Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Are you in the right place?			Using this page
Permanent deletion of sensitive personal information → requests for oversight. Please DO NOT make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone. Vandalism or spamming → administrator intervention against vandalism. Impolite or uncivil communications → wikiquette assistance. Page protection → requests for page protection. Edit warring → the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. Long time edit warring/abuse → long-term abuse. Suspected sockpuppetry → sockpuppet investigations. Improper usernames → usernames for administrator attention. Administrative backlogs → please add {{adminbacklog}} to the backlogged page. Cut and paste moves/history merge → the cut and paste move repair holding pen. Review of a deletion or undeletion of a page → deletion review. Assistance in resolving disputes → dispute resolution. Issues not requiring administrative tools (content concerns, naming conventions...) → the Village Pump or Editor assistance requests. Evasion of blocks, abuse of admin tools, or other incidents → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) If you are blocked → place the code: {{unblock|Your reason for unblock}} – on your talk page. You may also contact the blocking admin via email (navigate to their userpage and click "E-mail this user"). Issues regarding Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia → Meta-Wiki.			This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest. Please start new threads under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title: ==Informative title==. If a thread is related to an ongoing discussion, consider placing it under a level-3 heading within that discussion. You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so. If no comments have been made within 48 hours, your post and any responses will be automatically archived. Please sign all contributions, using four tilde characters "~~~~". If discussion is already ongoing elsewhere or if there is a more natural location for a discussion, please continue the discussion there, and put a short note with a link to the relevant location on this page. If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, please place your comments on this page and they will be addressed.
What these pages are not
These pages are not the place to raise content disputes or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. Wikipedia has a dispute resolution procedure editors should follow where possible. Please take such disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration. If you are here to report a violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility or personal attacks, go to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page and note that messages which egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.
Centralized discussion What's next with ACTA/PIPA/SOPA? What about ACTA? Discussion on deleting Template:Lead too short. Discussion about whether Template:Persondata should be deleted, moved to the article talkpage, or kept as it is. RfC about whether "new messages" banner hoaxes should be prohibited RfC on how files from non-copyright states should be treated and used on WP RfC on aspects of the leadership of the featured article process Discussion about improving WP:PORNBIO			Requests for Comment on User Conduct Candidate pages Certified pages Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kolins – potential editing against consensus and lack of discussion on talk pages. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DocKino – alleged persistently uncivil edit summaries. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ - allegedly misleading citations, disputes over BLP sourcing and WP:CLEANSTART. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shakehandsman - alleged improper BLP sourcing and POV editing. General
See also
Requests for Arbitration enforcement Blocking policy Block user		List of blocked IP addresses and usernames Block log List of protected pages		Protection log Subpages of this page

Click here to start a new discussion thread

---

Noticeboard archives

Requests for closure

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Talk:Ugg boots#RFC on Concerns about quality section & Talk:Ugg boots#RFC on inclusion/exclusion of court cases involving counterfeits

Two ongoing disputes. The first was a formally listed RfC that finished a little while back. The second wasn't formally list. Any help closing them would be much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

{{notdone}} One, I can not find, the other I don't follow and seems to me like basic policies, and US Law already cover this, but i'd prefer someone with more insight, but not involvement into what's going on here look into the latter one that I can see. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Something odd happened in the archiving of the first one - probably my fault. I've fixed it, and if there's a chance to formally close it one way or the other it would be much appreciated. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Of note, I think the discussions should be closed together, so i'm going to leave this one. Sorry, -- DQ (t) (e) 20:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No hassles. That makes a lot of sense. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Binding content discussions

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Binding content discussions? The discussion was started on 21 December 2011. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

N Not done With the latest !votes in less than the past two days, and not even 50 editors stating an opinion, and it affecting a mass million (excuse my exaggeration), I'd rather let this one be archived than make an attempt to close. My official position on this if you want one, is not enough talk to draw a consensus. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done by Steven Zhang (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process

Would an admin summarize the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process? The discussion was initiated in September 2011. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword#Requesting Comment

We need an admin to assess consensus for the RfC discussion ending Jan 17. Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: Consensus for the main RfC seems simple enough, but the conclusion is disputed a little further down the page (here) -Thibbs (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#RFC on coordinates in highway articles

The discussion has run for 30 days and can be closed. Closing admin please note the canvassing issues that have come into play. --Rschen7754 01:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Good lord this is the longest RfC i've seen in a while. In progress of closing, and it looks fairly simple, but give me a day or three some time to look over everything to be sure and because there are so many comments. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Modified -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laos women's national rugby union team

The Afd discussion for the Laos women's national rugby union team has been open for over a month and appears to have fallen off the listing at AFD. Could an administrator either close it or relist it so others will notice it. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Has been relisted at the main AFD page, so no further action required. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done by Kubigula (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights). Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#"Deletion" of reviewer userright

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#"Deletion" of reviewer userright was initiated on 28 December 2011. Would an admin assess the consensus at the discussion? The RfC is listed at Template:Centralized discussion? Cunard (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done. Made a non-admin closure because consensus seemed clear. Jenks24 (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, my closure was contested so I reverted it. Will need an admin to close now. Jenks24 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Improving PORNBIO

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Improving PORNBIO was initiated on 26 December 2011 and was listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Would an admin assess whether there is consensus on what to improve in WP:PORNBIO? If there is no consensus on what to improve, would an admin initiate an RfC about deprecating or maintaining the guideline per the consensus in the previous discussion?

