual for a short block log: when warned for NPA, edit warring, etc. he just switches tactics. His posts are classic Wikipedia:Chunk o' text defense, so since he rebuffs all attempts at engagement am proposing a siteban. Durova³⁸⁶ 22:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus’s initial response to Durova’s siteban proposal: By way of an executive summary of this troublesome and troublemaking business for those with no prior knowledge of it, the very simple problem at the root of this dispute with Logicus can be put very briefly in the following simple nutshell. In what is now 3 RfCs, user Steve McCluskey and some others have alleged Logicus has inserted OR claims into articles, and even into a wide range of articles. But they have never identified nor even less proven any claim(s) Logicus has inserted into any article to be OR, and thus never provided any 'Evidence of the disputed behaviour'. And Logicus disputes their allegation as wholly false. But he has always shown willing to be persuaded otherwise and repeatedly invited his critics to identify where and why they think he has committed any OR claims in articles in order to enable evaluating the validity of their otherwise empty abstract claim and so to possibly resolve the dispute. But they have all failed to do so and refused to engage in any valid dispute resolution of their disputed claim. All other breach of policy allegations raised against Logicus seem consequential upon the primary OR allegation being valid and proven to be so, along with unfounded interpretations of Verifiability, Consensus and OR policy statements.

Contrary to the false impression and misrepresentations conveyed by Durova and McCluskey, the demonstrable fact is that Logicus has been a highly productive and improving editor, the great majority of whose many edits or consequential revisions of claims have been consensually sustained without challenge or controversy. Only a small minority of his edits have been contested without resolution by editors unable to accept Logicus's eliminations and corrections of claims in articles that he has validly demonstrated to be OR. McCluskey who is the troublemaker here is such an editor.

For those interested in a detailed demolition of the many false claims made in Durova's proposal here, Logicus is preparing a critique to be submitted shortly. But will contributors please show forbearance for the fact that Logicus is currently overwhelmed in trying to respond fully to the many injustly hostile claims made against him in this season of goodwill. Thank you ! --Logicus (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

--Logicus (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly encourage others to hold off on any final action, but in exchange I expect Logicus to refrain from making any edits to article or article talk pages save pure vandalism or copyvio reversion until this is settled, assuming that doesn't take more than a few days after he posts his critique for the issues to be resolved, excluding holidays. I also expect Logicus's critique to be well-documented and convincing. Anything less may do him more harm than good in the long run. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Question I assume I would be correct in believing this ban is to be under an "indefinite" tariff. Under the circumstances, is indefinite understood to be "until they provide an undertaking to address the various issues" or "until consensus for an unblock arises"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Standard offer. If they choose to appeal it would consider after 3-6 months depending upon activity at other WMF projects. Of course Logicus would need to acknowledge that a problem exists and pledge to remedy it. Durova³⁸⁶ 23:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Support I would have anyway, but hopefully Durova's clarification will allow other reviewers to come to a better informed decision. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support, although with some reluctance. This editor appears to be bright, well read, and articulate. If Logicus used these faculties to help build this encyclopedia, in accordance with this community's policies and guidelines, he could be a valuable contributor. Instead, Logicus's main activity on Wikipedia is to self-publish his own opinions, re-interpretations of primary sources, and critiques of respected, reliable secondary sources. Logicus demonstrates no interest in collaboration with (as opposed to arguing at) other editors or respect for consensus. Many other editors have attempted, unsuccessfully, to engage Logicus about these problems on his talk page, on talk pages of articles that he edits, and in a current RFC/U. Indeed, Logicus has chosen not to submit a statement at the RFC/U; instead, he wikilawyers on the RFC/U's talk page, arguing about alleged procedural objections that are without substance. Since Logicus's objectives are not compatible with Wikipedia's objectives, his participation here is largely disruptive and his manner is tendentious. Unless this user commits to substantial changes in his behavior, and carries out a commitment by in fact conforming his behavior to community norms, it is time to end this user's disruptive participation.—Finell 23:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Question — should this be moved to WP:ANI? I had the impression that it was more suited for matters such as this than this page is. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  There have been recent problems with siteban proposals that were closed too quickly; one early closure indirectly caused a very contentious proposed arbitration case that is currently under discussion. So for a better heat to light ratio the slower of the two boards is preferable. Durova³⁸⁶ 23:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support I understand the general reluctance to impose a long-term siteban on any user, but Logicus has been engaged in disruption for a long time, and following the first last Conduct RfC, in which he declined to participate, he suspended and then resumed his disruption. He stopped editing with the posting of the RfC in early February, 2007, resumed active editing in June 2007, and by August was involved in a new dispute over Original Research at Bayesian probability. Adding to this the continuance of many other controversial edits over an extended period, the long-term tenacity of his disruption suggests that a long-term solution is called for. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I have watched his behaviour at Tycho Brahe and the result was not pretty. The damage he incurs on the encyclopedia is twofold, one is the obvious one introducing his own OR into articles, the other, which is probably worse, is that he wears down contributing editors to the point that there is a great risk of some of them leaving the project in disgust. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Logicus does appear to be very well-read, but he also appears to have an enormous blind-spot when it comes to critically evaluating evidence and arguments relating to points of view he feels strongly about. He also seems to have an inordinately exaggerated opinion of his own competence in matters of mathematics, physics and logic. In the discussion where I first encountered him, he committed at least three outright blunders in these areas—all delivered with the air of certainty one might expect from an expert. Subsequent experience has shown that this was not an isolated occurrence. Apart from those observations, Finell's remarks above seem to me to be a succinct and accurate summary of the problems with Logicus's activities on Wikipedia. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support per my comments below. Durova does not readily give up on people. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Logicus can head this off by constructively engaging in the RFC or working in good faith with an admin or mentor to avoid future problems, but shows no interest or inclination to so do. Lacking a good faith effort to understand what they are doing wrong and change it, I see no alternative right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I've seen a bit of Logicus around and have seen very little good. As someone else mentions here, he doesn't communicate, but rather pontificates. As this is a collaborative work, communication is absolutely necessary for any meaningful cooperation and work to be done together. I don't see this behavior changing anytime soon. He's pretty much backed us into a corner after multiple attempts to help him see the light. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support I encountered Logicus at Charles Darwin. I'm still not sure what the actual problem was, but it involved a desire to change the article as well as the use of a serious quantity of text which can be seen in the talk archives: 6, 7, 8, 9. Some editors are simply disruptive and it is relatively easy to bid them farewell, but other editors (like Logicus) are more of a problem because we can see that there is talent and potential, yet they can impose an incredible drain on resources due to the need to handle their repetitive arguments. Reluctantly, I agree that Logicus shows no sign of following the collaborative style or the no original research requirements here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, though willing to see something on the lines of the alternative proposals allowing an appeal in 3 to 6 months subject to a new willingness to collaborate, express himself concisely and avoid original research. Johnuniq covers the issues well. As Logicus is currently disuputing any accusation of original research, this case shows Logicus arguing tendentiously and at length that a clear point about Darwin demonstrated by modern sources and by a relevant primary source should be overturned by Logicus's idiosyncratic interpretation of a foreword from 1950, followed when challenged by Logicus producing his own misleading interpretation of the Stanford Encyclopedia's article on evolution, and even arguing that Darwin was convinced of the opposite of what Darwin had written. When the discussion was archived, Logicus copied a large part of the discussion to a new section and resumed tendentious arguments, again being advised by other editors that this was unacceptable original research.[19] Dealing with such long-winded and repetitive distractions diverts attention and effort from the improvement of articles. . . dave souza, talk 16:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support I haven't had any interactions with Logicus, but having looked at the contribution history and the diffs. linked in the RFC and above, I don't see any viable alternative to an indefinite ban - in fact I am surprised that the disruption was allowed to continue over two years, without any sign of change. At this point the onus is on Logicus to show that they can edit collaboratively and within wikipedia's core content policies; if Logicus can establish this in a few months, they'll be most welcome to resume editing (perhaps with some conditions), but any timed ban, which allows them to return automatically, will be ill-considered. Abecedare (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This is too long a time to allow disruption to continue. I understand that the editor is bright and could in theory be a boon to the project, but the lack of cooperation shows that there's little hope of that ever occurring. -- Atama頭 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, with no mentorships For me, his comments at Talk:Celestial_spheres#RfC:_Original_research.3F are more nothing than enough to see that a) he is not interested in adapting to wikipedia, b) he doesn't think that he has done anything wrong at all c) he is in possesion of the WP:TRUTH about wikipedia how should work d) any attempt to get him to change this attitude will be rebuffed or gamed e) he'll just go back to the previous behaviour. Any mentorship would be fruitless and it would only burn the mentor. P.D.: Looking at his draft reply from yesterday there is no way in hell that giving him two weeks of time is going to get an acceptable reply, he just kept blaming everyone else. Any delay to give him more time is going to accomplish nothing. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As a clear example, see how Logicus was given a painfully detailed explanation of why translations of primary sources are still primary sources, including several scholar sources, but he still refuses to get the point[20] (search for "translations" to find the relevant paragraph). This user is just trying to impose his own unacceptable interpretations of how wikipedia should be edited. I don't see how his stay could possibly benefit wikipedia, he's only fighting other editors that try to uphold basic wikipedia policies. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Logicus, it's clear from pursuing this thread, the RfC's, and your contributions that you're an incredibly intelligent fellow. So are the other people you're dealing with in these disputes. However, you have been given the opportunity at every turn to productively engage with the community, to use your intelligence to help build this encyclopedia. The hand of cooperation has been extended to you, and you dig your heels in deeper and harder- that you decided your draft response should be called "Demolishing Durova" [21] is prima facie evidence you do not want to cooperate. You are the one that could have avoided this measure even being considered. You could have stopped it, even at this late date. I firmly believe you know what behaviour is desired, and have chosen not to take the advice you have been given to heart, and that you would similarly ignore a mentorship if offered, leaving little option other than a site-ban for now, that you can appeal some months into the new year. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposals

Proposal one

• Proposed alternative: General topic ban from science, pseudoscience, and related articles, sections of articles, and even sentences within articles that touch on science and pseudoscience, along with a 1-revert-restriction project-wide and a mandatory mentor during the first few months after being allowed to edit science articles again. Personal bias alert: I'm against site-bans except for those who are either deliberately working against the project or those for whom all lesser sanctions, e.g. editing restrictions, mandatory mentorship, 0-RR parole, etc. have been tried and failed. This is not the case here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose alternative per this discussion. Durova³⁸⁶ 01:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Do you believe his intent is to disrupt the project, that it's not his intent to be disruptive but his actions have that effect and he doesn't seem to want to change, that he wants to change but doesn't seem capable of change without help, that he wants to change but he doesn't seem capable of change even with help, or some mix of he above, or something else altogether? Your edit above suggests he may not be aware of/willing to admit there is a problem. This is unfortunate. His attitude, his self-awareness, and his ability to change even if he wants to, with or without help, are important factors when crafting a solution to the problem. The better the attitude and more willing and able he is to change, the less the need for a site ban. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• My thoughts on that are expressed in the outside opinion at RfC, with followup at its talk page. Durova³⁸⁶ 01:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Question Do you see the proposed topic ban as extending to Talk pages, where much of the Disruptive Editing has taken place? SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would need to study the edits on the talk page more carefully. In general, if an editor is doing things like changing other people's comments enough to be disruptive, then yes, ban him from those talk pages. If he's using the talk pages to discuss things other than the articles, then probably. If the editor is just repeatedly making the same point over and over again about how to improve (according to his own definition of the word) the articles, I'm more inclined to give leeway - most of us are mature enough to just ignore article-improvement suggestions that have already been discussed and rejected, or politely say "rejected per last week's discussion" and let it go. I haven't checked his edits enough to determine the nature of the disruption on the talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• OpposeThanks for the reply. The disruption, which you described as "just repeatedly making the same point over and over again" has the effect, as Saddhiyama put it, of "wear[ing] down contributing editors to the point that there is a great risk of some of them leaving the project in disgust." Since this takes place primarily on Talk pages, this proposal won't cut it without a clear inclusion of this crucial aspect of the problem. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose alternative. This editor's disruptive behavior is not topic-specific; it is rather the nature of his approach to Wikipedia. He doesn't "get" what this project is about and, more importantly, clearly does not want to get it. I was unaware until now that he caused similar disruption at Bayesian probability, which is outside the top ban that this alternative proposes (it is in the fields of statistics and mathematics). While Logicus has on a few occasions deleted talk page content—he repeatedly deleted an RfC tag at Talk:Celestial spheres#RfC: Original research? and deleted a tabulation of the results of that RfC, both based on specious misinterpretations of policy—his main talk page disruption is extraordinarily lengthy harangues, with lots of boldface shouting, condescension to everyone else (he imperiously refers to himself in the third person), which interferes with normal discussion among the article's editors. Indeed, although that RfC was unanimous that his proposed (actually, inserted and later deleted by consensus) contribution was original research, he argued on and on against the closer, who reached the only possible result. His behavior at talk pages is similar to that which led to broad topic bans (including all talk pages) and probation of two editors in the recent Speed of light arbitration decision.—Finell 06:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If he truly does not want to get it, then this is sad. I hope that whatever the outcome, if he demonstrates that he wants to "get it" and work constructively with a mentor until he does, he will be allowed back in with no more restrictions than necessary. I would recommend his first few weeks be "no article, no article talk, without mentor approval" and see how it goes from there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2

• Proposed alternative 2: Ask Logicus what self-imposed-but-community-enforced restrictions, if any, would help him become a better editor. He probably knows himself well enough to answer this question, if he thinks about it and is willing to accept that we, the community, are willing to help him help us build a better encyclopedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He was asked at the current RFC/U, but declined to answer. Have you actually looked at this editor's conduct, or at the 3 RFCs cited above as the basis for this proposed community sanction?—Finell 06:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it but did not study it. I missed that he had declined to answer. Assuming he did not answer the question privately, i.e. he is ignoring it, and assuming he didn't just miss the question as I missed your question earlier (btw thx), this does not bode well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus comments: I also missed where I was asked this at the current RfC. Where is it please ? Could Finell please produce it here ? As a life long supporter of the Co-operative movement also interested in Wikipedia becoming a democratic co-operative, I am perfectly willing to have community help to become a better editor. But the current difficulty I have with the as yet unfounded allegations of my inserting OR claims into many articles is that until somebody shows me where I have done so and howso, how can I possibly even begin to understand what it is I have done wrong and must improve on ? I showed my willingness to revise challenged material in the last RfC in response to Wilson’s unique allegations that some identifiable specific claims in it committed OS. I don’t understand what else I can possibly do. I find this whole business utterly bewildering, and nobody else I know can make any rational sense of it either. If I may charitably say so, I think you all need to seriously reflect upon the utterly appalling impression of Wikipedia it creates.--Logicus (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(interjected 02:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)) Logicus: You were asked at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus 2#Desired outcome, which I quote:

That Logicus will:

• Defer to consensus.
• Accept the consensus interpretation of Wikipedia Policy on Original Research
• Supply secondary sources for interpretive material.
• If no secondary sources exist, publish in a reliable vetted source before seeking publication in Wikipedia.
• Cease using Article Talk Pages to debate the subject matter of articles.

And, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus 2#Response was put there to give you a place to respond. You chose not to respond. If you had agreed to these conditions, which require no more than compliance with the policies that already apply to all Wikipedians, the RFC/U would have ended, and this siteban proposal would never have come about. Instead, you just argue, argue, argue, and argue, which, not surprisingly, is just what you did on several talk pages, which is what led to the RFC/U, which in turn led to this siteban proposal.—Finell 02:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus does not communicate; he pontificates. I think Durova has clarified that a site ban is now the only avenue of communication that remains - if he wants to overturn the decision he needs to communicate in an appropriate manner (that is, in good faith and to a determined purpose). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest an initial 3 month block with parole on return, appeal allowed via ArbCom. It's acceptable not to take part in an RfC but it's unacceptable to ignore well-founded criticism from people genuinely trying to help, which is what has happened here. The problem behaviour is also of a particularly troublesome kind, involving original research stated in ways which seem calculated to appear as if it is compliant with policy when it clearly isn't. Other steps having been tried, we have only a very few options left, and I fail to see how this would result in anything other than a ban if taken to arbitration at this stage. So let's short-cut the drama, give the user a time-out, but make it short enough that if he is prepared to reform, he can. If on return the problem behaviour resumes then we know what to do. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, the original proposal is for an indefinite block with an option to appeal in 3 to 6 months. He would need to build up a good history on a sister WMF project in order to get a review at 3 months. But the review wouldn't be hard to pass if he requests it. Durova³⁸⁶ 18:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee does not hand out indefinite bans. Should we? There is also a risk of sending someone on an anti-Wikipedia mission into sister projects (we have enough of that already). Guy (Help!) 21:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Community bans," bans where no admin is willing to un-block, are de facto indefinite. The arbitration committee has also handed down bans with language like "should the editor return, it will be under these conditions" which amounts to an indefinate ban, where the banned party gets to choose when or if he is willing to abide by the conditions of return. In general I see nothing wrong with an "indefinate" ban if there is a clear, reasonable path to lifting the ban. As a matter of routine, anyone who has not edited in a year who is under any indefinate ban should be allowed a {{second chance}} unless that was explicitly proscribed by whoever imposed the ban or it would conflict with post-return restrictions imposed at the time of the ban. Also, as a matter of routine, any indef ban can be appealed to the then-sitting ARBCOM at any time, but I would expect them to reject any appeal if the original ban was fair in process and outcome, and the conditions that led to it have not changed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

An "anti-Wikipedia campaign" at a sister project wouldn't hasten anyone's return here. :) As someone who's sysopped on three of those smaller projects, please accept assurances that editors who run into trouble here in the big city often fare better at the small towns where the pace is slower and everyone knows each other. Durova³⁸⁶ 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to close

• It's been about 48 hours since this discussion started, so time has been given for everyone to respond from different timezones. It also is unambiguously going in one direction. I'm thinking of closing this in a little under 24 hours...unless there is some material objection? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  If you mean closing "Proposal 2" that sounds good. If you mean the whole discussion, see "Logicus’s initial response to Durova’s siteban proposal" and my reply above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel that since this problem has gone on for several years, we can afford to give it a little more time to resolve it properly. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Having just read Logicus's latest draft response on his talk page, I would emphasize the word "little" in the above. This draft shows no sign of engagement in dispute resolution (except in the OED's sense 8 of engagement: "The state of being engaged in fight; a battle, conflict, encounter.") --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This should be allowed to run its normal course, and should not be closed prematurely. The subject of this proposed siteban has asked for more time to submit a more complete response, and it is only fair to allow him to do so. Because of the holidays, many editors are less available than normal, and Logicus himself mentioned (on the RfC/U talk page, if I recall correctly) that his was the case with him. Given the seriousness of the sanction being considered here, Logicus should be given whatever time he needs. So far as I am aware, he is not engaging in any current disruption; should he do so, that can be dealt with quickly, even while the siteban proposal is still pending. Further, Durova explained above that she brought this matter here, rather than AN/I, because she did not want a quick close, as has happened in some recent cases at AN/I.—Finell 04:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There's some risk of him gaming the process with delays in order to prevent a sanction from happening at all. He's aware that the clock is ticking, and was advised in advance that a siteban proposal was coming. A failure to complete a draft response within a reasonable time frame is not reason to prevent action on a clear consensus, especially when the draft shows no sign of engagement in positive directions. See the bottom two threads on his user talk page. Durova³⁸⁶ 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean an endless amount of time, but rather a reasonable one in the circumstances. We can say when enough is enough, should it come to that. I also agree that Logicus shows no sign of recognizing or addressing the problems with his behavior, which itself is a big part of the problem. I've been as critical of his behavior as anyone. Still, we should allow him some reasonable additional time so that he cannot say with any justification that he was denied a sufficient opportunity to be heard.—Finell 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Finell ought to familiarise himself with how things work here before foolishly pretending this discussion has not run its normal course. If he or the banned user wants to appeal to ArbCom when this is closed, that's perfectly acceptable (in fact, I welcome it with open arms) and they can make their case for why it should be reconsidered. However, the call to unduely extend this discussion stems from straightforward disruptive conduct. Gaming of process is unacceptable; persistent wikilawyering to further other disputes is even more so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to all:Thanks to those few with a few relatively kind words here. This is just to let you know I have no internet access from this afternoon until next week. Meanwhile you may possibly enjoy the following Xmas carol that is one of the many co-operative products of the author of Logicus, namely NoisyNite1 @ www.celsere.com/Kumbella .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicus (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2009

Given what he has posted on his talk page, I'm not at all sure what additional time would do. His comment above doesn't suggest that he intends to move from his current position which is to deny that he's done anything he shouldn't do and to deny the validity of any RfCs involving him. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My take is that with Logicus's limited computer access over Christmas, Boxing Day, and the holiday weekend, a reasonable time to wrap this up would be the beginning of next week, i.e., before the end of the year. This would provide enough time for him to finish his response, but a clear limit to discourage any gaming of the system. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as Logicus is not editing elsewhere, then flexibility as regards timelimits should be easy. Once they respond (and editing elsewhere would be considered as such) then the matter can be progressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is a good example of the sickness at the heart of wikipedia. Twenty or so people get together and agree (almost in secret) that another editor should be banned—or indefinitely blocked, makes no practical difference. What should happen is that all those so keen on bans are banned themselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• The fact that you have not previously seen the RfC and the discussion here previously does not mean it is being held "in secret" - and the editor concerned has had plenty of notice (and their disdain to engage also does not mean the ban is being imposed without consultation). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Further this - the RFC was listed on ANI and AN page headers since it was filed ten days ago, and the site ban discussion/proposal has been on AN for three days plus. These are noticeboards for a reason - they're the location of record for such discussions. Both time periods are longer than usually held to be required or standard for RFCs and ban discussions; Logicus has been given plenty of time to respond, as has everyone else.

Regarding the "twenty or so people get together..." - The right of the community, via consensus, to issue sanctions and bans has been established for many years now, Malleus. This is the standard place that they happen (either ANI or AN). Nobody is "keen" on a ban - people have been working with Logicus for months now trying to get him to comply with policy and edit and content standards. This is the end of an unfortunately unsuccessful effort to reform or mitigate the probelems. I urge anyone who thinks this was sudden or escalated too fast to review the talk pages of the articles he edits, his talk page, and his edit history. The problem's been stewing for roughly 3 years and been sufficiently problematic for action for at least months.

We need to be sure that we're not using "exhausted patience" lightly or without significant sustained provocation and good cause. But this case qualifies. Nobody has rashly acted without seeking discussion and community consensus. I literally have never seen anyone who so thoroughly didn't understand what they were doing wrong that they'd think that they could or should delete the certified RFC against them, before this case.

It is unfortunate that this has come down to the community having to defend itself from good-intentioned disruption by someone who wants to contribute positively successfully here. But, here we are. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus: I just do not know how to respond to all this. I cannot see how anybody could be more constructive than I have been. Will somebody please tell me what it is they want me to do ? Would it be to stop challenging, revising or deleting material I regard as OR and failed verifications, or that I cannot persuade anybody else is such ? I would be perfectly willing to do so for some period until misunderstanding is resolved.--Logicus (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposals of how to respond to these concerns were clearly spelled out at the RFC/U's desired outcomes. Read them carefully and you should get some ideas of what changes of your behavior are needed. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus has been given a reasonable amount of time to respond to the concerns raised int he RfC/U, and in the ban proposal. The community's view is clear and has not changed, and it is the wikilawyering by some users like Finell that is unhelpful. If Finell is unfamiliar, inexperienced or incapable of understanding precisely what constitutes a reasonable time for a ban discussion on Wikipedia, then he would be advised to find out before commenting on that point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(interjected) Ncmvocalist: As you see above, I support the proposed site ban. I have not said anything that can be described as wikilawyering. Further, I am not "unfamiliar, inexperienced or incapable of understanding ..." The fact that I called you on one of your blunders, Your reversal of John Vandenberg's "Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist", and for doing so by editing a section at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement that "is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators" (when you aren't an administrator), does not make me fair game for your potshots. (Please include among your New Years' resolutions to stop carrying grudges.) Similarly, it is inappropriate for you to announce that you are "thinking of closing this" proposal on the Administrators' noticeboard (as opposed to suggesting that it be closed by an admin) when you aren't one. (Just so we are clear, I am NOT saying that closure would be invalid because you are the one who proposed it; anyone can do that.) However, whenever it is closed, it should be closed by an administrator.—Finell 01:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Finell, your input (albeit, noise) has been repeatedly unhelpful (and for that reason alone, unwelcome). Firstly, you've been the one carrying a grudge ever since I dismissed your bad faith comments and cries over the result concerning Lapsed Pacifist. If you had an issue with this, you should've discussed your concern with John Vandenberg first - you still have not done so to date which demonstrates precisely how disruptive you can be. In other words, beyond the talk page comment you found, John Vandenberg and I have already discussed this - in other words Finell, please stop beating a dead horse like a tendentious editor. Secondly, there is no requirement for an administrator to close the discussion - if you want to very foolishly appeal previous ban discussions I've closed in the same manner, be my guest; it'd be great for you to finally demonstrate what the real blunder is here - you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(interjected 18:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)) My comments to you were not in bad faith, and my response to you here was not "disruptiveness", as your your edit summary describes it. There is nothing to discuss with John Vandenberg: he already reverted your "revision" of his close at Arb Enf. Further, your grudges, to which I was referring, are not limited to me. I have the same concern about your behavior that others have expressed to you: you meddle in disputes that have nothing to do with you and you do so officiously, as though you were an administrator or arbitration clerk. You have not been elected or appointed to those, or any, position of responsibility on Wikipedia. Your conduct is not beyond criticism, and those who do disagree with your conduct are not necessarily wrong. In the 2 recent instances where you and I interacted (not counting the current one or Vandenberg's revert of your edit), your position was rejected and the consensus agreed with my position; I'm sorry if you consider that to be "unhelpful". So please consider your actions more carefully and discontinue your self-righteous remarks.—Finell 18:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Denying the truth will not change the truth, even if you think it appears self-righteous; please stop wasting valuable time and wiki-space with this nonsense. The fact that you persistently refuse to accept that a/ you don't know what you're talking about, and b/ neither John Vandenberg nor myself feels that your commentary is accurate or warranted, suggests that your behavior is nothing short of tendentious and grudge-bearing. That is, this goes way beyond what you think you know: exceptionally little. Prior to making criticisms, you should be familiar with all the relevant facts and circumstances - your failure to do so (like in this case), and you repeatedly refusing to do so, is reflected in your comments which aptly demonstrates your mind-boggling level of foolishness. What you should have done is reviewed your own repeatedly unhelpful commentary and then actually make an effort to learn how to resolve issues without causing a detriment to this project. Another example, you've repeatedly tried to allow problematic tendentious editors to damage Wikipedia with their edits for as long as possible in similar circumstances to this case: that is what is unwelcome and utterly unhelpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You and I obviously disagree about each other's conduct. I won't belabor this further here. Please be civil.—Finell 01:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Rather than indefinitely keeping this discussion open, it would be better to enact the community consensus, and revisit if necessary in the future. Perhaps a few users can keep watch of Logicus' talk page in case he wishes to present something that either warrants a modification or removal of this sanction, or a proper appeal? This will give him all the time he needs to prepare whatever else he wishes to say. I think it's the preferrable method rather than introducing another shoddy precedent that allows for the gaming of the system by unhelpful and needless delays that clog up a community noticeboard. I also note that the support for the site-ban continues to pile-on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Two days ago I gave Logicus advice how to respond to this ban proposal.[22] I was willing to modify the proposal if he followed those suggestions. Finnell soon provided more input[23] and Logicus gave thanks for the advice.[24] Yet his subsequent draft was worse[25] and he follows up today by claiming he doesn't know how to respond and announcing a weeklong break. At Talk:Celestial spheres and other places he strung out discussions by claiming that things should remain his way as long as he didn't understand explanations that had already been given. He may appeal to the Arbitration Committee at anytime by follwing this link and emailing the address provided there. Durova³⁸⁶ 21:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • From looking at the timing of Logicus's past 500+ edits, I'm reasonably certain he's editing from a public facility that shuts down at specific hours. Given the extent that the UK closes down for the holidays, his plea that he will not have computer access over the weekend is probably bona fide. Taking that into consideration, I feel we should cut him a little slack until he's back on line. I can guess how he'll interpret the situation if he comes back Monday and finds a ban was implemented while he was away. We won't lose anything significant and I don't want to give him any excuse to claim some sort of unfairness in the process. My preference is still that we hold off until early next week. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree - your arguments are very persuasive. Let's not give him any excuses. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Are you suggesting any appeal body would be stupid enough to grant an appeal based on such an excuse, absent of any assurances regarding the underlying concerns? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Of course not. Or was that question aimed at SteveMcCluskey? Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
            • My concern is not only with formal appeal bodies, which as Ncmvocalist points out should easily see through such claims, but with other audiences to whom Logicus might characterize Wikipedia procedures as a "nakedly hostile 'lynch mob'". SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2009 (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.

ITN

An update for ITN is now overdue and there is consensus for an item on WP:ITN/C. It would be much appreciated if an admin would add it to the template. HJMitchell You rang? 18:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

AIV backlog

There is a request that has been sitting on AIV for over three hours, others have been dealt with and this one has been completely ignored. Would someone mind taking a look? Thanks :) ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 12:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Checking: — Kralizec! (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, there are few things AIV-patrolling admins hate more than chastising established editors (let alone one with more than 24k edits under his or her belt), especially in defense of a clueless IP or new editor who could well turn out to be malicious. The risk of ending up with egg on our faces (if the questionable editor does turn out to be up to no good) or turning an established editor into an enemy for life ("that admin dared to question my judgment on this issue?!?") dramatically exceeds any good that can come from defending a poorly treated newbie. As such, AIV-patrolling administrators often tend to pass the buck for hours on end hoping that someone else will deal with it instead.

However since you asked, and because I had a good holiday and my kids are happily playing with their new toys in the next room, I have spent the past hour looking into the issue and composing this reply. Right now I am fully steeled against having the inevitable egg on my face and turning you into an enemy for life ... yet I also recognize that this time tomorrow I will no doubt wish that I had just kept my mouth shut like the other 30 admins who ignored your AIV block request because they did not want to touch it with a five foot pole.

If I had to guess, I would say that the AIV report was ignored for three hours because it looks like a classic case of WP:BITE. Speaking as an outside editor who has never spent any time on the ChuckleVision articles, it looks as if this newly registered user made what looks like 14 good faith edits to List of ChuckleVision episodes, which you undid with an edit summary of "UNSOURCED" without any attempt to explain to the user what they were doing wrong. The new user, no doubt having zero idea what they did wrong, then undid your undo. You responded by reverting their edit as vandalism, and slapping a level-3 warning on his or her talk page [26]. From there, it goes down hill fast.

Considering the warm way this user was welcomed to Wikipedia and patiently introduced to our rules, can we really pretend to be surprised when he or she immediately gets into an "undo" fight? I mean come on ... the first message left on the person's talk page was a level-3 warning! Had my participation in the project been greeted that way, I doubt I would still be an editor here, let alone an admin! While I appreciate the hard work and dedication TreasuryTag has given to the project, I really think he or she needs to lighten up on the newbies. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If a user is tossing around block- and vandalism-reporting-threats, making personal attacks, directing me to telephone the BBC to verify a source (!), editing while logged out, persistently edit-warring to restore unsourced information, threatening continued disruption, deleting references and instructing other editors to "shut up" (yes, I can provide diffs for each of these allegations), I think that they no longer deserve the leniency which would, customarily, be granted to them under WP:BITE and WP:AGF. However, I do thank you for taking the time to look into the issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 15:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

They don't deserve leniency because they didn't understand how things work here and you did little to help them figure it out? Doesn't look like this belonged on AIV in the first place. I don't see how it could in any way be considered vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil 15:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that revert-warring unsourced material into articles, announcing an intention to continue protracted disruptive editing, deleting references, making personal attacks, socking around with IPs and falsifying signatures could quite easily be considered vandalism. It appears that I am not alone in this seemingly extreme interpretation of what constitutes bad-faith activity.

I would also point out that I should not have to do more than what I did to "help them figure out" that personal attacks are disallowed, that falsifying signatures is frowned upon, and that deleting references isn't the done thing. Equally, the fact that announcing an intention to revert-war indefinitely constitutes disruption in violation of policy should be apparent to a semi-lobotomized chimpanzee. We are not talking about the nuances of content policy here; we are talking about simple and obvious behavioural norms. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 15:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, TreasuryTag, for not being more clear on what I wrote. My belief is that all of the negative, disruptive behaviour you have described is a direct result of the fact that the new editor saw 14 of his or her good-faith edits go up in smoke without so much as a clue as to what the person did wrong. When the editor followed your lead and clicked the undo button, you reverted their edit as vandalism and issued an escalated warning. While the editor clearly has no clue how Wikipedia works, he or she looks like they are trying to improve the project, so seeing {{uw-unsourced3}} added as the first edit to the person's talk page is especially distressing. Considering the user's willingness to discuss things on the article talk page, I suspect that if a more welcoming and friendly version of this had been left on their talk page after your first revert, we would not even be having this conversation. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

< (edit conflict) I'm not sure what you mean by the user's willingness to discuss this on the talkpage. Given all the IPs etc., I'm not sure precisely which comments were left by which editor, but phrases from first-posts such as, "The user is a troll," "I will continue to undo your changes," "I shall keep adding it back in, and believe me I am a very persistant person when I know I'm right, so just try me," and "Obviously you have no reasonable right to be editing this page anyway," do not suggest any willingness whatsoever to operate in a collaborative manner. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we really assume that all of the IPs editing the article are the same person? Some of the IPs make good use of wiki markup ([27]) and even attempt to add references ([28], [29], [30]), while others appear to have a middle school student's grasp on grammar and spelling ([31]). However even if all of these IPs are the same person (and I really do not think they are), is it any wonder they view the article as being a giant pissing contest when their efforts to add to the article are met with reverts titled "Don't add unsourced shit to articles. Why is this difficult for you to understand?" and their work to improve the article is reverted with edit summaries like "No badly-spelt unsourced crap, please"? — Kralizec! (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. TreasuryTag, a new user would be cautioned sharply and possibly blocked if he were using those sorts of edit summaries. Those edits and additions you reverted cetainly don't seem to be in bad faith, and the editor(s) apparently mention sources in at least some of their edit summaries. While that isn't the right way to do it, it certainly doesn't support an assumption of incorrigibility, either. There doesn't appear to be evident vandalism here, which is probably why your request has languished. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Tools.

Resolved

Hello, I am here to ask for the removal of my autoreviewer and accountcreator flags. With my migration to the simple English Wikipedia, only the Rollback tool will be of any use to me. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^{Happy Holidays!} 16:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Gordonrox24 | ^{Happy Holidays!} 17:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

RM backlog

Hi. There's a very long backlog over at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If some admins and other editors can chip in, that would be great. (Not all moves require administrative actions, and non-admin closings (or relistings, though we prefer closings) are welcome.)

I would remind everyone that the standard for moves is easier than for deletions - a request that draws no objections in a week may be carried out without the need to generate discussion over it. We may assume that a move is uncontroversial unless it's shown to be otherwise. (The text on the actual Requested moves page might or might not reflect this fact - there's kind of a tendency towards over-caution and over-prescriptiveness.)

Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

*holsters trusty flamethrower as the Christmas sugar rush wears off* It's down to about a half, with about a dozen in the backlog. I've left some of the thornier discussions for those with a longer attention span. Despite the admonitions in the header not to report backlogs, I think these notifications are useful to get a qualitative perspective on the area in question.  Skomorokh  12:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Admonitions in the header? Good thing I've never read that. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Hiberniantears/AdministratorCommunityFeedback

Those who know me realize that I don't care for admin recall. This should not be confused with my desire to encourage the individual growth of all users, as editors, admins, or anything else. To that end, I have created in my user space User:Hiberniantears/AdministratorCommunityFeedback in order to solicit the views of the community on my performance as an admin. Participate if you wish, ignore me if you want. Anything and everything is most welcome. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone add this to the blacklist?

Can someone add the domain "peoplesprimary.com" either to the blacklist or edit filter, to the spamlist? It was inserted into the main article [32] a while ago and it redirects to the usual Last Measures/GNAA browser crasher. Considering this has been a trolling domain for a couple years I'm surprised it isn't blacklisted yet. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd take it to meta:Talk:Spam blacklist if I were you, this kind of thing justifies global blacklisting. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for reporting it there. We don't need any more goatse in our lives. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate FfD listings

User:IngerAlHaosului has rapidly listed 35 project images for deletion, with only the rationale "unencyclopedic" (and no further explanation). As the images in question (Wikipedia screen captures and the like) were never intended to be used in articles, I can only assume that this stems from a mistaken belief that encyclopedic use is required of all media (including free media).
I've left a message at IngerAlHaosului's talk page, but he/she edits sporadically and appears to have stopped at 14:39 (UTC).
I recommend that someone speedily close the erroneous nominations en masse, as it's obvious that no valid rationale has been provided. I would do so myself, but I'm aware of the situation because I uploaded two of the images. —David Levy 16:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast. These are not "project images" tey are random screen grabs of odd bits of Wikipedia, such as File:1337-neg1.gif. I don't see any utility in this or several of the others nominated. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

To see if these images and the page that contains them, User:Esteffect/April Fool's Day, 2005, is accurate, I started checking some of the histories of these articles. Does anyone know why the history of Smooth Newt contains blank pages, like this and this? It's clear from the edit summaries that the page was not blank at the time. Also, I note that some of the images on the April Fool's Day page have already been deleted for copyright reasons. I see no reason not to treat those FFD nominations in the usual manner, even if they are all eventually kept. There's no rule against mass nominations. Chick Bowen 18:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood my concern. The issue isn't that the nominations were made en masse (which is fine). It's that they were made with the sole rationale "unencyclopedic." If there are valid reasons to delete any of the images, that's fine, but the fact that they lack use in articles (the only rationale provided) is not such a reason. —David Levy 01:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I understood your point--I was just saying I don't see why they have to be closed early. I'd also point out that "unencyclopedic" is one of the criteria at the top of the FFD page, and that's probably where the nominator got it. Of course, it says there "Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone," but still, it is a historically accepted rationale at FFD. I also don't see the harm in having an actual discussion about whether it makes sense to keep the April Fool's images (as opposed to the other ones nominated with them) around indefinitely, regardless of the nominator's stated (or unstated) intent. Chick Bowen 01:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm not suggesting that the listings have to be closed early (and they certainly shouldn't be if this is controversial).

2. The criterion in question (for which the "unencyclopedic" label is inaccurate and should be replaced) specifies that "the file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project." Conversely, the nominator believes that images actively used in our project should be deleted purely because they lack use in articles. (He/she has confirmed this on his/her talk page.) I agree that the aforementioned label likely contributed to this misunderstanding.

3. As stated above, if there happen to be valid reasons to delete any of the images, that's a different story. —David Levy 02:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that the instance to which you were referring (lower on the page) actually provides "The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia" as a rationale. No wonder the nominator is confused. Not only can images be useful in non-article namespaces, but we also don't want to delete images that are useful to other Wikimedia projects (as indicated in the wording from the top of the page) instead of moving them to Commons. I can only assume that this is old wording that slipped through the cracks. —David Levy 02:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the wording is lousy and doesn't reflect current practice. Those standardized abbreviations go way back--as long as I can remember. They could use some revision. Chick Bowen 02:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What is your definition of "project images"? I'm referring to images used within the project (but not in the encyclopedia proper). The images that I examined were in illustrative use in various discussions/proposals. —David Levy 01:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The blank revisions in the history of Smooth Newt are because of bug 20757, and should be reported there. I'll do that now. Graham87 04:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images that do not identify the copyright-holder

An ongoing DRV has reminder me of an issue that has long been in the back of my mind--images used under a fair-use rationale that link to a source on the web that is clearly not the copyright holder. As I say at that DRV, I think this is a site-wide problem that should not be addressed in regard to a single image, so I am not expecting the image discussed there to be deleted at this time. However, I do think we should be aware of what we're doing, and should discuss whether it's what we should be doing. In practice, we allow non-free images that link to an external source that is clearly a copyright violator, which goes against two policies--external links, which prohibits such links, as well as image policy itself. Part of the problem here, though, is that WP:NFCC is ambiguous--it reads that the image page must include "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder." That "where possible" can obviously be understood in several different ways (possible without effort, or possible under any circumstances?). Citing sources contains the same problem, saying "It is important that you list the author of the image if known (especially if different from the source)"--so does "if known" mean "if you personally know it" or "if anyone knows it"? What this means, in short, is that we are far less careful about attribution for non-free content than we are for free content. In my mind this is a serious problem, but there are probably thousands of images affected, and we should proceed carefully. I would like to hear others' views on the issue. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• A few examples (I started at the beginning of Category:Fair use in... images, which is why these all start with A): File:1965 eleanor cameron with leonard wibberley.jpg, File:AageSamuelsen.jpg, File:AageStentoftwithDirch.jpg, File:AartKoopmans.jpg, File:Alphonse Alley.gif, File:Alphonse Pierre Juin.jpg, File:Alphonsehalimi.jpg, File:Amador Bendayan.jpg, File:AmadoriArgentina.jpg. In some cases these linked directly to the image, and I was unable to determine whether the original site listed the author/copyright holder or not; in some cases the link was dead; and in some cases the linked site did not indicate the copyright holder. Chick Bowen 23:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Images whose source is just a link to a random website are deleted on FFD when contested.--Damiens.rf 21:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Often, but not quite always, as you know. But I'm suggesting that one-at-a-time is not the best way to deal with them. Chick Bowen 21:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is an important discussion to have, but let's do it after the holidays are over for maximum participation. At this time, I myself won't be able to participate in it as actively as I want to. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry about the timing, ours are over and I genuinely forgot about the other one (somehow). I'm happy to close this and bring it up again in January. Chick Bowen 05:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Why wait? There will always be some reasons can be found for delay. I wonder if the root of the problem is the confusing language can be traced to Wikipedia:Image Use Policy#Adding images where it says "Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from". This seems to be being read as "any random website will do as a source if you can't be bothered finding out who owns the copyright". Anything resembling the rigourous application of common sense would produce a huge wave of nominations and deletions.