The previous closer at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2011#Pornographic actors/actresses who started this discussion wrote: "A suggested outcome for this discussion is that a reasonable amount of time is allowed for people to improve the guideline, and after that a new RfC may be opened specially with the focus of 'deprecating or maintaining' it." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:South Asia#Merging "Indian subcontinent" here

This RFC has been open since about two months and has been once relisted due to lack of participation. Editors have given arguments but without citations on one side while many citations exist in the article for the articles being about the same area. Users seem to be voting here rather than getting a consensus so the arguments and their basis might need to be considered a bit more thoroughly. I think this should be admin closed as the article was once merged and split before. All those points have been reconsidered in this RFC which is on the merge proposal. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI#Block request

Various block and ban proposals advanced in the subsections of that thread. Could an uninvolved admin determine which ones are ripe to be closed, and for those determine the consensus? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean "uninvoled admin". Right? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Corrected. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Closed by 28bytes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights). Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 01:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2012) - second call

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 31 January 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A few accounts on WP:BANNED not actually blocked

I ran across this page today while looking at some other things and noticed a few editors listed there are not actually blocked at this time. I understood that everyone listed there should be currently blocked, so I'm bringing it here to see if there's anything which needs to be done. Here's the current list of people not blocked who apparently should be:

• Zorro redux
• Triton
• Guido den Broeder
• Zephram Stark
• Jonah Ayers
• Lou franklin
• Mistress Selina Kyle
• Wanli
• Mr. Treason

Discuss away! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Most accounts in your list are blocked as far as I can see, except these four :

• Triton is now User:Triton (usurped) (and appropriately infefblocked) and the change should be reflected on the ban page.
• Guido den Broeder's talk page redirects to User:Roadcreature, which is indefblocked. Main account should probably be blocked too.
• Zephram Stark is supposed to be indefblocked according to the block log, but for some reason is not...
• User:Wanli has never been blocked.

CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Mysteriously, Mistress Selina Kyle's indefinite block seems to have expired; the last block log entry is an indef block from May 2006. Lou franklin was indeffed in the same month, and Jonah Ayers and Zorro redux four months earlier. Unlike the other three, Selina doesn't seem to have left Wikipedia; she's actively discussing something on her own talk page. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked users can still edit their own talk pages. I'm guessing that most of these entries relate to a possible bug with blocks in early 2006? As the "list of banned users" page says, Wanli was blocked by developer intervention, probably in the days when admins could not block registered accounts. Graham87 01:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: the last sentence of my previous message, see this diff. Graham87 01:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that blocked users can normally edit their talk pages; the issue is that this user (unlike the others) still wants to be active, so we either need to get consensus for unblocking or we need to issue a new indef block. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This case is being discussed on WP:AN/I, maybe we should drop a note on there mentioning that the account is not in fact blocked. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It's weird that both the navigation popups and the user info tool show the accounts I did not mention in my first message as blocked; interestingly enough, if I go the block interface for Zorro, I don't get a "this user is already blocked" warning, and the block log notice does not appear in his contributions either... they don't seem to be blocked. Not sure why the scripts shows them as blocked but not Zephram Stark. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34014 --Closedmouth (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Mr. Treason doesn't have a registered account, I believe that was a name given to an IP vandal for ID purposes. I'm not sure what the deal is with Wanli... the user page is tagged as banned, but his block log is totally empty. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I updated the link on the banned users page to point to the usurped Triton account. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And since someone asked me on my talk page, here's the Mistress Selina Kyle discussion [1]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That reminds me: BAN has a problem.

On the one hand, we all know that banned users are normally permitted to edit their user talk pages, e.g., to appeal the ban per directions given in WP:UNBAN. BAN also says that "Indefinitely site-banned editors may be restricted from editing their user talk page or using e-mail" (emphasis mine), not that all site-banned editors are always or automatically prohibited from editing their talk pages. In fact, only a fraction of banned users also have a user talk page ban.

On the other hand, BAN also contradicts itself by saying "A site banned editor is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, on any account or unregistered user, under any and all circumstances, with no exceptions"—i.e., not even on their own user talk pages.

At some point we need to resolve this self-contradiction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Done [2] Nobody Ent 00:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Help with Germanic Neopaganism article

I request the attention of any administrator on what's happening to the Germanic Neopaganism article. A user named ThorLives has been systematically deleting material since last November, essentially reverting the article to a months-old poor, incomplete and unsourced version. Here you can read the former version of the article. Here you can see the extent of content deletion that has occurred over the last two months.

Despite complaints by various users no-one has intervened to stop this and restore the article to its decent state. ThorLives originally claimed to represent the Odinic Rite, a notable Germanic Neopagan organisation, and continues to claim to this date an involvement of many years with Odinism (ie the Odinic Rite). He has been using this claims to modify the article according to his personal ideas on the movement (Germanic Neopaganism). However in November the Odinic Rite Internet Information Officer took part to the discussions on the article talkpage and stated that ThorLives is actually not a member of the OR and does not represent it in any way (here his intervention). --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 11:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'll have a look. Whether or not that user has any affiliation is irrelevant unless it prevents them from editing objectively. Disclaimer: I am a Calvinist Catholic neo-Platonic pagan myself. I am not sure yet this needs an admin's intervention. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• I see that Kim Dent-Brown is on the case as well. For the record, the earlier version referenced above, this one, has a slightly better lead but also features a laundry list of organizations and their URLs, and falls totally foul of WP:NOTDIR. I have, in the meantime, restored part of that lead. What the Odinic officer (from out of steorarume) has to say is interesting but has no bearing on the article, and they themselves--admirably--invoke neutrality. I move to close this: there is no need whatsoever for admin intervention; what's needed is editors with a bookshelf full of reliable sources. The insinuation that some user needs to be punished for their edits to the article, the claim that there is wholesale destruction going on, they are both unfounded. Bhlegkorbh is urged to reconsider various Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm delighted this has come to AN because I hope it will bring some more eyes - and in fact has already done so, thanks Drmies. Disclosure: I am an admin but have been editing there as what I hope is an honest broker between editors with strong views and have not used my admin privileges. I have some sympathy with the article's topic, being Wiccan, but no great familiarity with the detail.