There's nothing terribly wrong with that in principle, but the stuff that would be deleted wouldn't necessarily be the things which we would want to get rid of first in a purge of non-free content. Many of the unsourced old files without a decent source may well be free (published without copyright or copyright never renewed), but this is not easy to prove. Deleting probably-free-but-we-haven't-proven-it-yet content would be the wrong thing to do. I'd certainly like to see us doing something on this front, and the sooner the better, but we should be careful about how we approach it: A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. My proposed bad measure would be to start with unsourced non-free images created after 1 March 1989. There's no "was there a copyright notice" &c to be considered for these so they are not maybe-free, they are the most likely to be replaceable and they should be the easiest to source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We should also probably start by requiring only newly uploaded images to state the copyright-holder, and then go back later and deal with the pre-existing ones once we see how that goes. You're right that that "or" at the image use policy is problematic. Chick Bowen 01:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am possibly offtopic here, but first, I agree with Angus McLellan about being careful, especially with old files. This inspired me to dump some ideas at 84user/Upload fair-use suggestions, mainly on improving the Upload text a user sees. -84user (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Not offtopic at all--you mention there including an "author" field in the upload form in addition to source, which would be an important step forward. There should also be such a field in {{Non-free use rationale}} and its derived templates. Chick Bowen 13:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Borderline AIV

Can someone please take a look over Special:Contributions/Ben 28920. The user is clearly quite experienced as they have registered an account and done nothing but bugger around with HotCat causing a lot of problems in their wake. They are editing EXTREMELY rapidly (one per minute for MANY minutes at times). I've written them a customised (non-template) warning. Please investigate and also check out their User page where they have reverted me. Regards. Zunaid 22:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Reported to AIV, user continues his behaviour despite suggestions to stop and has turned his talk page into a redirect. Zunaid 08:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A special New Years Day present for the Wiki

Greetings all. I'm working on a little project for New Years Day. Specifically; clearing all of Special:NewPages. It sounds impossible, I know, but I've cleared 18 days so far, and would appreciate help with the remaining 12. I figure that killing this massive backlog would be both a) helpful and b) an impressive achievement for the community. Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny block data

See this IP address. The block data indicates a 24 hour block enacted on July 21, 2008, and yet the user is complaining about being unable to edit, and it looks like it is still blocked, despite the block having expired over a year and a half ago. I can't make heads or tails of that. Can someone look into what is going on here? --Jayron32 03:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• It was rangeblocked by Avraham (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) here. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thx. --Jayron32 03:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA backlog

The title says it all, there is a backlog at UAA. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What do I do now?

What do I do now? Please read this. Btilm_{Happy Holidays!} 05:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide some more context? It looks like, from the above and this thread that you are asking for the editfilter permission. Usually, you have to prove that you have the need for it, and are competant enough to use it. Generally, its up to the opinion of the admins that patrol the permissions page to ask questions and then decide if these two things are true. Beyond that, I don't know what else we can do to help you. --Jayron32 05:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Harej running for BAG

This is due notification that I have been nominated to become a member of the Bot Approvals Group. My nomination is here. @harej 05:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep request

An editor has nominated a Wikipedia guideline, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) for deletion at MfD. Therefore, this meets the fourth reason for a speedy keep, as XfD is explicitly not for discussion of revoking policies and guidelines. I would appreciate an administrator to close the debate as such. Thank you. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a speedy keep to me. Let the discussion run its course. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for discussion, but shouldn't it be on the guideline's talk page? If folks don't like the guideline, they should try to get it bumped down to essay status there – but I see no reason to allow a deletion discussion that violates an undisputed guideline. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

< I tend to agree that this guideline shouldn't be MfD-ed, as per WP:SK#policy. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 23:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Some have asserted that this isn't a guideline because there was no RfC before it was tagged as such. However, a bit of digging shows that there was extensive discussion before the guideline was tagged with {{proposed}}, was uncontested on the talk page, and was promoted to guideline status by an administrator about a month later. Was WP:PROPOSAL followed? No. But should a guideline that has been tagged and treated as such for almost two years be eligible for a speedy keep at MfD? Absolutely. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, no I do not believe it is eligible for a speedy keep. But don't take my word for it, I tend to think outside of the box. JBsupreme (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably not a speedy keep situation, but already at the point where it could be a snowball keep, which means no difference in practical terms. Discussion has focused on merging/redirecting into a broader page. As always, I remain amazed that I tend to be amazed at how much time and effort tends to be spent when one dedicated individual launches a crusade against consensus. Resolute 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It probably does meet criteria 4 if you accept that it's an actual guideline, which I'm having a hard time with as it looks like it's bypassed the requisite discussion and "high level consensus". I don't know if there was discussion about it elsewhere, but I hope there was because from looking at the talk page, it looks like one person proposed making it a guideline, no one replied either for or against and then the same person declared it was now a guideline. Unless there was a proper discussion elsewhere, I don't see how this can reasonably be considered to have satisfied the requirements of discussion and high level consensus outlined in Policies and guidelines and this shouldn't be considered an actual guideline until such a discussion takes place. Sarah 10:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• The "guideline" is m:creep and contentious, spreading a dispute to more pages rather than reducing or solving any actual problem (see also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)). There are several people who feel that a separate guideline for baseball players over and above sportspeople in general is simply unnecessary. 80.176.82.42 (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  That's an issue that belongs elsewhere. This is a discussion about whether WP:SK#policy applies, not whether the naming-convention is a good one. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Or not. The consensus leans towards merging and redirecting (i.e. not having a separate an largely redundant guideline), which seems fine. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't revoke, downgrade, dispute or simply remove a guideline or policy on the deletion pages... it needs a much wider discussion. If people disagree that it is a guideline, they need to dispute it on the talk page, get consensus for its non-guideline-ness, and then delete it. I think speedy keep and send to the talk page is the correct action. Ale_Jrb^talk 17:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

MFD backlog

There's a bit of a backlog at WP:MFD, just FYI. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:25, 29 Dec 2009 (UTC)

My bad... I wasn't aware XfD's were changed to seven days. There are a couple of discussions that are due for a close, but not what I'd call a backlog. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:30, 29 Dec 2009 (UTC)

MascotGuy update

It would seem that I have indirectly made contact with his mother once again as seen by the comments toward the bottom of the page:

[33]

I'm trying to appeal to her while she is apparently trying to appeal to him. I understand this poor woman's frustration (I think that she thinks that I was attacking her, which I wasn't), but I don't think she quite understands what's been going on over here. It seems to me that we're stuck with him despite our best efforts. At least the filter is weeding him out before he can do any real damage. Thoughts? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but shouldn't we be concerned with what happens on-Wiki. He's by no means the only person we have to whack-a-mole on a regular basis around here. As an aside, should you be posting links to his real name? --Jayron32 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course we should be concerned with what happens here. That's why I'm trying to reason with his mother. As for his name, that's been pretty much known since the get-go; one of his original socks was in fact his own name and another was that of his mother. I'm not trying to "out" him since his name has been known for so long anyway. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that the user had an account in what you take to be their real name gives us license to violate WP:OUTING. This may be a special case, but if so, it would be nice if the guideline reflected that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is like saying "User:Fred Bauder's name is Fred Bauder" is outing. It is not our fault that he used his given name as a user name, nor that everyone knows what his name is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. If my username were "William Firehose" there's no reason to assume that (a) my real name actually is William Firehose unless I tell you that it is (or, as Fred Bauder has done, link to off-wiki pages also referencing my identity), and (b) you have no way of confirming that I'm not simply trying to throw you off the track by using someone else's real life identity. These are issues with all usernames, but not a justification for attempting to connect the person with the name. Incidentally, I searched for the username that you and PMDrive1061 referred to, but I could not find it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits made by User:Ktr101 which include the same name (and the purported name of their mother) should probably be revision hid or oversighted if this does constitute outing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Look harder: [34]. He's outed himself in my opinion, by using that name as a user name. If it's not his real name and only an assumption on our part, then no outing has occurred either.--Atlan (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's one of them. I don't remember the exact wording of the earlier username; it was done several years ago and was likely his e-mail address at the time if memory serves. This predates the "MascotGuy" identifier. Again, I'm not trying to out anyone and most users on this site who've dealt with him have known his real name for years. My apologies if I've stepped out of line. I don't mean this person any harm, but I do wish for him to stop logging on and creating sockpuppets. It was my hope that joining the discussion at this other site would bring about a resolution over here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not happy with those edits to the LTA page (RL name, age, location, email addresses??) and am suppressing them. I don't think we can claim exception to rules, nor make a judgment call on whether it's 'safe' or not. I've seen it happen to others with negative consequences - Alison ^❤ 21:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Furthermore, the WP:OUTING policy isn't open to GOTCHA! style gaming. It seems to me that unless someone is right now activily willing to disclose their real name, we should default to not attempting to out them ourselves. I see no evidence that MascotGuy is, today and right now, desiring that his real name be tied to his Wikipedia identity. There are lots of cases where a user, early in their Wikipedia career, accidentally outed themselves, and later finds that they do not wish to have their real names publicly linked to them. We should always make every effort to ensure that people's real identity is protected at all cost. If someone wants to admit to their personal info on their user page and in conversations involving them, fine, but we should not hold every single instance of self-outing against someone. This even includes longterm vandals and disruptive editors. They have a right to be protected too, even if they are a pain in the ass. I don't really care if he once created one sock that may or may not have been his real name. Its not any of our business, and Wikipedia's ethic of anonymity is NOT to be compromised for any reason save the clear and expressed wishes of the individual themselves. --Jayron32 21:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Word - Alison ^❤ 21:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I have personally deleted a number of user pages and even attack pages which disclose personal information. Safety is paramount. However, this person has disclosed his real name on a number of occasions and not just here. He has a Commons account under his real name, for example. Look, I'm sorry if this has caused such concern. That wasn't my intention and I'm hoping we can move on from here and chalk this up to a bad idea on my part. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Personally, I think you were onto something when you noted it was odd that his "teachers" were randomly happening to show up on esoteric websites. I don't believe that person was his former teacher and I don't believe that person is his mother, either. I think it's all MascotGuy playing games with people across the internet. I don't think he's autistic for a second, I think he's OCD or perhaps some kind of invalid or shut-in, whether due to physical or psychological conditions. Getting their internet privileges revoked would be the best course. I don't know why it isn't done more often with perpetual troublemakers. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it may have happened with a user I reported to BellSouth after more than three years of nonsense across multiple wikis. BellSouth took a genuine interest in the problem and I provided them with some basic tech details per their request. He hasn't been heard from in more than two weeks. This guy is all over the place regarding his IPs, so rangeblocks might not be feasible. I showed up on that other site after I Googled his name, so the teacher and mom may be legit. I only wish that I could make a couple of users over there understand the problem we've been put through. I'm the bad guy for "picking on a poor autistic" and nothing could be further from the truth. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Do they all geolocate to the same general area? Seems kind of odd that someone with "autism" would randomly have access to so many IP addresses. You mentioned even government IPs at the external site? Maybe MascotGuy is actually a group of trolls who just deliberately follow the same patterns and MO together. Wouldn't be the first time. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Zaphiro

I've just indef blocked Zaphiro (talk · contribs), who claims to be this person of the same name on the German-language Wikipedia. I suspect this is a case of impersonation as Zaphiro seems to be active on the German-language Wikipedia (filing some vandalism reports?) and doesn't seem to be ruffling any feathers. However, I cannot speak German. Someone should contact Zaphiro to inform them about this case of impersonation or (if it isn't impersonation) ask what's going on. Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I should think that the account you blocked is an impersonation one, as it was created today per this (I think the next two accounts may need to be looked at, too). If you wish to have someone contact the German editor, who incidentally has been editing since 2007, I suggest you look for the German speaking Wikipedians category (or similar) and drop them a line. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I see a discussion about this on his/her user talk page at de:Benutzer Diskussion:Zaphiro#Wie wärs mal mit SUL. It looks like he has suffered related cross-wiki problems at the spanish and french wikipedias. If I spoke German, I'd encourage him to sign up for SUL, to at least limit the damage potential. GRBerry 20:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board‎. Nev1 (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Zaphiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

• es.Special:Contributions/Zaphiro
• de.wikibooks.org Special:Contributions/Zaphiro
• de:Special:Contributions/Zaphiro

Here are the cross acounts I come up with.--Hu12 (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

see also User:Zaphiro onaniert in seinem Büro!, a diffamation account, thanx (real) Zaphiro from german WP PS: and user:Zaphiro-Löli!, same in fr.WP that was deleted. Also Vandalism at my user talk in de.WP, the account in es.WP is not from me, but not vandalism--89.12.118.227 (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you very much--89.12.118.227 (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposing ban of sorts

Hello everybody, i am proposing that User:JBsupreme be banned from participating in AfDs and from deleting from articles anything that isn't clearly contentious or vandalism, perhaps until he has sourced an article in his subject area of choice to a GA or near-GA level.

Observe.

[35] <-- This is two chumps all WP:OMGWTFBBQ to an editor new to content writing, before they have even checked allmusic, AKA every 12 year old's first stop when sourcing some music info. This is despite being told by the editor what to search for.

[36] <---This is me providing sources showing notability. The AfD is withdrawn. All good.

( [37] <-- This is another genius questioning the notability of the subject, despite having just returned from realizing the AfD was withdrawn as said notability was demonstrated.)

[Your imagination] <--This is me waiting several hours to see if any of these chumps will use the sources i have spoonfed them with grandmotherly kindness, to help the poor fellow they WP'd all over.

[Some more of your imagination] <--This is me confirming that that isn't gonna happen, and getting to work on the article since i felt bad for dude. Note that I used his imperfect text as a guide when writing the article up and that was much easier than creating from scratch.

[38] <--This is me realizing on completion of the rewrite that I started rewriting the article only half an hour before JBsupreme, far from using the sources given, actually decimated the article, despite all of it being easily source-able with sources he did not even have to search out himself.

Okay, still with me? These are some of JBsupreme's unsuccessful AfD nominations between whenever I started and whenever I got bored:

You kind of need a knowledge of the subject area (mainly hip hop) to get a grasp of how big howlers some of these are.

Here's some vandal-would-be-proud decimation of articles: West Coast Hip Hop:

25 Sept 2008 [39] stubs article with numerous authors, removing 28 K of text with edit summary "Undid revision 240748061 by 67.233.212.231 (talk) no sources cited - pls do"

4 Oct [40] 5 Oct [41] 21 Oct [42] 12 Nov [43] 23 Nov [44] 4 Dec [45]4 Dec [46] 20 Jan 2009 [47] 17 March [48] 31 March [49] 1 April [50] 10 April [51] 11 April [52] 5 May [53] 19 May [54] 26 May [55] 6 June [56] 19 Aug [57] 20 Aug [58] 21 Aug [59] 22 Aug [60]

Rah Digga [61]

[62] edit warring on info already in cite contained in article...

Numerous other and better examples of easily verified non-controversial stuff removed without warning, go find for yourself.

Here's some runs through AfD voting in ascending order; note time spent deliberating (too lazy to look up how to link these right now, apologies):

1. 07:01, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swimming Pool Deck Tile Layout ‎
2. 07:00, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakewood Elementary School (Dallas, Texas) ‎
3. 07:00, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area 58 ‎
4. 06:58, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubmood ‎
5. 06:57, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snipe (rapper) ‎
6. 06:56, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 25 ‎
7. 06:56, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sudan-related topics ‎
8. 06:54, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sudan-related topics ‎
9. 06:54, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) List of Sudan-related topics ‎
10. 06:54, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) List of Sudan-related topics ‎
11. 06:53, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) Kev Brown

1. 06:58, 3 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spellsong Cycle ‎
2. 06:55, 3 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Order (Silent Hill) ‎
3. 06:52, 3 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Jose Golddiggers ‎
4. 06:50, 3 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 3 ‎
5. 06:49, 3 September 2008 (hist | diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z-Ro ‎
6. 06:48, 3 September 2008 (hist | diff) Z-Ro ‎
7. 06:46, 3 September 2008 (hist | diff) GMTV ‎

These are typical.

What say you? Is this conducive to writing an encyclopedia? Does anyone wonder what articles and info has slipped through the cracks? How much work by others? I certainly will not be adding the sweat of my brow to a subject area where I have to deal with such willful incompetence. Your opinions, please. 86.44.47.43 (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The AfD for Termanology was not unsuccessful, the result was "delete" – that's just the first random one I sampled. Your use of phrases such as "until I got bored" and "[your imagination]" don't encourage people to take you seriously. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 10:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The AfD for Skyzoo had a result of "delete" and was thus not unsuccessful. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 10:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The AfD for Max B had a result of "delete" and was thus not unsuccessful. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 10:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The AfD for Ebony Eyez had a result of "delete" and was thus not unsuccessful. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 10:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As a side, you should post stuff like this @ ANI next time, and maybe {{hat}} your long lists. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Think you're wrong there since i'm proposing a ban of sorts.86.44.47.43 (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The AfD for Gillie Da Kid had a result of "delete" and was thus not unsuccessful. Why did you post that long and completely falsified list of "unsuccessful" AfDs? ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 10:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The AfD for 20Bello had a result of "delete" and was thus not unsuccessful. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 10:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This is the IP's first post ever. Sock? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's just a dynamic IP, this is them too. Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 10:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

One also can't help but notice the edit summary "(undo JBSupreme's idiotic illiterate butchery)" in there. Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 10:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You disagree with that assessment? 86.44.47.43 (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the user, but that edit summary is obviously a personal attack and entirely inappropriate. You kinda lose credibility by acting like that. Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 10:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is a nice way to suggest one is a buffon who ignorantly shits on new and industrious content writers, and who could not account for a single fact were they under house arrest at the library of alexandria, then i'm afraid it's quite beyond my art.86.44.47.43 (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Get outta here, treasury. you guys see an IP and you go crazy. Don't you think your links are awfully blue to call those AfDs "successful"? Clearly these are examples of how this cavalier editing causes shit to fall through the cracks. Gillie Da Kid slipped in there by accident, i saved it because it is a very interesting AfD, just a nom and an IP keep and closed as delete.

"that long and completely falsified list" Really, now? That is dishonest, in contrast to my post. 86.44.47.43 (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

All six of those AfDs were closed as "delete" – read the pages yourself. They were thus good-faith nominations, and were "successful" from JBSupreme's point of view. Therefore, your list was falsified. The links are now blue because the pages were re-created (either to acceptable standards, or as redirects). ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 10:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Reposting from my talk for you: I might as well accuse you of "false allegations" for saying i posted on ANI when i did not. Notable subjects that get deleted are part of the point, so the blue-linked articles you cite that JB sent to AfD are not great successes, sorry, but the system failing in the face of cavalier incompetence. <--I believe I made this point above. 86.44.47.43 (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I "falsely accused" you of posting on ANI when I meant AN – I will now pay millions of dollars of compensation to you.

Can you stop the persiflage, please? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 10:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

... 86.44.47.43 (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.47.43 (talk)

"get outta here"? read WP:NPA; this borders it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556^{> haneʼ} 10:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC) OK. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. "Get outta here", especially when prefacing a comment, is an innocuous colloquialism meaning I disagree with what you say. The rest of the comment clearly addresses the issue. Try not making mountains out of Beverly Hills Cop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard! How many more months of AfD noms do you think we need to go through to demonstrate a possible problem here, or do you also think i have slipped up too much by including such great successes as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gillie_Da_Kid, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ebony_Eyez and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/20Bello without rewriting their articles first 86.44.47.43 (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked 86.44.47.43 for 24 hours

I considered the above ip's last edits to this discussion, coming after I had attempted to cool the situation regarding their previous comments, as disruptive. I thus enacted the 1 day sanction. Looking at the entire thread, I don't see that the editor has been attempting to engage with editors regarding their concerns. I suggest that discussion can continue more productively without 86.44's participation in the short term. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration clerks seeking interested users

We want you!

• Do you consider yourself a good communicator?
• Are you a motivated individual, who is willing to work varying hours?
• Do you enjoy doing thankless work (you are editing Wikipedia, so the answer is yes)?
• Are you interested in the inner workings of the Arbitration Committee?
• Do you want to wear a Fez?

If you answered yes to all the above questions, then Arbitration clerking is for you! And seeing as the clerk corp is currently in the process of vetting new candidates you are encouraged to apply. To do so, simply send us an email at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In this email, be sure to include your username, what you feel you have to offer the committee, and why you are applying for the position.

Please note: Non-administrators are encouraged to apply.