I try to AGF and I'm probably a bit of a softy as far as trying to keep people on board, but I must admit Bhlegkorbh has strained my ability to AGF to breaking point! Since November s/he has made about 45 edits to the article talk page, complaining about the article's quality. I have encouraged him/her to make changes to the article but s/he has only made three; two minor typo/formatting and one massive reversion to a version of the article that was several weeks old and embodies the "perfect state" to which s/he wants it to be returned. Bhlegkorbh did not on that occasion discuss the reversion before or after the fact, and I note that this AN post has not been mentioned there either, nor on ThorLives' talk page (I will rectify that in a second).

I agree with Drmies view that this complaint is unfounded but I'd like to see if anyone else has feedback in case (a) my perspective needs knocking straight or (b) I have things about right and we can offer Bhlegkorbh a definitive community view. This would be very helpful for the future of the article. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be moot now as the OP has indicated that s/he is retiring from Wikipedia. If someone uninvolved would like to close this, I suggest we are done here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User has reverted the blanking of their Talk page, so we'll leave this up a while more. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Survey?

I received via e-mail (presumably through Wikipedia's e-mail facility) a request to participate in a survey about Wikipedia. Without revealing names, the investigator is a PhD candidate at the City University of Hong Kong, and the return address and URL for the survey do indeed seem to be from that institution.

Is anyone aware of the legitimacy of this survey? Is it sanctioned by the WMF, or is the Foundation at least aware of it? Just checking out of an abundance of caution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just noticed that the username the email supposedly came from (listed at the bottom of the mail) is not a name I can find here. If someone from the WMF wants to contact me via e-mail -- preferably someone whose name I would know from seeing it here (i.e. Phillipe) -- I can pass along the particulars. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I chose not to respond because: (a) the email contained a unique-ID link to the questionnaire (ie which email/accountname it had been sent to), (b) the first questions then asked were personal details, (c) those personal details were not skippable when left blank. —Sladen (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Normally I'd just merrily fill a form like that with junk/misleading data; however since I care about Wikipedia and if it indeed genuine, I'd rather than do that.

I can't see anything at meta:Research:Projects#2012_projects that sounds like that. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I will pass on responding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We need clearer guidelines about security and surveys as I mentioned here. Things like legal threats lead to instant blocks, and there should be something similar for those who run unapproved surveys (blocked until survey is WMF approved or withdrawn). Exploits are going to occur when admins respond to surveys targeted at damaging Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it starts to look a lot like phising, which is something we should be protecting ourselves from.

FWIW, Philippe asked on my talk page to e-mail him the survey info, and I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I responded to the survey weeks ago. I don't remember answering anything too personal and I haven't been sent any (additional) spam. Killiondude (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This survey may be wonderful, but there will be malicious surveys and we need to start protecting the community by making a policy analagous to WP:NLT to say that any editor who asks another editor to complete an off-wiki survey will be blocked until it is established that the survey is WMF approved or the survey is withdrawn (that would include removal from the website notified in the survey request). If a "no unapproved surveys" policy were in place, editors (and admins in particular) would think more before responding to unknown people at unknown websites, and there would be a reasonable chance that any wide-spread survey notification would be reported. By the way, attackers are sufficiently clever to not cause any visible damage while more targets are being gathered (if you suddenly got spam or if your account was compromised, you might alert others that it was possibly caused by the survey). Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should work out more ways that people can possibly harm others by purporting to study Wikipedia. I also think that a "block non-identified surveyors on sight" policy would be a wonderful way to welcome academics potentially interested in Wikipedia. Killiondude (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, I am rather pessimistic when it comes to security. I take your point that an instant block may not be a good approach—what about a polite request to explain the situation at their talk page (a request that would lead to a block if ignored after reasonable notices are given)? Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

One problem with that in the present instance is that I couldn't find a username which corresponded to the one listed on the e-mail. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Strange. If Wikipedia mail was used, there should have been a footer visible at the bottom saying This e-mail was sent by user "Example" on the English Wikipedia to user "Another example". The "Example" user may have no user page or talk page, but Special:Contributions/Example should show that the user exists, even if no edits. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my e-mail has that footer, but I must have been typing in the name incorrectly, because when I cut-and-pasted it just now, I found the user: User talk:Ling JIANG. Another editor has left Ling JIANG a note pointing them to meta:Research:Subject recruitment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How much review does an AfD need prior to closing?

In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thumb twiddling the AfD had one neutral comment, and one keep vote , and, of course, the nomination for deletion. An experienced editor closed the discussion. The closing editor later replied that AfDs do not have a minimum requirement for participation. My intention is not to discuss the article's merits here. I'd rather see a discussion centered around AfD participation prior to closing. In the case at hand, I would have expected to see the article re-listed for discussion, and if we don't have such a requirement in these cases, shouldn't we? Rklawton (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:DRV. There is no numerical limit regarding participation in an XFD discussion, and no time limit beyond the 7-day minimum, excepting when WP:SNOW qualifies. If you think a discussion was closed inappropriately for any reason, regardless of what the closer said the outcome was, then the proper venue is WP:DRV. There, other editors can review the close and decide if it needs to be reopened. Please use WP:DRV to contest deletion discussions for any reason, because that is what WP:DRV was created to handle. --Jayron32 19:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Per my original note, I'm not contesting the closure. I'm asking fellow admins if we want to establish a minimum for participation - though I like your suggestion that it wouldn't apply to SNOW. Until yesterday, I'd not seen a non-SNOW case closed with so little participation, and I think this needs to be corrected. The article in question makes a good case in point, but nothing more. Rklawton (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not a decision that should be made only by administrators. ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So I shouldn't ask their opinion before bringing it up to a wider audience? Rklawton (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

While ElKevbo is correctly stating the obvious point that such a decision would need to be made by the wider community, there is certainly nothing wrong with raising it here first. Regards Manning (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Village Pump, or an RFC. I would wholeheartedly oppose putting a requirement on the amount of discussion - some are obvious and according to policy and really need almost zero discussion (sometimes people AFD something that should have been CSD'd, for example). Of course, NAC should never occur on AFD's with such a mélange of "discussion", should that issue arise (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a perennial request that isn't likely to happen. Some articles just don't generate enough interest. Requiring an arbitrary quota of !votes to delete them is just adding layers bureaucracy to the process. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Quorum requirements for voting also have the problem that they fail the participation criterion: in the context of AFD, that means you could change the outcome from "no consensus" to "delete" by voting "keep". --Carnildo (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

disinformation

Resolved: User blocked by BWilkins. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

good day to everybody, i hope this is the right place to request the administrator's intervention. if this is not the right place, i do apologise and kindly ask you to indicate me the link where i can contact the administration fo wikipedia on really serious matters that i underline by the following text. It is about the so called "liberty of edition" in wikipedia, of course it is good idea to give chance to anybody passing by to write the things on wikipedia, but you should consider that the people write also about the serious things with really irresponsible and harmful way. There are delicate issues about international ethnic conflicts, massacres and etc. which are treated here very "easily". I saw that in all articles about my country Azerbaijan is always present the hidden hand of armenian virtual groups of propaganda which create a bad image of my nation and eternally suffering image of armenians...if the armenians are eternally suffering kind - it is not my deal, but i'd not accept that they attack my nation in all possible occasions spreading false about us. It is fact that in 1992 Armenian military forces massacred my civil people in Khojaly, it is fact that the armenian military forces have occupied something like 30% of my land and after all that they go around the world talking about my nation as "wild, aggressive and occupant"...what the facts do say and what your logics do say? isn't it ridiculous? why do wikipedia leave this kind of issues so "free"? why don't you use more sensible and severe moderation on these issues???? i have edited almost 3 times the articles which are obviously handled by armenian users that spread false image about my nation - azeri people. I ask the wikipedia administration to take severe and serious measures on this issue as the ethnic matters are not a joke, but bring to the wars and death...in almost all so called "armenian projects" in wikipedia the clear intent is spreading the lie about Azerbaijan, creating an eternally suffering armenian nation image. I bet nobody from wikipedia have ever checked properly the sources used by the armenian users which support each other exchanging ridiculous "honors" between them, for example see the page of user Sardur: his fans are armenians, no matter if they live in france, lebanon or elsewhere... I could write a book accusing the armenians in all possible crimes and base my speeches around on that book, it wouldn't mean that all the written staff in that book is true...almost all the sources brought by the armenian users are written by the separators with doubtful image... I start to loose my confidence in wikipedia's credibility as a source. I ask wikipedia administration to block all articles on conflicted base which touch azeri-armenian issue. However is not possible to go on long time on lies, the armenian users must know it...also it ain't a deal to prepare ground for more hate and conflict between nations spreading such unilateral doubtful information. I have also edited the article which classifies people in azerbaijan in non existent clans. This article is ridiculous and is written by somebody which has no sense of reality and loyalty. The term "yeraz" is higly offensive and shouldn't be let go on wikipedia as something "normal"...if you don't understand the gravity of this offense i'd explain it this way: for us "yeraz" is equally offensive as the word "nigger" used to discriminate the colored people... I will be waiting for the feedback of wikipedia administration. I'd like to understand also how to ask protection for single articles, I have read the instructions, but it say actually nothing and there is no link to be referred as the start point of protection request. thanks poster777 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumgait_pogrom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeraz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poster777 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Other than "tl;dr", I respond to "I ask wikipedia administration to block all articles on conflicted base which touch azeri-armenian issue." That I could get on board with. Would never happen but honestly the only way to ever get these articles in a safe and respectable state is to completely remove nationalist editors from the equation. --Golbez (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Poster and Sardur are edit warring over the Sumgait progrom article | here's at least one example . I will note Sardur's been warned about any edit warring on any Armenian - Azerbijian article | here as well. Poster777 has no such warning, not on his page nor in history.