Tiptoety ^talk 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow fancy. Do they get to drive cool little go-carts too? Grsz¹¹ 08:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Cool! I want a funny little Model T to drive in parades! Seriously, count me in. I've been looking for other things to do beyond playing whack-a-vandal. I can concentrate more on writing as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is the funny little man in the picture? Aren't wizards supposed to have pointy hats, anyway? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm...not the picture I originally put up. Not sure I really get it either, but oh well. :-P Tiptoety ^talk 05:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Cask of Amontillado... ;-)

Why would anyone want to be an arbitration clerk? --Malleus Fatuorum 06:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The main reason is that it puts one on the fast track to becoming an arbitrator. The question then is why would anyone want to be an arbitrator. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be more accurate to say that being a clerk attracts the same kind of people who would be attracted to being arbitrators; people who feel they can best contribute by helping keep the more volatile areas of the project under control. I suppose the closest real-world analogues would be firefighters: it's hard work that is only valuable to minimize damage when all hell already broke loose, but it's important that someone does it to prevent things from spreading into a catastrophe. It's also all about wading through the smoke to put out fires. — Coren ^(talk) 16:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment III

My stalker is back, as 166.205.137.235. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Rev

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

---

Resolved

 – Not an administrator issue. Take to Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. tedder (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Rev, the drummer for the band Avenged Sevenfold, died recently. While this is tragic and sad, his article is a mess at the moment due to the sudden attention. Could some helpful administrators or autoconfirmed people do something about this article and keep an eye on it? I can't, since the page is semi protected. 98.66.193.52 (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2009 (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.

Admin Secret

Resolved

 – ArbCom is aware of the issue and a resolution will be forthcoming. –xeno^talk 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure as to the relevant issues but Admin Secret seems to have health issues and his family have posted User:Secret a message on his userpage. Perhaps it is in need of some action or confirmation.Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hrm... Emergency desysop I think... –xeno^talk 18:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the message from the cousin (which imo provides too much detail) and replaced it with a generic wikibreak template and notified arbcom-l of the situation. –xeno^talk 19:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, the account could be compromised and anyway if it is correct he will not be needing his admin status for a while. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your report. –xeno^talk 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Secret (talk · contribs) has been temporarily desysopped because of concerns that the account may be compromised. This was done under emergency procedures and was certified by Arbitrators Risker, FloNight and Roger Davies.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 20:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin AfD Relistings (vs admin closure)

This has briefly been on a few other boards in the past month, but all quite stale and something I think needs a broader view discussed. The general starting topic there is non-admin AfD closures, where my concern is with non-closures.

I'd like general thoughts on this diff[63]. The editor's name I am deliberately not going to speak; This is a procedure question and not any suggestion whatsoever of an "incident" or anything but the best of faith. No need for them to come up in a query by name. Concern is mostly on the view that of little participation being a distinctive reason to relist versus closing. Isn't this frowned upon, as it's impossible to expect equal and high levels of participation everywhere? Can't outcomes be clear with little discussion, or with very precise opinion from a smaller number of persons? Why only relist unpopular AfDs? How about anything XfD? Point being, high participation and a wide range of views represented is not a requirement of AfD, and it seems a lot of articles have discussions ongoing needlessly long per "low participation".

As a non-admin hanging out in admin-style areas doing quite the same as this editor I hate standing up at our little table to say this, but shouldn't relists be Admin-Only? Without that, we end up with a hundred relists per day that could well have what would be a clear case to delete, but are being relisted instead since a deletion close is Admin-only. I'm sure there are also plenty that are reasonable keeps but a non-Admin can't close because of our tiny window of justified actions. What if it's a BLP? Does the relisting user actually research the article topic, or just counts !votes? How many is "enough" on participation? Why relist if a full week isn't up yet? Does that not steal a closure decision away from an admin? Aren't non-admin AfD actions in general restricted to essentially-unanimous discussions and only after falling into "old" after the standard week and the rare speedy keeps?

The user quoted in the diff above is an outstanding editor so I feel bad having to ask about something in contrary to actions and have no reason whatsoever to doubt the intent of these contributions, but I would like an admin opinion. AfD is not a place for infinite discussion, and having non-admins buzz through the daily log of dozens armed with only "Keep" or "Relist" isn't appropriate. I'm sure the user does leave would-be delete closures alone, but then we have that whole participation "requirement" again. If by any means I am being entirely ignorant of something in the bigger picture please tell me (I'm often wrong!), but a lot of this appears to be quite contrary to WP:NAC (though an essay) and everything I've ever been taught/told about non-admin AfD matters from some of "the regulars". ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a very long winded question, however, in essence, you make a valid point. I think that non admin relists can often be productive- for example, if two or three editors voice an opinion but do not reach any kind of consensus, it would be entirely appropriate (IMHO) to relist and a non-admin doing it saves time for the admins who can delete those articles which need to be deleted. Obviously, if an article should, by rights, be deleted after it's had its week, then to relist it does nobody any good. What we need is some kind of clear guideline on when to make a non-admin closure or relist and when not to. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest three editors (including the nom, if none have a COI) would be a minimum for a "delete" close, less than that, a relist might be in order. HJMitchell You rang? 03:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"What we need is some kind of clear guideline on when to make a non-admin closure or relist and when not to." That's a reasonable-sounding good-faith position, but I would disagree with it. We have a clear guideline: Use common sense, be mindful of context, and respond constructively to any dispute that may arise. There's no need to codify everything into rules, "of thumb" or otherwise. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a good idea to have personal guideposts; and if necessary, turning to one of the more experienced NACers or admins for advice. But codifying them would be unnecessarily creepy. Look at WP:RELIST and how often it is ignored in practice. Timotheus Canens (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Even though it's not a personal issue, I would still appreciate it if someone could notify me when one of my posts is mentioned. As to the substantive issue: (1) I'm not familiar with the other processes so I can't really comment on them, but lack of participation in AfDs is sometimes a serious issue because sources can and do slip under the radar. Sometimes a unanimous "keep" becomes a "delete"; sometimes a unanimous (or close to unanimous) "delete" becomes either a "keep" or a "no consensus". I rarely relist debates with more than two non-SPA !votes on either side. (2) When there are more than that, relisting requires judgment. For example, you have four people saying "delete no sources", then a fifth editor turns up and says "here are the sources: A B C D". Under these circumstances a relist is probably optimal because we don't know if the sources are good. (3) If someone erroneously relists a clear-cut delete, or a clear-cut keep, those are dealt with easily. Several admins regularly go though Category:Relisted AfD debates and close AfDs if they think a consensus has formed.

The point with AfD relists for insufficient participation, in my view, is that at AfDs, most of the time the decision depends on the existence or lack of sources. But since one cannot prove a negative, our system says that if multiple editors tried searching for sources in good faith and can't find any, then we consider it unsourceable and therefore deletable. However, with only one or two people looking, the probability of reliable sources being overlooked is too high to be tolerable, so more time for consideration is appropriate. I'm not sure if this kind of scenario is present in other XfDs. Timotheus Canens (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment.

• Discussions with no input except the nominator should generally be relisted once, and it shouldn't matter if an admin or non-admin relists it. There's very little judgment here.
• Discussions with only the nom and 1 other voice, or three non-unanimous voices, are greyer and I would prefer someone with experience making these or similar calls make them. I'm not saying an admin has to make them, but it's not for an editor who decides "hmm, what's the is Articles for deletion thing..." and decides if someone else can relist he can too.
• On occasion even a 4- or 5-voice AFD may warrant relisting, particularly if new information became available that might have changed the mind of the nominator or early responders, and they haven't updated their comments.
• Remember, AfD is not a vote. Sometimes you see things at AfD that are arguably speediable, and deleting after a nomination with no second may be appropriate. Likewise, a lopsided "vote" might should close in the opposite direction based on the strength of the arguments. This applies whether the participation is 1, 2, 3, or 30 editors.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Truly speediable AfDs usually either (1) snowball or (2) are closed early as speedy. I'd argue that if a debate managed to survive 7 days without anyone else bothering to comment, (and it's not G12 or G10), then it's probably better to let a real consensus form. Also, closing an AfD against a lopsided numerical vote count when both sides are established editors (i.e., non-SPAs) tends to generate drama, a DRV, and more drama. I'm not saying that it should never be done; but it should be avoided if possible. Timotheus Canens (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. While circumstances obviously vary, there is a certain amount of 'silence implies consent' in play. If an article spends a week at AfD and can't pull in a single editor willing to speak up on its behalf, then that's very suggestive. At that point, I would be inclined to argue that the AfD has been converted to – in essence – a very well-advertised PROD. If the closing admin finds the deletion request reasonable and there are no obvious irregularities, there's no need to go to additional trouble. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same. Specifically, there was a recent RfA involving someone who does a whole lot of work in one of the less-than-glamorous categories and closes discussions as any outcome many times a day as a non-admin, and this was considered good evidence of actions to take into account in support. I don't disagree with that at all. However, that would be contrary of everything said above. Could the same theoretical candidate be applauded for closing 50 1-!vote TfDs as delete as a non-admin every day but also burned alive for doing the same at AfD? If there's a sole policy page on this, could I be poked toward it, since I could find very very little "officially". My opinion at the low-volume areas tends to be the same, as a lot of users will go through every entry for a certain day and just pass on a couple of them... I assume since they felt nothing more needed to be added. Does silence work, or does everything short at least a handful of opinions get relisted indefinitely? If we do want to have it both ways, that should be said somewhere, I'd think(?).

Hmm, I still have to go with the view of an admin needing to relist as an official action, this being a perfect case in point. Yeah, or it needs to be in writing somewhere that non-admin close as deletes are fine outside of AfD... better yet, very specifically in writing that non-admins should probably never close or relist an active XfD unless in the very tiny frame defined on nominations withdrawn. For consistency, if anything. Believe me or not, I do actually plan on putting whatever learned here to use! I'm just entirely lost on the current system without clarifications. Confusing non-admin broom workers is not good for the mopping industry. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Templates are meant to be used in articles; if no one cares about them, they can probably be deleted; articles are, however, meant to be read by our readers, most of whom have no idea whatsoever about the mysterious letters "N, V, BLP, OR, AFD". So I would argue that to declare something "unsourceable, therefore non-notable, therefore deletable" requires the input of more than one editor. On the other hand, I have no qualms about treating uncontested AfDs as prods after one relist if they otherwise satisfy the prod criteria, and can be restored upon request and not subject to G4. Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason a relist should be necessary if you want to treat the deletion as a restore-on-request PROD. That's just too much bureacracy. And I'd also note that the closing admin is free (though not compelled) to declare it a normal AfD closure and make it a binding close subject to normal DRV review but not an instant-restore. The presence of a nomination on AfD (even for a single one-week listing) automatically guarantees a lot more eyes on the deletion request than any PROD ever gets; there's no need to pretend that this is some secret, backroom process that sneaks valuable materials out of Wikipedia under cover of night.

On reflection, I would actually also strongly discourage non-admins from relisting AfDs. I fear that it may have a tendency to unnecessarily increase the traffic at AfD and distract from new nominations. I also wonder if there might not be at least a small conflict of interest — the wannabe admins doing lots of relisting and other borderline-useful paper-shuffling will certainly pad their edit counts and show their interest in 'admin-type' activities for their RfA, but it may not be the most efficient and productive outcome for the project. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Something else I've just discovered is that all new AfD listings are tracked by Erwin85Bot. Whenever a page is listed at AfD, the bot automatically notifies the article creator and all of its major editors (defined, if I'm not mistaken, as all editors who have made more than five edits to the article). Again, that's a level of specific notification and advertising that no PROD is likely ever to see. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hum. Even though it's a ridiculously niche guideline, per Mr/Ms Ten's rationale of it adding an extra bureaucracy layer when un-delete with fair rationale and normal DRV are entirely available... put "strongly discourage" in the WP:NAC essay as general advice? There's no reason to think anyone who'd actually seek out that page wouldn't adhere to the advice so "official"/"actual" would be silly. You've actually been able to state the problems I was wildly grabbing for words to describe in the first place, so thank you. Agree also on folder clogging, as ironically, deliberately having more discussions open means less average participation in all, so the issue has a feedback loop of creating more and more content for itself. Oh, and the bot thing, which I didn't know was that precise, but sounds like it was created for the purpose of encouraging/starting discussion through the courtesy posts to users. Even if an accidental consequence, it means that rarely if ever does an AfD start with zero persons knowing of it unless manually browsing. Most interesting.

A sigh and tiny nod of at the thought of the "resume padding" with this. Even if not the intended reason, it would have that effect for an RfA candidate. It would better be clarified publicly to avoid someone being unduly supported or opposed based on varying user opinions of these edits... or at best an RfA would turn into a guideline discussion on a tiny, tiny issue. I'd have POV issues if I dug into it-- preferably there's never anything to dig into at all, well, Mostly going to plug my ears on one of my reasons for starting this. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All this discussion is too theoretical as the user's name is not printed. This makes all the difference in the world. Head of Security for the World (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We have no TFP

Ok, main page has just updated and we have no featured picture- just a redlink like a badly maintained portal. I have copy-pasted yesterday's over as a temporary solution, as I didn't want to spend half a while writing up a blurb and generally going against the usual procedure. Ok, main issue- could someone please create one for today, and replace my hackjob? Second issue, could someone please work out how this happened? Third issue, could something be done to stop this happening again? (It may also be worth noting that, for tomorrow, although we have a picture, we have no blurb.) J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on one, but if someone else finishes one first, go for it. -- tariqabjotu 00:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a link to this thread at WT:FPC. Chick Bowen 00:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Howcheng is now back, and has fixed this. Chick Bowen 00:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This was an isolated incident, but as a precaution, I've added code to automatically display yesterday's TFA or TFP content if today's is missing. —David Levy 01:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work David - it's always good to have a safe guard. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One problem using that solution, at least for the TFA section: Every November or December, all the TFA templates for the next year are populated by {{TFAempty}} as a placeholder. So if User:Raul654 happens to be late selecting a TFA, using an #ifexists parserFunction in that fashion will not realistically work. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps we could modify the TFA setup. One alternative would be to move the actual content to templates nested within the placeholders (which Mark would create individually) and use these for the #ifexist construct. (Though this might be too much trouble to go to to prevent a problem that has yet to arise.) Otherwise, the new TFA code will simply have no effect (unless a TFA page happens to be accidentally deleted). —David Levy 02:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's a far simpler solution. Those placeholders exist for display (instead of red links) on the monthly queue pages (e.g. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2009 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2010). This setup is a holdover from the time before the ParserFunctions extension was introduced, and it could easily be replaced with the type of #ifexist construct discussed above (specifying that exactly the same message be displayed if the page doesn't exist). —David Levy 02:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of #ifexists, try {{PAGESIZE}}. Shubinator (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

+1 --MZMcBride (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea, but I've been unable to come up with a working implementation. Here's my broken attempt (with "yes" and "no" substituted for the actual transclusions):

{{#ifexpr:{{PAGESIZE:Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{#time:F j, Y}}}}>150|yes|no}}

This results in the following (irrespective of what page title is specified):

Is there a way to force the page size to be calculated before the rest of the code is parsed? Or is there an alternative implementation that I've overlooked? —David Levy 19:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The page size is calculated before the rest of the code is parsed, but the result is over 1000, which yields something like "1,217" (with the comma). You can strip formatting with formatnum:

{{#ifexpr: {{formatnum: {{PAGESIZE: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{#time:F j, Y}} }} |R }} > 150 | yes | no}}

Shubinator (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[slaps forehead]

So that's the comma to which it was referring. I feel silly for not realizing that. Thank you!

Before I implement this, is there a particular reason to use "400" instead of "150"? Just in case we happen to have a very short TFA blurb, I thought that it would be best to go slightly higher than the placeholder message's maximum length (144 in September), but I want to make sure that I'm not overlooking something else.

Thanks again! —David Levy 01:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, 150 would work (edited accordingly). I think I was using 400 because that's the pagesize of {{TFAempty}}, but that high isn't necessary. No problem :) Shubinator (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Implemented. Shubinator (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What to do about User:PalestineRemembered

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

---

As discussion seems to have dried up, I've closed it. There is a clear consensus to ban PalestineRemembered and any socks can be dealt with in the normal way banned user socks are dealt with. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser and behavioral evidence strongly suggests that PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing anonymously as a series of IPs.

• 86.159.187.87 (talk · contribs)
• 81.152.36.143 (talk · contribs)
• 86.159.70.117 (talk · contribs)
• 86.159.240.147 (talk · contribs)

I have blocked anonymous editing from two of these IPs and asked him to log in, and he just changes IP addresses. He is editing Israel-Palestine articles in an allegedly disruptive manner. As an IP he has received numerous warnings. He has been blocked several times in the past for disruptive editing. Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, editors may be placed on discretionary sanctions by uninvolved admins for disruptive behavior. By editing as an IP it makes it difficult (if not impossible) to track his behavior and apply any necessary sanctions. He has made broad accusations that a number of editors opposing him are "cheating" and using sockpuppets; these accusations were investigated with checkuser and none of them have any substance. He has hinted that if his IPs continue to be targeted, he will create a new account to continue to avoid scrutiny.

Brought to the community for review. Thatcher 12:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Time to ban. Long overdue. Scrutiny evasion and logged-out disruption is the last straw. Moreschi (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• This is very regrettable. But I can see no alternative to a ban. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Thatcher is right. Durova³⁹⁰ 17:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Disclosure: some editors doubt my neutrality because I used to mentor an editor on the Israeli side of the issue. When the CAMERA scandal emerged I sided with the Palestinian editors. Let's run a clean bar.
• As someone who argued in the past for PR getting another chance using mentoring (and preventing his banning before), I have to regretfully say that it seems not to have worked. Not only has PR not tried to work with other editors in the I-P field, he is now resorting to trying to obfuscate his edits through IP use and threats of sockpuppetry. That indicates someone who, at this time, cannot edit in accordance with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, and especially with the ArbCom-instituted strictures that are applied to this very contentious area. As such, sadly, I think the project would be better off without his edits until such time as he can convince ArbCom that he will act in a constructive, collaborative, and collegial manner. -- Avi (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Question - if the user has proven adept at switching IP addresses, will the issuance of a ban accomplish much other than to make a point? I am not arguing that a ban of some kind is not in order, I just wonder about the utility of issuing a ban against a user who has already proven themselves capable of and willing to (ab)use multiple anonymous addresses to make an end-run around policy. Shereth 17:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  Well, the principal difference is how further socks are handled. Being under a ban has the effect of allowing any administrator to simply block and revert without much ado or the need for yet another (dozen) AN/I threads. — Coren ^(talk) 17:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  That makes sense, and thus so does a ban at this point. Shereth 17:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to be time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• The last thing the I-P topic area needs is more alternate account/IP use. This falls pretty clearly under "avoiding legitimate scrutiny". I think a ban is probably a formality at this point, but I would endorse Thatcher's formulation and handling of the IPs. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• As one of those accused, I won't offer an opinion on bans or free sodas for life or whatever else, but I would say that PR had always maintained that PalestineRemembered was a legitimate sock (something he used to avoid I/P involvement for his main account). Does this alter things or are we presuming that this claim was never really serious? --Narson ~ Talk • 18:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• {{resolved}}?? Improper complaint because user not notified on his user talk page of complaint. Improper complaint because user is not blocked. Users who are not blocked may edit by IP, at least that's what I remember reading. This complaint should not go on until that person has been notified and given a chance to respond. This is common courtesy and avoids a kangaroo court. AG191D (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • PR knows that he has restrictions, both due to the ARbCom ruling and the community decision to have him mentored over a year ago. If Thatcher, one of our most sophisticated checkusers, confirms that 1) this user is PR and 2) PR has been informed of Thatcher's knowledge of his socking due to the IP blocks and 3) PR is threating more sockpuppetry, that is more than enough. -- Avi (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • AG191D is Dereks1x (talk · contribs). Thatcher 18:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• This action would be long past due. In addition to the other issues of abusive behavior from this user, we are well rid of a tendentious and disruptive force here. IronDuke 00:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Ban. Edits that are too anti-Israeli are not welcomed nor are the editors who write them. A little anti-Israeli stuff is expected just as a little anti-Bush stuff is expected. Head of Security for the World (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The editor's personal politics are irrelevant. If a pro-Israeli editor had a similar history and dodged scrutiny on a series of IP addresses and threatened to create a sock account, the community would respond the same way. Durova³⁹⁰ 02:34, 31 December 2009 (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.

Avast, me hearties!

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

---

Resolved

 – There are better places for silliness. Congrats, Ironholds, on cleaning up Newpages. Other editors, feel free to pile on at User talk:Ironholds. tedder (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I, the glorious buccaneer Ironholds, and some scurvy sea-dog, have sailed the high seas of Special:Newpages and relieved it of its loot!

Now if you excuse me, I'm going to imbibe copious amounts of alcohol and fall over. Happy New Years Eve, everybody :). Ironholds (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor form. You shouldn't take JPG screenshots of webpages. PNG's better for that :p Sceptre ^(talk) 04:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Eww... Windows Media Player. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh No! Wikipedia is dying! No new pages are being created! All the predictions were true! The sky is falling! ...