Not really sure what the edit warring is about though, but it looks like this is what his message is about . @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 17:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC) thank you very much for your attention and time, I'm especially concerned about the so called "witness" declarations which describe the presumed "tortures done on armenians", also the number of dead people and etc...they are of violent character and so make grow up the hatred in readers... also pls, pay attention to the article "yeraz" which offends azeri people that lived in Armenia...I'd thank also Golbez, i think that the only way of avoiding problems on ethnic conflict issues is blocking all articles related to them, as i know by my long experience, it is impossible to stop the provocateurs handling those articles...i don't know how it is possible to identify which user is more "nationalist" than other, so unfortunately the best way is blocking the relevant articles...i'd prefer not to run into any article about my country or people than seeing the false harmful ones... poster777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poster777 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not edit-warring, I'm just reverting a clear vandalism (with removal of referenced text), and I'm not the only one. Sardur (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(Poster777 (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)) I have edited last time the articles "Yeraz" and "Sumgait pogrom" which are handled by the armenian users continuously on their own interests. The articles of this kind are full of false information damaging the image of my country on propose. The users such as Sardur or Wikiboer (which may be the same person using different id's or the friends of mission) have no right to handle the pages which have nothing to do with them. For example Wikiboer openly offends the azeri people which lived in armenia and are displaced by violence from there in the article "yeraz". As i already ecplained that word is extremely offensive non official definition of that people. The armenians which never have been to my country have no idea and can't have it on how the things go on in my country - how the politics and powers are decided, what is going on here and etc. and so they have no right to handle the articles such as "yeraz" deliberately offensive and damaging context. If sardur put some "referenced" text it doesn't mean that it is automatically neutral and truthful text...well, then i'd bring the confession of Zori Balayan from his own book about the atrocities he did on little azeri children in Khojaly...it must be considered surely as "truthful and neutral" source by the armenian users as Zori Balayan is their idol, national hero...isn't it??? come on, you will deny it also? it is ridiculous:-)...as i told since the beginning - i ask the wikpedia administrators to block or better - delete forever any issue which touch azeri-armenian matters. I don't ask you to keep azeri part or armenian - i'm just fed up of the mentally sick armenian users which are obsessed of my nation and country, which go under any video in youtube to offend, defame our dead persons, our women, which go around the world even till japanese forums to speak bad about us with always false declarations, creating bad, hateful image of my country...it ain't fair. It ain't a joke, it is even not about a single persons life or reputation, it is about the whole nation which is sacked, offended, robbed of it's lands and no matter all these, is also blamed in non existent "crimes"...Dear administrators, users and readers of wikipedia - as you see we azeris don't create the alliances, the groups, sub groups everywhere on internet, we don't full the google pages with the deliberately propagandistic forums, web sites against armenia or russia or persians. Go and digit any key word on azeri-armenian conflict, you will run into only armenian web pages full of hate and falsity!!! The facts are in front of you - they do these things against us. It is really disgusting and coward way of arguing. See this case on wikipedia - the armenian and persian users attacking azeri pages, users and etc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Final_decision do you think it is sane? or it is normal? why we should be attacked everywhere? what is the matter? what do they want from us? why these persons don't just live their lives without hating the persons that they never saw or heard???? why wikipedia pages should become the square of virtual massacre against us, the square of defamatory, falser? If this armenian propaganda will continue on wikipedia pages i will stop using wikipedia as a source or virtual encyclopedia and i think this "cancer" will sooner or later eat from inside wikipedia itself, the people will lose interest and trust in your sources. I have received some kind advices from Toddy, thanks a lot, but i'm not going to create groups of support in order to say the truth. If wikipedia is really a neutral and truthful source, it must care about truth by itself. You suggest me that I may be banned by the attacks of other users even if i'm not guilty, so i should find the supporters and etc...it is really funny...this is the way how wikipedia works??? i thought the things went on here in more serious way. So the truth is decided here this way? the most powerful one wins???? I can't accept it. It is first time that i register in wikipedia and edit something, in past i often saw unfair articles obviously handled by armenian users against my country, every time i shut down the page in order not to ruin my nerves. Finally in these days i've decided to protest. And this is the answer that i get from wikipedia? Pls, take my critics in better way and not on personal, you must understand how the person feels in front of so massive injustice going on in all over the world. I'm sorry for taking your time and space by long message, but i'm really fed up. It is enough for me. I lived abroad for a while, even there the shameless, false and exaggerated armenian propaganda made people fed up, i lived in europe and often the europeans were getting angry of this sick obsession of armenians against my people. I never commented them as they comment themselves better by their behavior...but i expect an appropriate approach from the sources believed to be neutral such as wikipedia. If somebody would create a page titled "nigger" with an offensive false info, i bet wikipedia would delete that page on instance. Why don't you apply the same measure on azeris? I already told you that "yeraz" is an offensive definition, furthermore that page spreads defamatory statements about the present day president of Azerbaijan, it is not about some daddy maddy or john doe, but about a president, it is an info without any prove taken from some doubtful unilateral sources...did any azeri create a page about armenian, french or american presidents stating false about them? why the page is not yet blocked and why the armenian user should have a right to edit it? did any azeri user try to create pages about any internal matters of armenians???? why that persons can't stay on their own???? I'm not going to waste my time on stupid virtual battles with armenian users which obviously has nothing important to do in their lives than sleeping in front of computer and guarding their false pages on internet. However i will take my own decision and proceed on the base of the results that i'll get here... I thank again for neutral view of some users on my request, however i am deeply upset for the easy approach of the administration on serious issues. It is not some childish forum where anybody would say some bla bla without any echo, it is wikipedia which is used by millions as a reference. How you can be so "easy" on such matters??? You may ban or do whatever you want to my account. I said all that i had to say. In few time that i used wikipedia i tried to be as much as possible correct and follow your rules. As you see after 3 tries of edit i stopped and didn't insist on battle of armenian users. I came to you, administrators, as a civil user might do, and asked your intervention. Cause i thought that here the things were more seriously treated. Not just letting the users to "natural select" between them - the stronger will win... I can be stronger, i can collect the other users, attack, smash the armenian provocateurs, stay here day and night guarding the articles and etc. But it is not serious!!! it is not the way that the virtual encyclopedia might work!!!! it is a childish way of doing things!!! I thought you had some very few selected, trusted, serious, loyal and neutral authors which had an exclusive right of creating, editing and updating of the articles... especially the articles which talk about the serious matters such as ethnic conflicts, massacres, wars, history etc. You may leave free the articles about silly cartoons, mangas, hobbies, but not this kind of issues! i'm deeply upset! thanks again for the attention. I have edited last time the articles that i named before, i have put also the sources, one azeri sourse, one american (seems to be from CIA archive), and even one armenian source...if again the armenian users will undo my edit by stupid excuses such as "no source", it means that they do it just for provocation. And if you will not take a measure about it, that will mean that you are on the same boat. I'm sorry for being so direct and "politically non correct". But i hope you'll understand me... i also tried to post my message as indicated by the rules using "tlrd", it is my first time on editing, so i do apologise if the message will not appear in correct format. poster777