I hold Ironholds and Tim Song responsible. I propose they be banned for the rest of the year. All in support, vote below. Abecedare (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban. Abecedare (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. His multiple featured and good articles, along with the triple-figures of DYKs, make me, a simple anti-vandalism campaigner, sick. Also he's like 12. Ironholds (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Block everyone so that Special:Newpages always looks like that. Nick-D (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support just so we can give Ironholds a life. =) Aditya Ex Machina 04:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Timotheus Canens (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support site ban for putting half of the Newpages patrollers out of a job for a month, and for not having a life. ;) The Thing _{Merry Christmas} 04:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Great work. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 05:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support site ban. As mentioned on his talk page, I am now bored, and it's his fault. He is interrupting my Wikipedia experience. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support banination - has clearly lied to us all! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Kissle doesn't patrol redirects. Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I think he should be blocked. Take a look at his edit history and you can see that he is nominating articles for deletion faster than any human being can read them. Obviously he is not exercising anything that might be considered "judgment". Apparently he thinks that Wikipedia is some kind of first-person shooter game, and the above comments by him demonstrate that he's more interested in making high score or executing some kind of clean-sweep, and doesn't really give a damn whether his actions are constructive as long as they are earth-scorchingly thorough. When an anon vandal goes on a disruptive editing spree like this, you take action. When it's one of your cabal....? - Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Did the new pages database really crash? If so, I wonder why Ironholds brought it up. Schfifty3 05:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, he did a very significant amount of work in legitimately cleaning out the queue. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If he's getting them right, then I'm not sure what the big deal is. I looked and didn't see anything that stood out at me as being horrible. I mean, we all make a mistake every once in a while, but think about the number of pages he patrolled vs. how many mistakes are made. The fact that there's no backlog means that a much closer eye can be placed on new pages now. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Launching personal attacks is blockable, too. –MuZemike 05:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Jason, you removed a comment in your edit. Please be more careful in the future with regards to that (I've fixed it though). Calling for a serious block is nonsense.

@Schfifty: The database didn't crash, Ironholds cleared out the backlog of pages needing to be patrolled. Killiondude (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@ JasonAQuest: What? If this were true, do you think he would be getting barnstars and praise, from nearly everybody else, for clearing a massive backlog?

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

--The Thing _{Merry Christmas} 05:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Judging from the number of redlinks in his contribution history and the reasons he's putting forth for PROD's and AFD's I'd say you're dead wrong about him not exercising any judgement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Killiondude - Thanks for clarifying! I also am wondering why users are supporting a block/ban. It closely reminds me of WP:EFD... Schfifty3 05:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is "we were bored" a good enough reason? Ironholds (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2009 (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.

Happy New Year! New decade.

Happy New Year. With this edit, I will not edit anymore in 2009. I will forgive anyone who crossed wires with me, ask for forgiveness to anyone that I said harsh words to, and start fresh for a new decade next year. (I don't think I said anything to hurt others, IIRC, my apology still stands.) Wikicup starts in January and I will participate after the 2nd. Others may forgive others, it is up to them. Best of luck in the new decade! Wikipedia has a bright future if we all work together! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this a New Year's resolution? Anyway, Happy New Year! I'll act like a Good Wikipedian in 2010. JB50000 (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

CCI: musician bios

While we have had a couple of CCIs come through in the last bit, this is the first really big one we've had in a while. Contributions stretch back to at least 2006, and eliminating smaller edits there's 7 pages for evaluation (last page or two are far less likely to be problematic, I think; haven't looked yet). Because the contributor involved may be using his real name and because copyright infringement is not always intentional, I've obscured his identity a bit by naming the CCI listing for the date it was opened: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20091230.

Any and all help appreciated in this or other copyright areas, because copyright work is always backlogged. I'm still catching up WP:CP from my Christmas holiday (close!); WP:SCV has nine days uncompleted; WP:CCI itself has 15 open investigations and two requests. (Kudos to the mathematics wikiproject who have recently risen to the challenge of helping out with one impacting their project.)

Happy New Year. Whoot. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

It's a new decade!

~AH1^(TCU) 00:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thread needed champagne. :P --slakr^\ talk / 00:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's to another year of Wikipedia scandals! (X! · talk)  · @052  ·  00:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yaay - Happy New Year everyone! Have a good one! :) Ale_Jrb^talk 00:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Still twilight in California, but happy new year all. :) Durova³⁹⁰ 01:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year! JB50000 (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 was a rough year for us, but we got by. Happy New Year everyone, and here's to crossing our fingers that we at least partially rebound in 2010. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 01:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Same to you all, from under two feet of snow. And a lot of champers. 2010 here already, how time flies. P.S. 2009 was nothing compared to '08. Brilliantine (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I too have noticed that 2009 has been a difficult time, not just for Wikipedia but for the whole world. Many people in real life who I know have had relatives or friends pass away, including myself. For the first time, so many international news stories have affected people personally. I haven't been very active on Wikipedia recently, and I was going to ask this on the Help desk, but what d' I miss? ~AH1^(TCU) 02:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

In short: Flagged Revisions, Arbcom started desysopping by motion (without a full case), Arbs resigning all over the place, WP:BADSITES, lots of proposals for governance reform but few actual changes, Admin recall becoming more common, 4chan became an FA, Gropecunt Lane on the main page, and lots of admins caught socking. Also, this and this. Thank Jimbo 2009 is behind us. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

First article of 2010

...was Deysi Cori! (proof) JamieS93 15:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar to anyone who gets this through DYK, especially if they're a WikiCup participant :) J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I never signed up for the WikiCup, but indeed, it would make a fine DYK. JamieS93 16:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone think of a good DYK from what I added? :) SirFozzie (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Article seems too short for DYK at first glance (I haven't done a count though). Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm biased of course as this beat my own Billfrith by seconds, but are we certain this meets our notability criteria? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Deacon, I found plenty of newspaper articles in Spanish, (even a BBC Mundo article telling the family's story). Seeing as it's been quite a long time since I had spanish class, I had to rely on babelfish, and didn't really want to bring a bunch of it over if I wasn't 100% sure what it said.. (Here's the bbc Mundo article.) [64] SirFozzie (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Using GMT here is a bit arbitrary: by the time it was midnight in London it was about midday in New Zealand and even later in the South Pacific... I imagine that the first article of 2010 was actually created by a New Zealander or someone living in the South Pacific. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia-time is UTC (or GMT), I don't see how it's arbitrary. – Toon 21:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the first article of 2010 per the time used by Wikipedia's servers, but hardly the first article of the year in the real world. Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a chess expert, but I'd assume that holding the international grandmaster title (being the only female Peruvian to do so) is sufficient notability; not to mention the plenty of newspaper/media coverage, too. JamieS93 23:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New BRFA

Hi all,

This is just a notice that I've created a new request for bot approval. The task in question is designed to add {{orfud}} to non-free images that are not used in any article. Link to discussion.

--(X! · talk)  · @978  ·  22:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Move

Resolved

Would someone be so kind as to zap 2010 Lakki Marwat suicide bombing so that January 2010 North-West Frontier Province bombing can be moved there? HJMitchell You rang? 22:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted per G7 - single author request. Ale_Jrb^talk 23:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

POTD

Would someone be able to update the text in the POTD template. I just realized how little I wrote, so I added some more in. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Saldezza

As this user was blocked while edit warring with several editors including an admin, FisherQueen, who subsequently blocked him or her, I've asked FisherQueen if she'd submit the block to review. She has agreed. Please examine the following histories and make useful comments on User talk:FisherQueen.

• Caroline Lucas‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• FisherQueen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Saldezza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--TS 20:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Dealt with. Unblock reviewed and declined. This is a clear BLP violation, as arguably is this, as well as being possibly deliberate vandalism. FQ was well within her rights to act as she did, but lest anyone quibble, I have reblocked myself, leaving the block at the same duration. Moreschi (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for dealing with this. --TS 22:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've altered the block to disallow e-mail, as he is apparently using it to continue to attack FisherQueen. He can still use his talk page to contest the block. Kuru (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Saldezza followup issue

Tony has raised an issue with this editor on my talk page which I think needs some wider attention:

Hi Saldezza. A certain User:Nothughthomas who appeared on Wikipedia at about the same time as you did, and who shares some of your opinions and editing areas was blocked for 24 hours from 22:05, 29 December 2009 [65], and at 23:18 you requested an unblock despite no block having been placed on your username. [66] Is it possible that you share an IP address with this user or are using Nothughthomas as an alternative account?

I'm uncertain whether the two editors are the same person. Nonetheless the evidence that Tony has noted is suggestive of something not being quite right here. Should I submit this for a sockpuppet investigation? It's not impossible that we're looking at two individuals in the same household or organisation using a single IP address, which raises the possibility of meatpuppetry. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Both these users show typical behavior patterns of experienced users creating new accounts, too - very active and very well informed of Wikipedia policies and tactics from their very first edits. Bertport (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it may well be a false positive. Saldezza does seem to be a little disoriented and unsure of how things work. She is new and one has to make allowances for that. Sure, she has been editing tendentiously and edit warring, but I would put her unblock request down to unfamiliarity with the way Mediawiki works. --TS 05:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a possible explanation for the pattern you noted: shared accounts, i.e. the owner of the Nothughthomas account mistakenly logging into the Saldezza account (or forgetting to log into the Nothugthomas account) to post an unblock request. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well both have been blocked recently for edit warring involving some very strange behavior, so maybe it wouldn't be so crazy to run a checkuser, given the other similarities I noted above. --TS 05:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It can't hurt. I've submitted a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nothughthomas. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated, apparently. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Compromised admin account

On encyclopediadramatica.com/Abuse_Filter#Evading_the_filters, there is a link to a page which cannot normally be viewed by a regular user, "Filter 72", and a statement that it came from "a long time inactive sysop account". I am posting here to alert Wikipedia administrators to this potential sleeper account if they are not aware already. I assume the compromised account is not taking any actions that would reveal its identity, but only spying on pages that cannot normally be viewed by everyday users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.68.2.65 (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Indef Blocking of User:Rameses and User:Brittainia without 3RR or Warning?

Resolved

 – Blocked for editing while blocked to post this. Comments below. --slakr^\ talk / 14:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

2over0 recently indef blocked two users, Rameses and Brittainia without warning. Neither of them had a 3RR warning in the past year. They were accused of being sockpuppets and checkusered in the past without any due procedure by Raul654. They explained they were a husband and wife and have not been editing any of the same articles recently. Rameses has been an editor since July 2004. Do you believe this indef blocking without warning is fair? - 59.164.204.229 (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not blocked from editing your User talk:Rameses and User talk:Brittainia pages, so you are free to request an unblock there. For further details on requesting an unblock see WP:GAB. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds ridiculous to me. Let me guess, they edited global warming articles, got annoyed with having their constantly comments erased/altered and then got 3rred over it? 2over2 also felt the need to collapse some of my better arguments in the IPCC talk page. He seems really invested in those pages and I don't need the hassle of writing counter-arguments if some admin is going to basically erase them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI for those involved. I had requested at SPI that this be independently confirmed, but the accounts admitted being associated with the same IP address so the request was denied. --GoRight (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Boris weren't you were involved in the discussions that led to this indef blocking? (See: User talk:2over0/Archive 3#Block of Brittainia, User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris#Brittainia/Rameses, and User talk:2over0/Archive 3#Canvassing). GoodLocust, your first guess is correct. Brittainia was trying to return the sentence "Some scientists dispute the consensus view." which had been deleted from the lead of the Global Warming article without discussion. This is what led to this indef blocking.[67]. Brittainia had also started a new section in GW Talk [68]. This was immediately deleted by William M. Connolley.[69] Brittainia undid WMC's revert and then the talk started on the above pages to indef block both Brittainia and Rameses. Within a few hours three "warnings" were posted on Brittainia's page and then without giving her any chance to comply, she and Rameses were both indef blocked. Interestingly enough, within a few hours of her indef blocking her new section was rapidly hidden from view from the GW Talk page by KimDabelsteinPetersen who "archived" this new section [70] and then it was "binned" [71] (a very unusual step) a few hours later, so that it was completely eliminated from the GW talk page within hours of her blocking. All of this occurred within a period of under 12 hours - is this the way old editors (from July 2004) are supposed to be banished from Wikipedia? - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Users who are militant opposers of the concept anthropogenic global warming, as well as those who have an extreme emotional attachment to any concept, be it scientific or political, have always been dealt with in this way, particularly if they have been connected to each other such as sharing the same IP address and not editing at the same time of day. If Rameses (talk · contribs) and Brittainia (talk · contribs) are in fact different individuals who share the same internet protocol address, then there is perhaps a good reason to block the accounts, as they may be the same individual (sockpuppets) or two similarly minded individuals working with each other (meatpuppets). Both are forbidden from use on Wikipedia, except under certain legitimate uses. Certainly in this case, these two accounts were not being used in conjunction with each other for legitimate purposes and they were blocked. If this is not the case, the users in question are free to request an unblock through the proper channels, which is certainly not making a thread to complain about the blocking administrator while logged out and using their incredibly visible IP address. Considering Brittainia only has 45 mainspace edits and Rameses only has 237 over the course of their ~5 year history on the project, I cannot determine whether or not anything of value was lost.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to return the sentence "Some scientists dispute the consensus view." which had been deleted from the lead of the Global Warming article without any discussion is militant? The edits were not even on the same pages. Many families have only one computer at home linked to the internet. Does Wikipedia believe all couples are "meatpuppets" and should be banned? Couples generally have similar views after a few decades of marriage. - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If this couple edits Wikipedia in a way that primarily advocates their view, be it majority or minority, on a subject, then they act as meatpuppets of one another and should be blocked. However, as it has been proven in the past, it is highly unlikely that these two people only have one computer and they allow one another to log in, make a statement, log out, and then the other to log in to make another statement. Over all, it sounds highly inefficient both as a method to contribute to the project and as a method to advocate one's or their views.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Since they are not editing the same pages, the only reason to do so is that there is only one computer in the house connected to the internet. This is not that unusual around the world - not everyone is rich enough to have many computers and internet connections. Your allegation that they edit primarily to advocate their view seems to conflict strongly with your earlier point that Brittainia only has 45 mainspace edits over 5 years? Is this your idea of militant advocacy? - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Both have edited Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). And both have edited Climate of Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and within an hour of each other on its talk page. Same goes for Talk:Extraterrestrial atmospheres (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). And both seem to have similar writing styles, much like the title of the thread on this board. Such a case would be discussed as such in the proper channels for requesting an unblock, none of which is logging out and making a thread on the administrators' noticeboard as his, her, or their IP address. And that is merely the count to the mainspace. I have not counted the talk page, Wikipedia page, Wikipedia talk page, or user talk page edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously going back 3 years? This was before they were asked not to edit the same pages. Try checking in the past year. - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have looked throughout their editing histories, yes, because Brittainia's is not as extensive and there can only be crossover prior to being asked not to edit the same pages. Now drop the charade already and admit that you are Rameses and/or Brittainia so I can stop telling you to stop asking things on this page and go to your talk page(s) to request an unblock through the proper channels.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no charade and no cause for foul language (it is foul even if you delete it later [72]). I have never said I am not Rameses and I have openly posted my IP address with every post. I am not requesting an unblock but a review of an Admin's actions. - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is inherently a request to unblock both the Rameses and Brittainia accounts.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A review of an Admin's actions would be a review to see if the Admin acted properly, in a reasonable and fair manner according to Wikipedia's rules. If the review finds they didn't, then the proper follow up steps should occur. I don't see why you object - do you feel that all Admin's actions should be above review? - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) If they want to be unblocked, it would seem to me that they can use the {{unblock}} templates and various other unblock request venues like everyone else. I should note that if an editor is editing while blocked, it isn't going to help their case—even if they think the block unjust. --slakr^\ talk / 11:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not editing any articles - simply requesting a review of an Admin's actions here. - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rameses and Brittainia can talk on their own behalf through their own accounts rather than suggest that their blocks were improper through logged out edits. Editing while blocked does not help ever.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I request the review of this Admin's actions on my own talkpage? I can't see that being very productive. - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly bring more neutral eyes to it rather than blatantly socking to get your point across.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked 59.164.204.192 for editing while blocked. If he continues, I would suggest a block on 59.164.204.0/24 +AO,+ACB. For the users blocked, I would highly suggest that if you feel you were blocked wrongly, please use the talk page of the primary account that's blocked to make the dispute. For more information as well as alternative venues for disputing blocks, please see the general unblock request instructions either on the block notification screen or in via the blocking policy. --slakr^\ talk / 14:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be a buzzkill, but "resolved" doesn't seem appropriate. The forked and inverted ANI against the blocked users is "resolved", but the actual topic of the discussion is not at all, or even discussed. The blocks becoming "more rationalized" from more recent events doesn't make that all disappear. Naturally, the normal unblocking methods are available, but I can't even completely fault stepping over that in this case given the potentially dubious situation behind the first block, and there have been cases of precisely this kind of multi-tiered blocking abused by admins in the past. If I had gone from no warnings to blocked and in the middle of other filings out of nowhere because the issuing admin was a name I might have recognized as involved, I can picture panicking to here to have something said before being completely unable to edit.

Users can't be preemptively blocked pending the unknown outcome of things... blocks without warning on established users are even more rare. That needs to be explained. There areat least some fair points whatever your angle but I can't in any way see how forcing people to come to an IP's talk page for this kind of discussion would bring "more neutral eyes". I don't care who is whom and I'm not going to research it past the histories, but this is all just common sense used (or ignored). imo, best off put back into ANI as a new entry actually on the topic mentioned. Being off in a corner of Wikipedia as is suggested is essentially restricting it to all but eyes directly looking for it in the first place. Far from neutral. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Datheisen, this long post doesn't seem helpful. The IP posted both here and on WP:ANI to appeal both blocks. Nobody has suggested discussing things on the IP's talk page. Perhaps the best thing is for this discussion to be archived. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Environment

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 would like to make a few changes to the protected Template:Environment as mentioned at Template talk:Environment namely to allow for the use of the task forces. I consider the requests to uncontroversial. One of my requests has been there since Sept 2009. The request for a picture is of little importance but the inclusion of the importance assessment would be nice but not all editors agree. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you put an {{editprotected}} on the talk page? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooops. I have now. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Climate change discretionary sanctions proposal

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

2010

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

---

Resolved

 – Cheers, all. tedder (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I know very well that this may be frowned upon. But I would just like to wish all of thoses who participate here and keep this ANI up and running a happy new year. Long live the wiki! (Its been 9 years, right?)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year! JB50000 (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year! :D Ale_Jrb^talk 01:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Coldplay, I hope the wiki lasts as long as the year too. >.> /proofreader whining --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Frown. What keeps this ANI running are editors who make problems for other editors. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? If Coldplay minds, he can tell me. I'm not trying to cause a problem with a simple joke. I even mocked myself with the "whining" thing. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Coldplay, with that edit summary I'm tempted to nominate you for sysoops. ;) --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? (is confused) Was it funny or something? I messed up.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

While correcting your first typo, you misspelt "oops" in the edit summary. XD --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. And I had my hopes up too :( (Im not really sad. I would never pass an RFA right now. Who am I kidding)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck everyone and let's have another great year fighting vandals, settling disputes, and keeping the spirit of this project alive! Happy New Year! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Support

1. Strong Support per creater of this section.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Strong Support Why not? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Support! JB50000 (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Support per WP:2010ISGOINGTOBEAGREATYEARWHICHISBETTERTHAN2009BUTTHEREAREONLY2.5YEARSUNTIL2012THEENDOFTHEWORLD. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy New Year!} at ≈ 04:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Well aren't you just full of happy thoughts. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Not to mention it's more like 2.97, since it is a few days before Christmas. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Did you mean a few days after Christmas? December21st2012Freak ^{Happy New Year!} at ≈ 05:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

5. FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Overriding Support — The Cabal demands it. Askari Mark (Talk) 06:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Support - yay 2010! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Proposal only is "Happy New Year", support a "Very Happy New Year to everyone!" JB50000 (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT#SOAP, and WP:IAMAGRUMPYOLDCODGERWHORESENTSALLTHESEKIDSGOINGOUTANDPARTYINGWHILEIHAVETOSTAYHOMEANDBESIDESITSONLY6DEGREESABOVEZEROOUTHEREONTHEGODFORSAKENFROZENPLAINS. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Oh come on, that's a horrible reason to oppose since not all of us kids go out and party. I'm a teenager who is spending his night editing this site. Not all of us youth are out there wreaking havoc around town. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   6 above freezing. Lucky must be your summer! Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 06:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Is culturally insensitive to the Chinese New Year adherents. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose Less that 1/4th of the world celebrates new year on Jan 1st. I propose we stablish a New Wiki-year Day we can all agree to celebrate. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

April 3, My birthday :D--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 13:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose Too many New Year's already. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

• Strong abstain Brilliantine (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral. Just 'cos I can! Happy new year to all! Long Live the Wiki! HJMitchell You rang? 03:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment How dare you vote neutral! (And is this supposed to be like an RFA. I have'nt viewed the candidate's edits yet :D)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Abstain until I can honestly say "May the New Year be even better" rather than "May the New Year suck less". PhGustaf (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Grinch

• I realize there's not a proper forum for off topic chatter, but how does this in any way require admin intervention? Doesn't this board see enough traffic as it is? --Onorem♠Dil 04:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Quick, someone start a revert war on January 1st! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Here Here.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

True. But Im sure that you'll have less trafic for the time being. Its almost midnight in the US after all.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

@Coldplay, actually it is almost 9:00 PM where I live, and I live in the USA. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy New Year!} at ≈ December21st2012Freak ^{Happy New Year!} at ≈ 04:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it still time to remind you guys that the US covers 6 timezones (Alaska and Hawaii included)? > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Happy New Year fellow Wikipedians! Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

First Edit of 2010

....it was vandalism. :) LOL. A Happy New Year to everyone :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, it wasn't a massive attack on the system, so things are good, so far... Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you do have a point there. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I do feel bad about this edit though. I left a message about it, but he still had the first non-vandalism one of the decade. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Vandalism fixed

User:Tony Sidaway removed an entire section See diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=335281984&oldid=335281275. This is forbidden. The section was to determine consensus for a happy new year. At the time of removal, there was a lack of consensus but no suggestion for a sad new year. The bot should archive this, which it will tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't vandalism. It is specifically noted that the incidents noticeboard is for incidents. As Tony said, what he removed is better for the village pump.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at TFD

Resolved

 – The backlog as been cleared. Thanks to all! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Any help clearing the backlog at WP:TFD would be much appreciated. I am more than happy to help with any cleanup issues, but I cannot close many of them due to COI. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Bg007

[73] [74] "CIA propaganda is unimportant"

[75] Removing tags for no reason

[76] Removes sourced material

[77] Removes UN sourced material [78] Adds blogspot material that suits his pov [79] Again removes souced information

[80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] Removes images from the Chetniks article

[86] [87] [88] Removing traces of "Croatia" or "Croatian"

[89] Removing and refering to sourced material as "propaganda".