For the record, I'm not Armenian. And this user should be blocked for his "mentally sick armenian users". Sardur (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And another insult (edit summary). Sardur (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The tl;dr version of the above is a combination of personal attacks against other editors, threats to disrupt Wikipedia and serious WP:IDHT issues. Warned user for such, and an admin may want to brief them on this ArbCom decision they apparently have a problem with. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

to the user sardur: it is really shame that you deny your origins, while you write in armenian, speak in armenian, think in armenian, fight for armenian and etc. The articles that you treat and guard night and day are of armenian interest...It is ridiculous, come on, you are the member of armenian wikiproject. It doesn't matter where you live, what citizenship you have. What is the problem with your origins? why do you hide it or deny it if it is so beautiful and glorious to be armenian? you wanna seem a kind of third part fan of armenians?:-)) it is a childish joke...however it is not my problem, if you have some reason of hiding your origins while hardly working for "great armenian case"... the "mentally sick armenian users" are those which constantly follow any issue hardly related to azerbaijan in general, which go around spreading false, hateful information against the whole nation of azeri non stop, which go under videos in youtube and write the sick declarations, offensive words, brutal, violent statements about the azeri victims of violence, which call their "brothers of blood" to violence, revenge against every turkish, azeri till the last breath. Are they normal for your standards??? if not, why do you feel offended? Do you find yourself for some reason in this category? i'm sorry, it is not again my problem. There are of course also mentally sick users of other ethnic origins, no exception for azeris...we also have our dumbs. However ours don't go around smelling the rubbish of other nations and countries... regarding my account: i'm not going to keep an account here, either "contribute" as after what i have discovered i don't consider the wikipedia methods serious on treating the global issues...I hope the administration will take my request and critics in constructive way and will try to remake something here, i'm just a little drop in big ocean of readers, so i presume my opinion may be not so important for you. But the ocean is a total of many drops... It is not only about azeri-armenian issues, it is also about any other global issue such as Rwanda massacres, Iraqi war, Bosnia Herzegovina and etc. The problem is present for any of them, any time any sickmind may come and provoke conflicts editing or creating the articles on that problems. The writing on wikipedia shouldn't be so easy. I'm definitely sure in that. However, wikipedia is no longer going to be a reference for me as far as it so "easy" and handled by doubtful authors. Thank you very much for your time. Pls, you can close my account. Best regards. Poster777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poster777 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If anyone disagrees with the indef block I have just laid down (and the reasons in the block log) then feel free to change/remove/revert. It's the equivalent of his "close my account" request anyway (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fsol's copyright violations on Libertarianism

Fsol (talk · contribs) (notified at their talk) persists ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]) in inserting the following copyright violation into Libertarianism despite warnings. A preventative block may be necessary.

• Vallentyne, "is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things" from, Vallentyne, Peter (2002). "Libertarianism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/. Retrieved November 20, 2011. 
• Your addition, "is the political philosophy that holds individuals initially own themselves and have property rights in external things"
• In particular, "own themselves and have ... property rights in external things"

For a user edit warring to insert a claim regarding property rights into a lede by violating copyright is amusing, but the edit warring and persistent copyright violations need to end. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User was notified regarding answer at their talk.

1. A sequence as small as nine words cannot be considered as a copyright infringement. However that is not my judgement to make.

2. In the case and administrator will consider these nine words have a copyright attached to them, then, according to Wikipedia guidelines, we should reformulate the essence of the source. Blatently misquote it by saying the opposite of what it actually says ([9] [10]) is not a solution that abides by Wikipedia guidelines, neither is removing the reference entirely ([11]), as it is an academic and peer-reviewed publications is judges as one of the most reliable sources to come across.Fsol (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Responding in order: nine words, with the same expression, elision of points, and same order is plagiarism of the text itself, it is a copyright violation—you have taken text directly from Vallentyne, and the text you have taken is not a "natural" phrase, but a complex explanation and summary, it is the first sentence from the article. I've had this kind of observation regarding "close" "paraphrase", or verbatim copying as I'd describe it in this instance, in MILHIST's bugle. I've advised FAC on this. I have the habit of spotchecking FACs for precisely this kind of error. Regarding point 2, a close reading of Vallentyne demonstrates that he establishes Libertarianism as a political philosophy (§1¶2), and that the individual is a basic moral principle of society (§0¶2–3, passim). You might also be aware that the tertiary you're citing is a philosophical theory encyclopaedia, is not peer reviewed by the general scholarly community but by an editorial board, and conflicts with other field reviews (per WEIGHT) such as Long (1998) and the magisterial and widely acknowledged Woodcock (1963). Moreover, point 2 fails to address the fact that your proposed (and repeatedly reinserted edit) is a copyright violation because you're taking the words out of Vallentyne's text verbatim. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo - you may want to read WP:QUOTE. This is a nine word phrase, identified as a quote and with proper attribution and a citation. That doesn't come within 1000 miles of a WP:COPYVIO. Manning (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What quotation marks? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I misunderstood your original complaint. Regardless, nine words (in a four and five word clause) is not a copyright infringement under any circumstances. If this involved an entire paragraph of text with only token paraphrasing then you might have a marginal case, but this is nothing. WP:PARAPHRASE may be of some use here to get a sense of when the line gets crossed into COPYVIO territory. I assure you, this example is well on the acceptable side. Manning (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Manning, your reasoning is spurious. The sentence duplicates the position in the work (first sentence), it duplicates the exact expression, it duplicates the precise reasoning. Source to source the words are not wikipedias, they are Vallentynes. They are directly Vallentynes and are used without quotation, mangled, and under wikipedia's own voice. It is blatant plagiarism as it directly steals the concepts and mode of expression, and as such amounts to a clear copyright violation. Valid paraphrases do not duplicate content, mode of expression, purpose in work, and voice. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning is not spurious, it is based on ten years of examining potential copyvios on Wikipedia. You are of course free to disagree with my assessment, but your above stridency has ended my willingness to discuss this any further. Manning (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I am strident, but you appear to be insufficiently versed in plagiarism as copyright violation, and also have a stridency (though, given the conduct of copyright abusers, one which appears to be situationally appropriate). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Pardon the interruption, but for the edification of everyone reading this exchange we should note that Manning is correct. We do not consider plagiarism to be copyright infringement, because it isn't. Copyright violation is illegal, plagiarism is unethical. Keegan (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even entirely certain it's plagiarism - when you look at the two short phrases, there is no obvious way of restructuring them that preserves the original meaning, which makes them valid exceptions under WP:PARAPHRASE. IMO assuming the content is valid (an untested assumption) it would still be preferable to quote the original 23 word sentence, and then attribute/cite it correctly. Regardless, there's no copyvio issue here. Manning (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a regular there and potential copy vio is only one of several problems with that addition. It's not a summary from the article, it's against consensus, and it's against consensus because it is stating a sidebar item as a central tenet. Fsol's only argument for warring it into the lead is that it is sourced. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no copyvio concerns with this specific item. However that does not mean I (or the admin body) endorse (or oppose) its inclusion, and any claims that the admins "approved" this sentence are nonsense. (I'm not saying that will be the case here, but that tactic has been tried before). As a general note, the admin boards are not a place to resolve content disputes. Manning (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I just wanted to clarify that a reading on the copy vio is not a reading on the content inclusion question. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured picture delist discussion needing closure