Upon reviewing this users edits it is clear that a NPOV wikipedia is not his goal. His edits show a clear case of whitewashing anything that may even remotely show Serbs in a bad light. ◅ P R O D U C E R _(TALK) 18:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on the merits, but procedurally this is in an area subject to WP:ARBMAC / WP:DIGWUREN sanctions, and thus this request might be better made at WP:AE. If you want to pursue this here, you must notify the user of this thread.  Sandstein  19:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change for Template:Unblock reviewed

See the code at Testwiki:User:Daedalus969/Unblock reviewed. I've added the parameters review, reviewed, and declined, for those admins out there who make the mistake of using parameters other than decline. Since the template is fully protected, I'm requesting for the change to be made.. at least after consensus is gained here. Another admin approved of the change, but suggested that I post it here first.— Dædαlus ^ContribsI've deleted the timestamp so that this can get the attention it needs.— Dædαlus ^Contribs

The code looks fine to me. I don't see any reason not to implement, but I'd like some more opinions first. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems just to be adding some alternate names for the parameter? No big deal - should've just been proposed thru the {{edit protected}} imo. Has this ever actually been a problem, though? The unblock template even gives us a idiot-proof copy and pastable code segment... –xeno^talk 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It actually has, I asked to implement these changes as I have seen admins make this mistake myself.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see here, I fix one such mistake. I'm sure there are others out there.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to "wheel-warring" policy in Wikipedia: Administrators

Hi folks, I am bringing this up to make everyone aware of a proposed change with regards to Wikipedia policy regarding undoing other administrators actions without discussion or getting consensus. I'm going to post the former text, what I have suggested (after posting an original request on the talk page, getting some feedback and waiting two weeks.

Here's the change I put in to the Administrator's page: [90].

Now, some thoughts and some caveats. First off, this is DEFINITELY only an editor's action. I do not speak for the ArbCom here, I speak only for myself.

I've seen numerous times in contentious areas where someone does an action, and another administrator undoes the action unilaterally without discussion or consensus. In just about every single case I've worked with, the unilateral undoing of another administrator's action led to drama and ill-will.

I don't mean for this to apply to normal housekeeping actions (for example, someone asked me if this would apply to undoing a semi-protection from 2007-08 due to WP:INDEFSEMI.) I'm saying that this should be in areas where the administrator is undoing a recent or current action. What I want to prevent is, for example, User:CompletelyRandomUser gets blocked by User:CompletelyRandomAdmin for disruptive editing. Another administrator, CompletelyRandomAdministratorNumberTwo, is prohibited from coming in and saying "No, I don't agree with that" and unblocking the user without discussion and/or consensus.

Right now, the "second mover" has an undue advantage in any dispute. They can undo the action, and anyone "REDO-ing the action" is sanctioned for wheel warring. I'm not trying to give the "First Mover" an advantage in doing this.. instead I'm trying to make sure that hasty, ill-considered, drama-creating unilateral un-doing of actions happen as little as possible. Wikipedia has no deadline, so let's take the time to do reasonable discussion whenever possible. SirFozzie (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please think through the consequences of what you are proposing. If you don't want to give a first-mover advantage (which this proposal definitely does, your intent notwithstanding) then provide a mechanism to avoid it. If you don't want this to apply to "routine" actions (whatever "routine" means) then include wording to that effect. And so on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a mechanism. It's called "Discuss with the original administrator, or get consensus on AN/ANI that the original action was in error". And Xeno and I are talking about some of the possible wording on the talk page. We want to be fair and reasonable, but we also don't want to bury it in clauses, sub-clauses, and memorandums. :) SirFozzie (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• So that we don't have this conversation going on in two places, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Time to change the wheel-warring policy?. Thanks, –xeno^talk 14:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A New Behemoth Emerges In Google Maps: Wikipedia

Administrators and others may want to skim A New Behemoth Emerges In Google Maps: Wikipedia and be on the lookout for unintended consequences, such as sophisticated attempts at mapspam. Jehochman ^Brrr 20:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As an editor who has spent much of the past four months adding missing {{geocoords}} to our articles, my impression thus far is that we cannot have much control over this. Goggle Maps has its own way of working, and we have ours; anyone can add a promotional tag to GM by uploading a .kml file, and GM will not complain. Our own related Wikimapia, although new, might counter that, but the bottom line is how users find it most easy to get to the content they want. I don't see any reason to worry about this. Rodhullandemu 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Slowly, but surely, Wikipedia is becoming a substitute for the rest of the Internet as opposed to being a complement. –MuZemike 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, that is no bad thing; if enquiring minds come to us for information, and we provide that information, that, in my view, is what we should be doing. It is implicit in the nature of an encyclopedia that we should do so, and without advertising or promotion; it seems to be a constant struggle here to combat vandalism and spam. But we have little control over how other websites use our admittedly free content, beyond requesting attribution. Clearly, Wikipedia has become and important influence on the internet, and there will be those who will seek to exploit that influence; to the extent to which they do, and the way in which they do so, may need analysis outside this forum; but we set out to provide free information, and should not be surprised if others seek to make a profit from that. Rodhullandemu 01:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, remember that this has been going on for a few years over on Google Earth, so this is really nothing new. I just find the part where the businesses are ranked highly amusing since it still says Google is far from perfection. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

True. And the attraction of Wikipedia to SEOs is no secret either. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – Blocked - TexasAndroid (talk)

This IP 68.82.224.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has left this legal threat at Will Barnet [91]- please note both User:Tyrenius and I warned him months ago about other potentially damaging edits he made there disparaging to the artist...Modernist (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Tan | 39 05:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...Modernist (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Thetruth1865 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Communicator2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 1editor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have a concern that these accounts may be sock puppets to Kay Ivey. --Carmouche (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You should file a case at WP:SPI, and explain more clearly why you suspect they are socks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything worrisome here. They aren't doing the usual sockpuppet thing, i.e. adding extrememly promotional material, so I really don't think that we have a problem here with them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify that? It sounds as if you are saying sockpuppets aren't sockpuppets unless they spam. Auntie E. 18:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Another sock of User:Ragusino

Resolved

 – Blocked - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a quick ban of User:Cavtatraz. The account is yet another sock of the disruptive User:Ragusino, so completely obvious a WP:SPI report is redundant. The name is yet again based on a Dalmatian toponym, this time Cavtat. The articles are the same the horrid grammar is the same, etc... This is sock No.7, I think, no doubt more will follow. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Am I the only admin who can follow DIREKTOR's rationales? I find these socks to be really obvious. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he's even trying to conceal them... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How well did I handle this situation?

I have a case where two users, David A and Asgardian, have a long-standing dispute over several articles. Each one feels that the other is wrong, such as not following content policies, adding original research to articles, removing valid content, etc. Each has had some pretty unkind things to say about the other, and seems to think that the other is a menace out to cause trouble. Each has come to my talk page, and other places, to complain about each other. The two of them tend to disrupt articles when they interact, because they will undo the other's changes, often arguing in the edit summaries about how the other person is wrong and/or making comments about each other.

I personally have no feelings on whether one is right and the other is wrong regarding content (in same cases I agree with one or the other, or only agree in part) and would rather see them working together - or at least not working on the same articles at the same time so that conflict can be avoided. However, I feel that edit warring is greatly disruptive, and these editors have both been going at each other for some time. Honestly, I don't know what to do about this situation, but I don't feel there is any reason that we should have to tolerate this back-and-forth fighting.

So the other day I received yet another complaint about warring on the article Dormammu, an article on which this sort of warring had been happening for some time. I figured protecting the page again wouldn't really accomplish anything, so I started a thread on this noticeboard (which was later moved to AN/I). The idea was brought up to do a topic ban for the editors in question. I had seen this done before in a similar situation, so I thought about it. Meanwhile, I got another complaint about similar behaviors on Juggernaut (comics), another article prone to edit warring which I have protected before, so I added that one to the situation. I knew the topic ban may not actually fix the situation, and would not address the root of the problem, but would at least defuse the fighting for now at least.

Now, when an admin takes any sort of admin action against a user, that admin doesn't expect the user to give a pat on the back, although David didn't seem overly bothered by it. Asgardian however, called my action "ill-advised", "abrupt" and "unilateral" (how it can be one-sided when I applied the ban evenly, I'm not sure), then went on to say that I applied the ban "in error", while "erroneously" using the prior topic ban (also applied "in error") as a model for this case, from which I supposedly copied "verbatim" while making a "very quick judgment ... without any real discussion".

So, I'm looking for opinions from other admins. Did I handle this situation OK? Could I have done something differently, or better? BOZ (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My comments are mostly to the general state of affairs, and not the specifics. Not only do admins always protect the article in the m:wrong version, they also always block the innocent - or less disruptive - party, when they are not blindly following the whims of the mob their actions are unilateral (or against consensus), and they are as gullible as they are mendacious. It goes with the territory.

Per the specifics above, you did what you thought was appropriate to lessen disruption to the encyclopedia. One party cares less for the actions than another. It happens, but the question you have to ask yourself is; does the editors who disagree with your actions suggest any other action that does not negatively impact on the other disputants? If not, or they simply wish a return to the status quo, then your actions even if not perfect were appropriate. They may be reversed or amended, but you did what you thought was right and within policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that; it's actually pretty well applicable, although as a general statement it could be used in a number of cicumstances, I'm sure. BOZ (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Any other opinions? BOZ (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Physical threat

Resolved

 – User in question blocked indef for vandalism and physical threats. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor BILLYISANOOB is making physical threats directed at me on my user page. [92] ttonyb (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• He received a final warning and was then blocked 24 hours. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it should be indef. It appears the account is a vandalism only and after 24 he is going to come back and vandalize more. Better to swing the banhammer now, then wait and do it later. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I have reblocked as indef for vandalism only account and physical threats. Crum375 (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
      • No problems, the user only made one useful edit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo use ?

I noticed that File:Wikipedia-logo.png and its derivatives (such as File:Wikisanta.jpg) are used in several user and article talk pages. As far as I know, these images are copyrighted and such use violates WP:NFCC, but am asking here in case there is some special provision with regards to this logo that I am not aware of. Abecedare (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The copyright notice is a bit confusing. It only seems to state that the use of the Wikimedia logo specifically (the red-gree-blue one with the circles) is subject to the usage guideline, however I can find nowhere where there is a clear restriction on the use of the "Puzzleball" logo. Indeed, as the logo is hosted at commons, that would imply that it has been liscenced under CC-BY-SA, because as far as I am aware, all submissions to commons are so liscenced. --Jayron32 21:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons' hosts all wikimedia logos, so I don't think that is an argument for the logos being CC-BY-SA. Obviously, an exception is being made for wikimedia owned logos (justifiably), and I am wondering if that exception extends to NFCC not being applied to them. Abecedare (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What we need here is clear guidance from The Foundation over this. Is there any policy page or other page that makes unambiguous discussion over the proper usage of the Puzzleball Logo? Because if there is, and the usages you cite above are in violation of it, it would be a hu-jung-ous problem, given the way in which the logo is used all over Wikipedia in all sorts of namespaces. I am not saying there is such a problem, but if there is, its a can-of-worms we may not be prepared to deal with if we open it... --Jayron32 21:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Unambiguously as possible: the Wikimedia logos are copyrighted (as well as trademarked in many jurisdictions), and are not licensed for re-use under CC-BY-SA. We've never actively policed their appearance in Commons, on Talk pages, etc., because we believed that our community of editors recognized that, for quite sound legal and licensing reasons, we cannot allow the distinguishing (and copyrighted) trademarks be freely reused by people who may (for example) use them to label content that is in fact proprietary. It may seem counterintuitive, but controlling the Wikimedia trademarks, including the Wikipedia name and puzzle globe, is as important to keeping project content free as the GPL's restrictions are important to keeping code free. MikeGodwin (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it must be allowed. What about all those logos saying someone has rollback rights etc? And what about the admin mop? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Uh oh. I have a puzzleball logo on a large sticker sitting on my desk (stole it from a WikiMedia employee). Will I be getting meatballed soon? tedder (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike Godwin was asked by Zscout about this some time ago and his response I believe was that the WMF does not object to the reuse as described above. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, MBisanz. If WMF is fine with such use, I guess we don't have to worry about it either. It would be good to document this somewhere on-wiki though, since I am unlikely to be the first or the last to raise the question. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably worth emailing him at mgodwin wikimedia.org and asking if he could make a statement onwiki. MBisanz ^talk 07:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe Mike's on vacation. I can't speak to this with any kind of authority, but I would suggest that I think trademark rather than copyright is the relevant concern. Hopefully Mike can provide some wisdom about how it's applied in cases like this, though. (In the meantime -- could somebody link to a couple of examples of what the concern is about?) -Pete Forsyth (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed several times before without clear consensus emerging; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive142#WMF Logos (that debate includes a long and rather nuanced e-mail from Mike). The problem is that there are two separate issues; whether the WMF has given permission for broad use, which is obviously a foundation issue, and whether there is a principle behind the NFCC that should be followed as a general rule, which is a community issue. To me, the two are best kept separate; these debates tend to get derailed because the WMF policy is taken to somehow trump community policy, which makes no sense; if Mike Godwin said he had no legal objection against our making a raccoon an admin, that wouldn't prevent us from deciding, independently, that it wouldn't be a good idea. Chick Bowen 20:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is a useless comment to keep this thread from disappearing before Mike is back in the office (assuming Monday). tedder (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the Wikipedia name and puzzle globe are copyrighted, trademarked, and not freely licensed, precisely because we use those protections to ensure that the marks are used only in association with free content (e.g., Wikipedia articles or Wikimedia Commons images). MikeGodwin (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Absent clear guidance from the foundation, this logo should be treated as any other fair-use image, except...

If it is allowed to continue at the Commons, it and derivations of it should be clearly labeled as not freely licensed. If it weren't for obvious practical considerations, I would recommend moving the images from the Commons to a Wikimedia Foundation wiki.

Now, because it is a foundation image, I would recommend specifically allowing its use throughout the wiki. Those who copy Wikipedia user pages should not assume that all images on the page are freely licensed, as neither the Foundation nor the editors of the English Wikipedia warrant that this is the case.

In a perfect world, we could label these licenses in such a way that you could pull up a page in a mode that excluded non-free images. However, that's a task for the developers and last I checked they didn't have a lot of free time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? This gets brought up every few months. The website you are currently using owns all rights to the image. It is featured on every single page on this website. It is perfectly fine to use File:Wikipedia-logo.png so long as it is on a website that belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation. Only other websites would have to deal with the Wikimedia Foundation's copyright on this image. I would think that's the end of the discussion. Clearly, if the Wikimedia Foundation had an issue with all of the variations on the logo being employed on Wikipedia, whether it is the puzzleball with the mop, the bouncing puzzleball, or the puzzleball with all the other variations that other language projects employ for commemoration of their 100,000th article or Christmas or whatever, they would not allow it. I think it's been brought up in the past, and they simply don't give a shit about its use on any Wikipedia project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Community norms regarding WMF logos

As Mike has now acknowledged above, a sort of tacit approval exists for the use of WMF-owned logos within Wikipedia without those logos being licensed as free content. The Foundation reserves the right to stop certain uses of logos within Wikipedia, though in practice they have only done so a handful of times. It should be fairly obvious to anyone who travels around Wikipedia: or User: space that the logos are accepted there by long-standing community convention, though you'd be hard pressed to find any page or rule explaining that.

At the same time, we should acknowledge that Wikipedia logos are unfree, and at some level they are a barrier to reuse since they would have to removed by content reusers before subsequent publications (except in situations that also qualify as fair use). This is especially relevant to article space where I would encourage people not to use the logos when reasonable alternatives exist. For example, don't use screenshots containing WMF logos as article illustrations when truly free screenshots would work just as well. Also, I'd discourage the use WMF logos as gratuitous decorations on cleanup, stub, and other tags since it adds an unnecessary barrier to reuse. Dragons flight (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban proposal: Misconceptions2

Resolved

 – Nobody adding anything new, user is indef blocked and is unlikely to appeal, more likely to just sock again. De facto ban is a reasonable interpretation of the current situation with this user. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See WP:AN/I#Muhammed and assassinations, WP:AN/I#Caravan raids, user's talk page, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2.

Basically, this seems to be an account on a mission, and seems to be fond of getting whom appears to be an innocent neighbor, Mirroryou1 (talk · contribs), in trouble. S/he is presently indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry via IP, edit-warring. I will admit I was duped into blocking her target Mirroryou1, but I have since unblocked him/her.

I'm now asking for a community ban - This user has no intention of playing nice or of assuming good faith. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 22:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems premature to ask for a community ban without any formal dispute resolution, or even a clerk input at the SPI request. Is there a special reason for moving forward now? Durova³⁹¹ 00:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ban or indef, I don't mind which. This is a POV-warrior and nuisance. Let him come back quietly with a new account in a couple of years when his blood pressure has come down and he can read a neutral page on Islam without apoplexy. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Per Durova; let's see what transpires at SPI first. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So the SPI conclusion is that Misconceptions2 has used more than one account and has logged out in order to evade a block. Abuse of multiple accounts was evident at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justification of Terrorism in Islam. I do not think this person is interested in the goal of a neutral encyclopaedia. As far as I'm concerned the use of accounts with names like Admit-the-truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is as close as you're going to get to an outright admission that this is an agenda account. Since Admit-the-truth is indef blocked for sockpuppetry and copyvios and Misconceptions2 is the same individual I don't think there's much left to discuss, is there? Guy (Help!) 10:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:PCHS-NJROTC

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

User:PCHS-NJROTC has a history with Wikipedia:Abuse response and sockpuppetry investigations. Despite this, they appear to lack the judgment and maturity necessary for such efforts. I request that they are topic banned from abuse reporting, sockuppetry investigations, and ISP tagging of IP editors.

A recent long and somewhat rambling ANI discussion deals with their unilateral addition of User:LBHS Cheerleader to the WP:list of banned users (as well as earlier false assertions in SPI discussions that the user was banned). I have only just discovered that PCHS-NJROTC was told by an admin in April 2008 that the user was not explicitly banned, and PCHS-NJROTC agreed not to add them to WP:List of banned users although they subsequently did so. As PCHS-NJROTC's statement at the end of that discussion shows, they do not acknowledge that their action was wrong. I believe PCHS-NJROTC dissembled throughout the discussion, which raises questions about their suitability for any action in which they may be seen, correctly or incorrectly, as representing Wikipedia.

When the possibility that PCHS-NJROTC's account had been compromised (based on some juvenile but offensive edits made about Barack Obama in the sandbox) was discussed on ANI, PCHS-NJROTC went as far as to suggest that it may have been a hacker using "IP spoofing". Admins accepted that perhaps PCHS-NJROTC has left themselves logged on at a public terminal and apparently no one seemed to have looked through their contributions. If they had, they would have seen very similar activity on earlier occasions (as just two of many examples: [93] and [94]). PCHS-NJROTC was clearly lying about their own involvement.

In the earlier ANI thread about unilateral banning there were concerns raised about PCHS-NJROTC tracking down people on MySpace to question them about their accounts. As I have discovered by looking through PCHS-NJROTC's contribution history, shortly before that discussion, on 4 december 2009, they said:

And sir, don't think that I'm blah with no sense of humor sir yes sir follow Adolf Hitler to hell; I do indeed have a sense of humor and even the same temptation to be immature, but I know how to hold myself back. I could similarily post links to Jessica Selder's real Myspace and ask everyone to bomb her with hate mail and (fake) death threats for the crimes she appears to have committed against Wikipedia, but that would be very immature and I doubt that anyone else would be laughing and I'd likely be blocked. I can hold myself back, you need to learn to do the same if you want to get anywhere here at WP.

On the same day, they also stated:

The only time I really go out of my way to dog somebody is if they're a "cheerleader vandal," the type of person who started that thread in the first place, and the reason is because a lot of these cheerleader vandals are following instructions from a chain letter distributed among cheerleaders on Myspace to vandalize Wikipedia because apparently "WIKIPEDIA HATES YOU (cheerleaders)."

Aside from their obsession with "cheerleader vandals" PCHS-NJROTC was previously topic banned from Mmbabies-related topics for similar off-wiki activities by admin User:Theresa knott. This talk page discussion may be enlightening. The entirety of this Mmbabies discussion page is simply an embarrassment to the project (which doesn't even take into account the edits that have been removed).

PCHS-NJROTC should have been topic banned from any vandalism-related activities long ago. I attempted to start this discussion on ANI before Xmas, but it was prematurely closed, likely because it came so soon after the other discussion. I am starting it again here now that more admins are back from holidays so that it can get a proper airing. Since PCHS-NJROTC is obviously upset by my diligence with this, I will do my best to stay out of the discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• PCHS-NJROTC, would you agree to give up anti-vandalism patrol for a while and go build some articles instead? That would probably be a helpful way to minimize conflict. Your commenting style below seems to reinforce the points that DC has made. A voluntary agreement would be better than a formal restriction. Jehochman ^Brrr 22:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • For sake of ending the drama in a fashion where everyone comes out happy, I wouldn't be opposed to contributing more to non-vandalism related elements of the encyclopedia. I had already agreed to revert the questioned actions and abandon LBHSC, and even contemplated total retirement. I have tried to be civil here, only getting crazy in rebuttal of half-truths. Going to Jimbo was an effort to avoid all of this. When I see vandals, I feel compelled to revert them, and when I unintentionally discover something blatant, it should be reported. When this all started, it was all about my dealings with User:LBHS Cheerleader. LBHSC is part of my Wikipedia past as is Mmbabies, and I'm already making an effort to get into other things here besides anti-vandalism patrol. I've done nothing resembling what DC has mentioned here since the last discussion. I've tried to be reasonable. I can contribute to articles and other non-vandalism related discussions and less vandal fighting. However, I'm not saying that I won't revert any vandalism I see because of this. This is basically the same I had agreed to do before. I will not stay here if anything formal is imposed, so there's no "topic ban" about this, it would have to be a rename and a permaban. I feel this is fair and reasonable. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, here is what I recommend:

1. Do not hunt for vandalism, but if you come across any in your normal travels, please revert and leave an appropriate user warning template message.
2. Please avoid administrative-type tasks such as updating pages like Wikipedia:List of banned users or closing WP:AN threads. Such actions may be controversial.
3. Should you find a user that needs to be investigated, restricted or blocked, please report the matter to me or any other administrator for follow up. Keep yourself out of any conflicts.

If you do the above, I think you'll find your Wikipedia editing more pleasant. Jehochman ^Brrr 03:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• • That's typical behavior for me (except when doing RC patrol); I don't regularly go out of my way to find people to add to the ban list as even lone admins are supposed to get consensus first. Heck, even RC patrol is just one small part of my work here, much less dealing with individual trolls. I do a lot of shared IP tagging, mainly because I find it kind of interesting to look at the contributions to articles from organizations from around the world, both legitimate and malicious, and I don't do it just looking for people to report or revert. A third of my contributions is probably shared tagging. This is my last reply here; I'm letting the waters calm from here on out. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, we have had a frank exchange of views. DC, are you willing to leave this matter in the good hands of myself and the other administrators commenting or lurking on this thread? If you see a problem, just drop me or one of them a note. Are you satisfied? Jehochman ^Brrr 03:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to let you and other admins settle this as you see fit. My personal preference is for something formal, so that there is no argument if this has to be revisited in the future. As I said in the somewhat lengthy message on your talk page, there are good reasons to doubt PCHS-NJROTC's word. If possible, I would like to leave this open until we hear from Theresa Knott, who imposed the original topic ban. I have notified her on her talk page, but she does not seem to have edited since the new year. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

We should not keep this open indefinitely. She might be out on a two week vacation. If she wants to follow up, ask her to leave me a note and we can see what, if anything, more needs to be done here. We can always start a new discussion. One started by her or by me would probably be better received since we are uninvolved. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply. I'm not sure why DC values my reply so much. I think the evidence from that talk page speaks volumes. PCHS-NJROTC behaviour back then was appallingly crap. However that was nearly two years ago, and he was very young at the time. I haven't seen enough of his recent behaviour to judge if he has grown up. I suspect he has a bit. But still has a way to go. Perhaps quite a long way to go. Having said that. DC seems to have handled the latest incident really badly and pissed a whole host of admins off. So what to do? The only reasonable thing that I can think of is to see if this voluntary ban works. (It's only fair) if is does - well great! If it doesn't and there is another incident of poor judgment by PCHS-NJROTC then we seriously discuss a topic ban (with no premature archiving, or anyone trying to cut short the discussion). That's all that I can think of to do. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Various tangents away from the issue at hand

This issue is under scrutiny by User:Jimbo Wales. May I kindly recommend that everyone wait for Jimbo's opinion. Sorry for writing this in such bold letters. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC, you can't just arbitrarily demand that this be stopped because you say so. Can you show where Jimbo is looking at this? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not demanding that this stop, I just made a recommendation if you read my comment. It's at his talk page now. Before you comment, understand that this is rehash of something that's been going on and on and on, and DC is violating consensus. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also note that the members of WP:ArbCom User:Shell Kinney and User:SirFozzie are part of that consenus to end the drama. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you point us to the consensus that DC is violating, PCHS? Invoking Jimbo seems a bit like Godwin's Law, fwiw. tedder (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not feel the need to spend several minutes looking for 50,000 diffs, so I'm asking that you either take it or leave it. I went to Jimbo for his help, not to do anything in particular, but act as he feels fit for the situation. Since it doesn't appear that anything else would stop this, other than perhaps an interaction ban as proposed by Beeblebrox. I personally find it unfair that I be officially be banned as I really did try to avoid DC until I noticed him rehasing this, but what ever works. This is getting old. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to look for it either, but now you've invoked Jimbo and you've claimed there is a consensus somewhere. Neither of these actions have any credibility, and they make me believe DC, not you. tedder (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was displayed in the never ending threads at AN/I and the recent MfD of a particular page if you can see it through the arguing between me and DC. I'm referring to the consensus that DC and I leave each other alone of course. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I have been trying to follow this to the best of my ability, but there is a difference between provocateur and "provocatee". There seems to be only one person who keeps trudging this out, despite having been shown a fairly overwhelming consensus that it be tabled, at least for the time being, and it is that trudging that is the source of disruption at this point.   Thorncrag  22:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Counter proposal: back off

Counter proposal These two editors should just back the hell away from one another, this is getting really tiresome. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support non-interaction ban. Seriously, enacting a 30-day ban from commenting about each other should dial the drama down. tedder (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, a non-interaction ban? That would be interesting. Force them to interact with each other for 30 days, with any non-interactions punished by blocks? :) Would they be sick of each other by the end of it or would they be friends? Tedder may deserve a barnstar for this novel solution. This is the kind of outside the box thinking we need more of, so I'm giving a support to the idea of forcing them to interact for 30 days. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hah. Double negative fail for me. Should have been an "interaction ban". Or not- maybe this means I can keep my idiot savant badge. tedder (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Would that be like my recent posting DC at WP:TEA? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• • If I may suggest that most of the "drama" has been caused by PCHS-NJROTC attempting avoid any kind of scrutiny on this and admin wannabes closing threads prematurely, not by my efforts have a serious discussion. Perhaps editors could actually read the evidence presented and !vote accordingly. There is a real issue here, whether or not you wish to address it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

D.c., I read through as much of the evidence as I could handle. I truly didn't see anything that rises to the level of actionable policy violations. If someone gets outed or harassed offline you're welcome to say "I told you so", but this seems like the continuing of a conflict that many editors have suggested be dropped. I strongly suggest self-archiving the thread so you can focus on other areas of the encyclopedia that need improvement. Getting bogged down in what looks like a feud isn't going to be useful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strongest ever in the history of Wikipedia SupportI totally agree with Beeblebrox. Hey, I don't want my name tarnished, but banning us both from interacting with each other or reporting each other couldn't be any worse than this drama. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can both just leave each other alone. This doesnt need a ban. As CoM said.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 20:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried my best. I didn't interact with DC or mention him at all for quite some time. I monitored his contributions for further attempts to rehash, hoping and believing it was over, but just in case. I found something that mentioned my name that I thought was an attack page he was using for his own personal gain, and I could not ignore it. I took it to MfD instead of using a speedy template because I thought that would be least controversial. Then I find that it's actually plans to rehash all of this. I want to leave him alone. My question is will he leave me alone. I can't ignore this kind of nonsense, or else those unfamiliar will not see my position on this. Probably an interaction ban is best; I'd rather just ban him and not me as he was the one that started this again, but I'll gracefully accept an interaction ban on myself as well to keep things balanced and not fingerpoint. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Question: Didn't we just do this at ANI? I see two threads on this archive alone. What's different now? Unless there is a good answer, then put me down as Support for the interaction ban. Wknight94 ^talk 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question - I've added new information, specifically the evidence that shows PCHS-NJROTC mentioning "Jessica Selders" MySpace (that was the person they were accused of outing in the unilateral ban discussion); the quote about going out of their way to "dog" "cheerleader vandals" (which is the root of the initial ANI posting about the improper addition of an editor to the WP:List of banned editors); the fact that PCHS-NJROTC had previously agreed not to add the user to that list; and the clear evidence of PCHS-NJROTC flat out lying to admins about their account being "compromised". Again, I suggest that editors actually read all what I've written and make their own judgment instead of looking for drama. I'm more than happy to avoid interacting with PCHS-NJROTC if I think this ban proposal has been given a fair shake. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've kept this to myself to the best of my ability... what is your real reason for this? It has nothing to do with Jessica Selders or the cheerleaders; I've agreed to abandon that, and I've kept my word about it so far (although there's been very little time elapse since then). Why is the first thing you mention in ban proposals WP:ABUSE? Do you really give two flocks about some cheerleader at LBHS, CHS, or any other high school, or is it actually because you a> feel sorry for those I've reported to ISPs b> because you think that WP:ABUSE is silly or c> you don't think a teenager (who's actually the age a majority now by the way) should be submitting abuse reports? Or maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you have a "thing" for cheerleaders. Perhaps it's something else. Can you be honest? In a nutshell, why the hell do you keep rehashing this? And you say it's not personal. Yet you've done nothing like this with anyone else in recent history. The end of this drama will help the encyclopedia far more than any proposed "topic ban" on of all things "vandal fighting." I guess if you were successful, I'd be expected to allow sillyness like "i like dogs" to stand in articles? WHAT IS YOUR POINT?! I'm sincerely sorry for yelling, but this guy just don't get it and continues to push his opinion despite a proposed intereaction ban and everybody agreeing that this is getting just plain flat out annoying. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel as if the ban should also include any kind of accusations on any part of WP by one party against the other. As we both post to AN/I, AIV, and other discussion boards as part of our editing outside of this feud, the ban should only include actions relating to one another (i.e. DC proposing topic bans on me, me reporting DC for incivility, etc.). Agree? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. These two users just need to leav each other alone. This has gotten beyond ridiculous. Resolute 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Request - Would someone mind asking PCHS-NJROTC to stay away from my talk page. I have asked and asked and asked, but they don't seem to be able to resist even as an interaction (or non-interaction ban) is being discussed instead of the issue I have presented. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You don't own your talk page and neither do I own mine. I have supported the interaction ban. The edit you reverted with a threatening comment was merely me trying to clear the queue of an unblock request for a block that was expired. As the admin who blocked you indicated, you should take it to AN/I if you think action needs to be taken against the blocking admin. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support and I wouldn't mind seeing an additional restriction placed on both of these guys from the noticeboards, especially PCHS-NJROTC. Work on some content and stop drama mongering guys. AniMate 21:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If you take a look at my contribs, most of my contributions at these notice boards have been non-controverial other than those related to this mess. I recently reported a blatant 4chan vandal to WP:AIV, requested page protection, reported trolls who followed me from Conservapedia, and have contributed to several ongoing discussions on noticeboards including this one. Most of my contribs are uncontroversial despite DC's one sided description. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I've looked at your contributions and you're having way to much fun playing the Wikipedia MMORPG. You seem to really enjoy the drama and do not spend nearly enough time in article space to make you worth the time. Seriously, get off the boards, keep away from SPIs, and get back to editing the encyclopedia. AniMate 21:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • e/cOkay, there's no 90/10 rule here saying that 90% of my contribs have to be to the article space. Do you have a problem with the reversion of vandalism and participation in discussions? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Agreed. And posting here (and at DC's talkpage, and at Wales' talk page) is not helping make your point. tedder (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
        • There's no 90/10 rule here, but there's no reason we should expend energy on a troublesome user who isn't here to build an encyclopedia. If these types of situations keep flaring up, don't be surprised to find yourself completely restricted to article space. It wouldn't be the first time it happened. I'm not sure why anyone cares so much about participating in discussions anyway, when this isn't a discussion project but an encyclopedia. Try participating in building it. AniMate 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Again, I've abandoned LBHSC and similar trolls, and the majority of my contributions to boards is uncontroversial. Participating in MfDs, AfDs, other people's proposals at AN/I, AN, and Village Pump, RfAs, RC Patrol, and other non-article contributions is not related to LBHSC or any other troll, so your argument is null. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• I remain concerned that the threats of NJROTC to harass a user off wiki for their actions on wiki, and their boast subsequently at having tracked down that person;'s actual identity are actions that would normally be considered blockable until there is a clear statement from the user acknowledging that such actions are not permitted. This was merely one incident in the over-zealous anti-vandal actions being discussed, but I think it was by far the worst, and I think it got overshadowed. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Can you post some diffs of the threats of harassment or outing that you reference? If there are clear diffs, a block may be in order, all else aside. Some lines must never be crossed. Jehochman ^Brrr 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• As I posted previously, : [95] for the threat and then [96] for the statement of having carried out the threat.' DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• See also the bolded sections above which relate to that same person (diffs are [97] & [98]). It would be great if people would actually take the time to look at the evidence before deciding there's nothing worth looking at. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • • I did nothing wrong, I did not post any of her personal information. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I also did not contact her or otherwise harass her. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • And so DC should similarily be reblocked if I am to be reblocked because nothing mentioned was original; anything I posted on wiki was stuff that the user already posted. Looks like DC's done similar. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you'd like a small piece of advice from an univolved bystander, it's this: drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You've made so many comments that you're well into TL;DR territory. Just leave each other alone and go about your business. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I can't get a word in with all the edit conflicts. Jehochman ^Brrr 22:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Counter-counter proposal Two week vacation from WP entirely for PJHS for invoking Jimbo in such an odd way, and a large trout for Carbuncle strikes me as in order. Collect (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All in favor of just archiving this whole mess again

We all see that DC rehashed this drama once again after it was put to rest, and we all agree that this is simply childish bickering. All in favor of just closing this informally one more time and forgetting this ever happened?

Support as proposer. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Ban Delicious carbuncle

This is the fourth or fifth time this subject has been rehashed on either ANI or AN. When the discussion is forcefully archived, Delicious carbuncle either unarchives it or drags it out of the archives (when a bot archives it). This is clear harrassment of PCHS-NJROTC, disruption of ANI and AN, and continued trying of the community's patience. I am requesting that Delicious carbuncle be banned from any and all AN and ANI threads that don't have something clearly to do with him (Delicious carbuncle) and him alone, be banned from having ANYTHING to do with PCHS-NJROTC and be banned from posting any further threads about PCHS-NJROTC. This has gone on long enough. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I am not allowed to post on Delicious carbuncle's talk page, so someone will have to let him know about this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You are a large part of the "drama" surrounding this issue due to your improper and premature archiving of the earlier ANI threads. You have a personal dislike for me which seems to have started after I reported User:Allstarecho for violation of his topic ban. A large percentage of your recent edits have been to interfere with, or threaten to interfere with, threads that I have started. Perhaps you could start a new thread for this, rather than add to this circus? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right, this is a circus, a circus continously started by you and only you have the power to bring down the tent. Yet, the circus is still in town and the townspeople are tired of the elephants crapping on the street. You want the circus to end, end it. Drop the entire damned thing and move on to something new, ringmaster. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

All in Favor

1. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All Opposed

All Really Rather Weary Of The Entire Matter

1. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
2. - Hell, I would throw my name in this hat too. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

   Then why propose this? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

   Because I feel that some kind of action needs to be taken against Delicious carbuncle for harrassment, disruption and trying the community's patience. He doesn't know when to walk away. Someone, be it me, you, an admin, someone needs to tell him to walk away, even if it is by block or ban. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

3. I have a better idea. Why don't you stop coming whining to everyone here and avoid DC entirely? That would be the simplest way to stop all this drama between you two. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
5. This has gone on too long. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
6. To every thing there is a season. Collect (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
7. I have been trying to diffuse these whole drama for some time now, and it seems we may be close to getting both users to agree to disengage voluntarily. Let's give them a chance to do that before pursuing any more actions or dramafests in this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Is this allowed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:200.111.156.219&diff=prev&oldid=336310894

Specially since user doesn't have an static IP and it's an IP he haven't used in many months. -- m:drini 14:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea, and I don't know why he thought it wasn't necessary to provide a reason/summary in the appropriate box... ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 14:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved it back. –xeno^talk 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's odd since that page is all about he warning himself (under other sock) not to vandalize himself, and then he warning himself about sockpuppeting. Weird, given yesterday he got unblocked for sockpuppeting. -- m:drini 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking it his contributions, there a whole load of redirects as well. Should we undo those? Theresa Knott | token threats 18:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to nominate an article for deletion but I am not a user

Resolved

 – meta-discussions over the benefits of creating an account aside, the IP can contact User:Jayron32 or User:Tedder or User:LadyofShalott to request the AFD files be created for them--Jayron32 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

MV Shonan Maru 2

My rationale is that the vessel itself is not inherently notable, even if the incident in which it was recently involved is.

Please could someone submit this on my behalf? Regards, Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.90.45 (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The article has an "under construction" template on it, and seems to be currently being worked on. It may be worth it to wait a day or so, and if it STILL does not appear notable, then nominate it tomorrow. As an aside, if you want to nominate it for deletion tomorrow, just buzz me on my talk page tomorrow, and I'll set up the relevent pages so you can comment. --Jayron32 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It is generally held at WP:SHIPS that ships are sufficiently notable to sustain their own articles, subject to WP:V via WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Without judging the merits of the page itself (Mjroots has a good point), the solution here would be.... for the IP to create an account. Tan | 39 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of an policy restricting Ip's from nominating articles for deletion.--Jac16888^Talk 17:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think IPs can create pages, so that would present a technical - if not policy - issue. –xeno^talk 17:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just tested it, you're right. Do we want that?--Jac16888^Talk 17:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been that way for as long as I can remember, to prevent vandalism and such. –xeno^talk 18:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean wikipedia space pages--Jac16888^Talk 18:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be very hard (I imagine?) for one of our programmers to create a bot via which IPs could request the creation of an AfD page, although this might not be regarded as a very good idea, thoughts? Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bots can't differentiate good faith noms from bad. –xeno^talk 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but why should a user be any less capable of making a bad faith nom than an IP? Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems it is only notable for the collision with a famous boat, and the incident is adequately covered on the other article. However, this article does offer a description of the technical characteristics of the vessel which might be of interest to those reading about the collision, and it would look odd if they were included on an article about different vessel. My reasoning here is that the collision is certainly notable, and this may well make the technical characteristics of the other vessel notable which means the article about the other vessel satisifes notability criteria. I personally think you can make the argument either way so it would be better to keep the article. Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, reply to xeno and Jac) Yes we want that restriction. IPs cannot vote in RfAs, AfDs, etc. I don't think Jayron should have volunteered to do what he offered - what if an IP said, "hey, can you !vote on this AfD for me, I don't have an account"? Meatpuppetry, pretty much. If the user feels strongly enough about the article to want it deleted, he/she can take the simple, non-exclusive, non-discriminating step of creating an account. Tan | 39 18:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Woah, Ip's can !vote in Afd's, there is no restriction against that--Jac16888^Talk 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I think you're mistaken there Tan. I've created AFD pages-by-proxy following good-faith requests from IPs in the past. –xeno^talk 18:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, mea culpa. Took the wind out my argument, didn't it? I still don't think an AfD-by-proxy is appropriate at all, but I suppose I have a much weaker stance now. Tan | 39 18:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm McCulloch. As you can see it's not MEAT because I did not actually weigh-in, I simply created the page using the IPs nom statement. –xeno^talk 18:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of this point from wp:afd - "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). ". I guess it's a good thing I am not active in AfD anymore. I suppose I still personally frown on creating AfDs at the request of IPs; the solution should simply be to direct them to create an account if they are so inclined. But, YMMV. Tan | 39 18:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It is accepted that IPs can vote in AfDs, but the practice of AfD-by-proxy is questionable. It is in the class of 'procedural AfD nominations' where the person who does it doesn't actually believe in it. (If there is no actual registered editor who sincerely believes that the article should be deleted, then what is the harm in waiting until there is one?). IPs are able to do PRODs and I think that's where the limit should be drawn. It would be different if the IP had been able to persuade Xeno on the merits, to open an AfD and actually vote for Delete. I would not consider that to be WP:MEAT. It is perfectlly normal for users to bounce around ideas on whether articles deserve deletion, prior to a nomination. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(moving left) I create 2-3 AFDs per week for IPs who have submitted them in good faith- in fact, my userpage has a little copy-and-paste snippet that I include when I do so. WP:GD says "Anyone can make a nomination, though anonymous users can not complete the process without help from a logged-in user." tedder (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have completed nominations being made apparently in good faith by IP users. I have sometimes agreed with the nomination; other times, I immediately turned around and voted keep. I don't think there is anything wrong with that practice. LadyofShalott 20:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The metadiscussions on the merits of creating an account (WP:WHY covers that quite nicely) aside, there is no injunction against IPs creating or commenting at AFDs. There are atleast 3 people here who have volunteered to create the AFD for the concerned IP address (me, Tedder, and LadyofShalott) so at this point, I'm marking this one as semi-resolved. If the IP still wants the AFD created, they can contact one of us at our talk page, and we will take care of it. --Jayron32 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably the best way to do it is to star the AFD (with the AFD template on the article page), post your rationale on the talk page. It'll get posted to User:DumbBOT/IncompleteAfD within a day or two. tedder (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User Neustradamus

Resolved

 – At least while editor is blocked. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I have a problem with an IP address which revert my change.