There has been a discussion on the featured picture candidates talk page over the last few weeks about how "delist" discussions should be dealt with. It would be good if we could get some closure- there have been no comments for some days. Can I request that an experienced editor who was not involved in the discussion close it, and post any conclusions reached? Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Overturned delisting. If there is a more appropriate place for this request, please point me to it. J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Prods not expiring?

I'm sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place . . . I really have no idea if this should be on AN or AN/I or somewhere else. Anyway, looking at Category:Proposed deletion there seems to be a lot of pages which have had prod tags for more than 7 days but which aren't in Category:Expired proposed deletions‎. It looks like something isn't working right with the proposed deletion template or whatever it is that makes the prods say they are expired. Calathan (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've gone to a few of the articles that have prods that should have expired, cleared the page cache, and the template changed to show that they were expired. There is something odd going on though. -- Atama頭 22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I'm clearing out the backlog but there are dozens of articles. Also nobody was deleting the empty prod categories, I'm not sure if that contributed to this problem, usually an admin zaps them right away. It looks like I might have to get back into the habit of patrolling prods again if other people aren't doing it. -- Atama頭 23:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the template is not working; I wonder if it might be in some way the after effects of the shut-down. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The trick is that the oldest prods currently in play are from 23 January (I just cleared 22 Jan), long after the shutdown. {{Proposed deletion/dated}} calls for Template:Category handler, which adds the expired PROD category; is there something going on with that template, perhaps? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been doggedly going through these prods, and I've cleared out tons but can't keep up. I cleared out everything proposed up through the 24th, but many prods from the 25th are still there and they have all expired by this point, and now prods from the 26th are going to start expiring. I could use a bit more help if anyone is interested. :) Just make sure, if you aren't familiar with prods, that you look over the criteria before deleting (that it hasn't been deleted and restored before and that it hasn't survived AfD or a previous prod). I also look at the articles' talk pages, sometimes people who object to deletion don't know that they can just remove the tag unlike a CSD or AfD tag and will protest deletion there (any objection to deletion makes the deletion controversial and the prod invalid). -- Atama頭 00:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an issue with the job queue. I did a null edit on one and it appeared in the list. The page linked to from Special:Statistics to view the size of the queue appears to be broken so I could not check the stats. This does point in the direction of a technical issue that needs to be reported to those who actually run the system/code. I don't think this is associated with the toolserver, but there have been issues there of late. Just remember, this is just a hunch. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen the same thing happen with BLPPRODs occasionally; it usually resolves itself fairly quickly. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Closure needed

Is this AFD a snow keep yet? I say yes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Move String quartet No. 14 (Schubert)

User DavidRF pointed out, quite correctly, that this title should have a capital Q, to make it the same as all the other titles of string quartet articles. However, when I try to move it from "String quartet..." to "String Quartet..." Mr. Wiki tells me that the article already exists. Can someone fix this problem for me? Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Done. 28bytes (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Revdel List of past General Hospital characters additional opinions

There is a request for revdel due to copyright violations for List of past General Hospital characters - after a brief discussion here - which notes the central issues to this request (which started here), I thought it best to get some additional opinions given it's revdelling almost the entire edit history. Thanks in advance for your sage insights. Skier Dude (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Spam-blacklist

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist has requests dating back to December, which I don't think have been actioned. Could someone please take a look. Cheers.  Chzz  ►  10:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Reposting; was archived without response on 31 Jan [12]  Chzz  ►  12:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Dissociative identity disorder