It is 91.187.66.243.

In the same time, I wish you an happy new year 2010 !

Thanks in advance, regards — Neustradamus (✉) 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could inform me of this discussion you started. I have replied to you on the talk page of the article Talk:Free software licence. Thank you. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like a debate because all license is a license (it is official), you can see for example : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html and other... — Neustradamus (✉) 23:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no debate. Articles written in British English are kept that way per WP:ENGVAR. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically per WP:RETAIN, but this editor has moved on to other disruptive WP:MOS changes, and I've warned that this should not continue. Rodhullandemu 23:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There's some irony here, given this editor's command of English... Tan | 39 00:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Could someone with a little time take a look at his recent contribs; it's late for me here, but this guy seems bent on having his own way and I don't currently have the stamina. Rodhullandemu 01:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  I really wish this guy would stop doing this, which is contrary to WP:RETAIN. 80.135.28.86 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reopening ;) good night, see you later — Neustradamus (✉) 01:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• For the love of Wikipedia, would somebody please take admin action re this user (and also {{animove}} this thread). Neustradamus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing his disruption, despite firm advice from multiple editors and admins to stop his problematic editing against consensus. He has had a clear warning from Rodhullandemu of a potential block if he doesn't reform, but it isn't working. He is simply not listening to any advice (latest example) and is becoming increasingly tendentious, e.g. this edit and this edit come after many clear warnings and pleas to stop doing this sort of thing. For further context, see User_talk:Rodhullandemu#Re:_User_Neustradamus, User_talk:Michael Hardy#MOS:HYPHEN, Talk:Free software licence#Requested_move. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've previously warned him; this has become disruptive, and/or incompetent, and I've blocked for 72 hours. If he comes back after that with the same stuff... Rodhullandemu 02:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. The drama is down a notch. Do admins have a special tool for quickly reverting / undoing en masse this guy's edits to lots of different articles? I could do them all by the Undo button, but it will be painfully slow. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Rolled back most of them, possibly the odd false positive, but most of the damage has been mitigated. Rodhullandemu 02:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I also reverted a few of his moves where he included a hyphen when there previously wasn't one. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. There was one more which I undid. I think that's the last one. I think I will follow his edits when he gets back from his block because I wouldn't be surprised if he continues given his intransigence. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting input for abuse response project

Before I start, please know that abuse response has changed. It is no longer the ineffective, slow, and messy project it was in the past. Several volunteers have taken many steps to revive and revamp the project. We believe abuse response has the potential to help curb long term abuse on Wikipedia and provide outreach to school administrators, and we have taken steps to reach those goals. I am not asking for support for the project or anything like that. I am merely asking that the community give their input on this issue. So please voice your opinions on the new proposal (actual proposal located here). This is part of the general 2009 revamp of the project. Thank you. Netalarmhappy holidays! 03:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ITN

Would somebody please update Template:In the News with this item (blurb provided) which has consensus and has been updated at WP:ITN/C. I'm willing to notify editors etc, but editing the template requires admin rights. HJMitchell You rang? (archiving timestamp added) Fram (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo requests block of User:7107delicious

Resolved

 – user retired/remains blocked. Jack Merridew 02:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

See here. GTD 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Done by User:LessHeard vanU here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm uneasy about this. An indefinite block for what appears to have been a rather dumb prank? Would a stern warning and maybe a block of a few days not have sufficed? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Writing slash fiction about Jimbo sleeping with underage girls is hardly a minor offence! GTD 13:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure - I'd be tempted to endorse the block until 7107 explains him/herself. Ale_Jrb^2010! 13:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Was this sub-page recently created or had it been sitting around for awhile? Seems like a fairly normal editing pattern so far. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with ChrisO on this one. Also, Jimbo seems to call for a block, not specifying indef or any other term. By all means demand an explanation etc, but perhaps do that /before/ jumping to the block? Where was the prevention? Looks punitive. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good Lord, nobody but my priest would consider that story "pornographic" and the user never would have been blocked had the story not been about Dear Jimbo. The story (which has been hosted on the Wikia website Uncyclopedia for years) is about Jimbo going on a date with Wikipe-tan. Absurd overreaction and most certainly not an attack page. --auburnpilot talk 15:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion of 'Dear Jimbo', I'd say it's definitely an attack page, so I disagree with you there. An indef is probably overracting through and unlikely to stand, so I agree with you on that one, I've decided. Ale_Jrb^2010! 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion of Jimbo is irrelevant, and I doubt you'll be successful in finding a single diff of me making my opinion of him known. But thanks for attempting to make this something it isn't. --auburnpilot talk 15:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"...is about Jimbo going on a date with Wikipe-tan" Yes, about Jimbo going on a date with a sexualised child cartoon figure. Creepy GTD 15:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation both host images and stories of sexualized cartoon figures as "unofficial mascots"? That would seem to be a much more pressing issue. I'm not advocating that we restore the page, only that we act with a little more thought. --auburnpilot talk 15:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And given some of the other drawings created by the person who made the "unofficial mascot", this is a PR disaster waiting to happen GTD 15:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Too late about the PR thing. I saw a thread on this while viewing Wikipedia Review (along with some of the "artwork" by the cartoon character's creator - 1st time I've ever seen his drawings either, and I wish I hadn't). Makes me a little nervous that he's and admin (and potentially has access to IPs and addresses of underage editors) on the Japanese Wikipedia.--SuaveArt (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You have become quite agressive quite quickly - I'm not the one making it into something it isn't. O_o I certainly never stated that you had an opinion of Jimbo, so I have no idea why I would be searching for diffs in that regard. Ale_Jrb^2010! 15:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's not an attack, then why was it done? It looks to be designed to at least irritate. Hell, it even irritates me. It's incredibly dumb. I'd find it pretty offensive if it were written about me, moreover it seems to suggest a little more than a date - with a dubious sex-kitten cartoon-child. However you look at it, it's weird. That said, an indefinite block seems excessive. A stern warning would do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's unauthorized slashfic about an editor/BLP subject and a childlike character with explicit sexual references – while I am no prude, this is beyond the pale for userspace content. That said, I'm not sure upholding the block of 7107delicious on the sole grounds of hosting the material is fair. The blocked editor is unlikely to be the author given that the material was posted almost two years ago by another (yet unblocked) account. Furthermore, 7107delicious appears to come from a cultural background very different from that of most editors, and is among our younger contributors. They may not have understood how such material might be viewed by the rest of us. For a fuller picture, see this discussion of their alternate accounts, this autoblock, and this ANI thread.  Skomorokh  15:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I had not realized how sadly askew my point of view was regarding Wikipe-tan as "normal" before the reminders above that she is a Manga-style cartoon character of ambiguous sexual promotion. "Controversial morality" would appear to be suggested by a date with "her", and the BLP/NPA/many issues would apply to absolutely any Wikipedia community member if put up in this light. To a certain Wikipedia demographic that might not seem 100% strange, but considering the niche reader group it appears to be either emulating and/or mocking? Either direction, I'd consider it attack-based without an explanation given. Even if it were me, knowing full well what the attempt at humor might be perhaps in ever high faith, I'd entirely object. I think I'll watchlist a handful of articles at the Anime and Manga portal apt to see related edits. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

e/c(outdent) As 7107's former mentor (I volunteered to help him) I am not surprised in the slightest that he has been blocked, although the manner of the block is a complete and utter surprise! He has irritated a lot of users, and blundered his way through CHU, ANI and users talk pages, so I expected that he would sooner or later recieve a ban preventing him from taking part in such areas. This fiction page is a completely new turn of events for him, compared with his previous edits.

In case anyone is interested, have a look at the version on the 5th December 2009 of the mentor page before it was deleted, to get a feel of what he was doing, and what I was trying to stop him from doing. I ended the mentorship because it ended up being too much work trying to pick up the pieces from his edits (both on and off the Wiki). Had he stuck to the restrictions, I would gladly have spent all my time trying to help him, but he wouldn't.

A couple of things though - I think it would be fairer to give him a temp block, and give him a chance to explain himself. Also, I seem to recall that he created a second account to use at school, but the name of that account escapes me at the moment. Stephen! ^Coming... 15:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's only indef because that allows it to be lifted as soon as the matter is cleared up. The content was scurrilous fantasy, of course, but it invoked a real person without their permission and made implications that, even if obviously presented in an unbelievable context, is potentially extremely damaging to Jimbo and everyone associated with him - and that would be me and you, folks. My action after blocking D7107 was to suggest that they contact Jimbo and explain themselves - via me if wanted - to get this matter sorted out. I am not Jimbo's greatest fan, but I am fairly certain that after a little discussion this matter will likely be resolved amicably. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I can understand where you are coming from there LHvU, but why does he/she/it need to talk to Jimbo? When there is, for example, a legal threat block that person only has to convince the blocking admin they retracted/never made the threat; they do not have to convince the person who felt threatened. If it is a personal attack, then they don't need to apologise, just convince a reviewing admin. Why must we go 'It is Jimbo!' and suddenly run away from established procedure? It does neither him nor the rest of us any good. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (EC)

If I inferred a real-named person had a sexual attraction for children, I would expect to get blocked. At the very least. What is the debate here? GTD 16:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly active on the blocking of editors following personal attacks, and I usually consider the sensibilities of the target when making a decision on block length. In this instance I thought it appropriate that the person dealt with Jimbo himself. I would point out also that I have reviewed the subsequent discussion at Jimbo's talkpage, where it is apparent that the content (which I also reviewed) is not D7107's own original work. The question is why they decided to hold it in WP space. If they have a good explanation, why not present it to Jimbo? If he is satisfied, as the effected editor, then there is no need for D7107 to remain blocked. Under the circumstances as I read them, I felt this the most appropriate way in dealing with the issue.

Finally, as an admin I am answerable to the community. If the community feels that I acted too severely in protecting another member then by all means alter or reverse my action - I will not oppose even if I do not approve. I would say that, outside of the "talk to the man" bit, this would be how I would deal with unusual personal attacks; get the views of the attackee before taking further actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the community decides to do with 7107, it should also be applied to his alternative account he created for use at school (User:Das Sicherheit) and his original account that he has retired, but is still available for use (User:RuleOfThe9th). Stephen! ^Coming... 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So, is it the editor who is blocked, or the account? If the former, then shouldn't the alternative accound also be blocked? Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Account only. I was not aware at the time of alternate accounts, and am not now - given this discussion - minded to pursue blocking of other accounts without community consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably one of the users User:StephenBuxton is referring to as having been irritated by 7107; mostly it's covered on 7107's talk page. I didn't see the 'story' but am unsurprised that we're here. Before anyone gets too far down the good-faith unblock road, please review his total history. You'll find an immature and disruptive user and little else. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard, thanks for clarifying that. IMO, the block was reasonable. Indefinite doesn't mean permanent. 7107 may be able to convince an admin to unblock him if he demonstrates he has learnt from the block and the actions that led to it. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Jack Merridew - as the most found editor on the talk page - some weeks back - I am rather concerned that all this has the sense of feeding the troll - regardless of the outcome - he wants the attention - this specific conversation in most parts is conducted in AGF and unfortunately and unwillingly I suspect we are giving the needed attention (give him an opportunity to explain himself? - read the talk page and edit history surely is enough)- if you read the user page history and the talk page history carefully he actually talks about being blocked for his editing - I personally see no point in giving him any further chances - having endured his talk page antics.

I am suggesting an unblocking of this editor is simply providing wikipedia with further excitement in what can i do next to disrupt wikipedia? - it is well beyond AGF now folks - 3 different user names and the edit history is enough surely?

However for those who are concerned I might be biased - please look at the editors specific edit history, and the comments at the talk page - my pedantic ramblings notwithstanding - and actually look at the editors work - rather than get lost in the actual detail here at this noticeboard - it is far too easy to get lost in the arguments here - than the actual edit and talk page history - in question.

I would suggest that if there is a reviewing admin of the block and the circumstances - there are Wikipedia Indonesia issues that might surface as well - and possibly at the German project as well. Also for some strange and a not easy to prove reason - there are possible signs that the account is used by more than one person - but it is also possible that the differences in comprehension and writing during the lifetime of the accounts are the work of one individual. SatuSuro 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

7107 has now responded on his talk page about the block, and I have informed him of this thread. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Having just spent some time ploughing through this thread, the user's talk page and the childish (in both senses) story on jimbo's page, I see no reason at this time to unblock. I would suggest that the user is invited to apply for unblock in, say, a year's time, when he might possibly have developed a degree of the maturity which he clearly at present lacks. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• As a matter of procedure only I have blocked the alt accounts. If the main account is unblocked the declared alt should be unblocked. The other is labelled as retired so either way on that one. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As 7107D has indicated that he is emailing Jimbo, I have dropped a note on Jimbo's talk page about this discussion - depending on what we hear should help us determine the length of the block. Stephen! ^Coming... 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

His own attitude about this on his talk page is surprisingly uncaring. But by all means, just as long as he apologies, he should be un-blocked. It doesn’t matter what you all think about the Block, but what Jimbo himself said about the now deleted attack page.--Misortie (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• What we should consider is what we would do if anybody other than Jimbo Wales was the subject of that page (assuming it's an attack page, on which I can't comment since I don't know of the story and I'm not an admin so can't access the page). Would 7107D be indefd if the subject had been me or you? If the consensus is "yes", then the block should remain and 7107D can appeal it in a reasonable period of time (at least a month). If the answer is "no", the block should be lifted. I've no opinion on the outcome, but I would hate to think that undue consideration is given to the subject of the page and not the behaviour of the editor. HJMitchell You rang? 10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Had it been an editor with no constructive edits, then regardless of subject, indef would be appropriate. For editors with constructive edits, then a temp ban would be in order. This user has been high maintenance, and does not seem to have learned from his past mistakes, even though he does contribute to the project. It is when he tries to do things like warning people, or conversing on talk pages that he usually ends up annoying someone. I think Anthony Bradbury made a good suggestion - block for a year, to give him a chance to develop the degree of maturity needed. Stephen! ^Coming... 13:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• 7107 has {{retired}} — see here. Jack Merridew 02:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  That's the third or fourth time I've seen him put that sign up (lost count), but given that he is indefinitely blocked, I think the retirement might be staying up this time. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  I recall seeing some prior retired statement. Anyway, the indef came first so I added {{indef}} to his user page. After he posted the retired template, he popped over to commons and made a dubious upload, which I queried him about (no reply, yet). All of his uploads there look improper. I suppose his stuff here should be review, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail Category

Placed here in lieu of finding any other noticeboard for this type of issue.

One editor has repeatedly placed Category:Nazi propaganda on the Daily Mail article. The apparent purpose of the category was to group German language clear propaganda subjects together, and I rather think placing the Daily Mail in that group fails to recognize the reason for the category, and is intended primarily in the same vein as the redirects "Daily Heil" and the like were used on WP in the past. As POV-pushing of that ilk was deleted from the redirects in the past, I would suggest the category ought not be used on the article about a British newspaper. Collect (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest this is best discussed on the article's talk page. Garibaldi Baconfat 02:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's best discussed on the user's talk page after he's blocked for it. Discussion on article talk pages is for things which might improve the encyclopaedia; we will be adding that category right after Satan finishes his snowball fight. The Daily Mail is an arsewipe but that is not an excuse. This is RMHED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has a long record of disruption, his talk page is dominated by warnings for disruption and other inappropriate behaviour. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You are getting soft Guy. If I had read this ten minutes earlier he would already be blocked on the basis that there is no plausible explanation for his edits other than intentional disruption in article-space - it's within a hairs breadth of what we would usually classify as vandalism. CIreland (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is vandalism, and disruption, and I'm in no doubt that it's deliberate given the user's history. Feel free to block him, it's certainly deserved. Choosing something which is close enough to the borderline to spark a really long debate is the mark of a good troll. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Far be it from me to jump in to defend RHMED, but jumping in to defend RHMED - its brief period in the 1930s as a Nazi propaganda sheet is one of the best known pieces of the Daily Mail's history, so it's hardly out-of-the-blue trolling. The leading academic work on Nazism in Britain takes its name from a Daily Mail headline. – iridescent 10:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that, but the addition is still deliberately disruptive for reasons which are, I think, obvious. It is not currently a Nazi propaganda sheet (although it comes close on occasion). Guy (Help!) 10:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what are the current Nazi propaganda sheets? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The category tag is almost certainly not appropriate. But not by a great distance, and I think it is at least plausible that I could be made to stand corrected if a good RS were produced. There is nothing, as far as I can see, to indicate that this is trolling, and it is something that can be adequtely dealt with on the talk page IMO. The issue of whether the DM needs to be currently a Nazi propaganda sheet for the cat to be applicable, for example, should be determined there rather than here.--FormerIP (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) The above comments made me look up that editor -- with not just a checkered career on WP but a slew of them which were found. Including "Garibaldi Baconfat" overtly above. Will an admin put an end to this farce? Collect (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, your case has support on the talkpage and it looks very unlikely that the edit in question will be allowed to stand. In the event that RHMED perists in repeatedly adding a category that everyone else objects to, then you'll have my backing. But at the moment, I can't see why you think admin intervention is needed. --FormerIP (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It5's needed because he keeps doing shit like this. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with his past history. You obviously don't like the cut of his jib, and I think I can see why. However, in the current case he has made an edit that, whilst it is undue and POV-pushing, is vaguely defendable (ie it looks to have been made in good faith). He looks to have only performed one revert and he is now participating in talk. It does not look like a situation which requires any immediate admin involvement. --FormerIP (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually two reverts. In short order. Do a search on him and pseudonyms. The two admins above appear to be well familiar with him (IIRC, he stood for ArbCom this last time out - getting a net negative 394 votes). Collect (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I dislike his tendency to disruption, choosing something which is borderline defensible is exactly what you do if you want to maximise drama. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, part of the problem is that the category doesn't state exactly what it covers. I'm not up on my between-wars history, but if the DM was a known Nazi supporter at the time, then I can understand the inclusion of the article in the category, even though the DM doesn't take that stance today. Mjroots (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think one point has been missed: there was a historical period where the newspaper could have been fairly described by that category. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why it's a perfect way of trolling. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is one reason why I'm dissatisfied sometimes with the concept & practice of the category aspect of Wikipedia. Even when someone is acting in good faith, it's too easy for categories to end up being a problem. -- llywrch (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. Categories are good for top-level grouping - Category:Newspapers published in the United Kingdom, for example, or Category:Taoisigh of Ireland or some such. For minor or historical facets you can't beat prose, and I'm sure this is covered well in Nazi propaganda. Anything that requires explanation or generates a "wtf?" is likely a bad fit for a category. This is not new. Obviously if this were adding Category:Thieving bastards to any past or present Chancellor of the Exchecquer then we'd have no argument, since that is uncontentious. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Guy, that's not a real category. Shame on you! ;-) llywrch (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I need to propose that rename, don't I? Guy (Help!) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)