The Dissociative identity disorder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (henceforth DID) talk page has been a horrible, slogging mess for a good two weeks now, so there's a lot of text if anyone wants to read it and external input is both needed and requested, but this is a much more focussed issue. Tomcloyd (talk · contribs) recently posted a lengthy section on the talk page aimed at individuals with DID (some minor copyedits as well). I removed it as soapboxing that was irrelevant to improving the page itself. Tom then replaced it, and it was removed again by Juice Leskinen (talk · contribs). Well, it has since been replaced as part of a new section - Talk:Dissociative identity disorder#If you have DID, this may not be a safe place for you, but it should be. I see this as a pretty clear and inappropriate misuse of the talk page based on a very specific personal (and professional) point of view of a couple editors. Within the scientific literature there is a pretty clear and bitter dispute between those who think DID is caused by significant trauma in childhood, and those who think that it is produced by bad therapy in adults (henceforth traumagenic and sociocognitive hypotheses respectively). I've been consistently pointing out that there are many reliable sources for both positions and therefore both sides should be included in the article, to editors who fall strongly on both sides of the debate. This lengthy talk page posting includes a section ("Signatories") where editors offer to be contact points for the article, which could be an invitation to meatpuppet (or not). Either way, it seems a fairly clear inappropriate use of the talk page.

Though I would welcome outside input and involvement on the page, my specific question for admins and community at large would be the appropriateness of this section of the talk page. As far as actual edits to the main page, they're surprisingly minimal and the main page has only been locked down once for 3 days (and for a stupid reason utterly unrelated to the traumagenic/sociocognitive hypotheses). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Highly inappropriate for a talkpage or elsewhere. Equating disagreement with holocaust denial and calling opponents sociopaths is textbook battleground behavior. I propose a topic ban from DID articles, broadly construed. Skinwalker (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The section is the point of view of some editors. The point of views of every editor involved in the recent content disputes and discussion is clearly available for all to see on the talk page. The section was created as a response to the perceived bullying (by, among others, WLU); it may not be the perfect solution, but I feel its current existence as part of the talk page is warranted. After some of the content disputes are resolved, and (more importantly) after discussion becomes more civil and accessible as a whole, the section may outlive its usefulness. My point here is not to accuse or condemn WLU, but simply to point out that there are several different sides to this issue which warrant a much closer examination and no hasty decisions. —danhash (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please come and help. However WLU's behavior is already being looked at. Please contact Salvio Giuliano and see this page for more information~ty (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, a rudimentary google search shows recent off-site canvassing for the pro-DID faction.[13] Skinwalker (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Noting the most recent timestamp in that discussion - Jan 23rd, then 21st, then 15th - and given Tylas' newness, I don't think this is a deliberate violation of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. The only new account on the DID talk page is Juice Leskinen (talk · contribs) and he has an opinion diametrically opposite that of Tylas and Tomcloyd. In my opinion, meatpuppeting isn't an issue, and I will leave a note on Tylas' talk page indicating this sort of thing isn't a good idea. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to extend good faith to new editors who may not understand this tactic is not acceptable. I'm more concerned that TomCloyd - who is not only a seasoned editor but a Wikipedia Regional Ambassador - thinks that activism, namecalling, and flagrant violations of Godwin's Law are appropriate ways to resolve a content dispute. Juice L's behavior seems to have been quite unhelpful as well. Skinwalker (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, during the last few weeks, Tom's been using a lot of words like sociopath, holocaust denial, bullies, abuse, and victimizing. I don't expect this kind of persistent personal attack from any editor, much less from one who says he's a mental health professional. I've never seen such inflammatory comments about contributors resolve a content dispute; have any of you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been posting to the talk page occasionally after a notice at WT:MED a few days ago. I've not edited the article and have no interest in doing so.

The dispute is your average, basic appalling mess. Basically, we have a "true believer" of a mental health professional(?), who wants Wikipedia to reflect what he tells his clients, versus WLU, who wants the article reflect the non-trivial skepticism present in the academic literature. And we have just enough additional inexperienced folks (including one or two people who have been labeled with this condition) involved that the talk page is long and chaotic. We've already had multiple explanations of basic things, like the important difference between a psychiatry textbook and an advocacy website and the fact that Wikipedia articles follow the MOS rather than our old English teacher's idea of a proper outline, but the bigger, and probably unsolvable, problem seems to be that the DID proponents really, really, really need this article to minimize any skepticism about this condition (which, whatever its cause or its proper classification, does produce significant suffering for the affected people). I begin to see the appeal of a "block 'em all" approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So I tried to delete the section by Tom Cloyd in the talk page that deals with the hardships of DID-persons who tries to edit the article. It is totally inappropriate for it to be on the talk page. If he want to have it on his own userpage then I have no issues with that at all. It also likens anyone who doesn't believe his world view to holocaust deniers. My removal was immediately reverted, so rather than edit-warr over it, I come here hoping that I am not the only one who thinks that it should be removed. This is the section I'm talking about: [14] Juice Leskinen 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As is apparent to anyone who looks through the page history (which I assume any administrator taking action would do), Juice was very intent on keeping his name attached to this section (and apparently wanted his name at the top of the list of "Signatories" as well). —danhash (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Danhash, does that mean the section is appropriate for the talk page, per the talk page guidelines? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please would an uninvolved editor immediately remove section If you have DID and are editing this article or this Talk page - please read this as an obvious and unhelpful violation of WP:TPG, for example, as was done in this edit (which was immediately reverted). Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done it. Given the obnoxious comparison to holocaust denial, and the blatant soapboxing, it looks a slam-dunk violation of not only WP:TPG but WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and basic common sense. REgardless of the righs and wrongs of the issue (of which I know relatively little), that isn't the way to achieve 'consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now we just need to hose down the talk page for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page headers as dispute "resolution" venue instead of RfC/U participation

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.The RFC has just been re-opened, let's keep combersation in one place. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I note that today another user with a suspended RfC/U has returned. Shakehandsman has refused to engage with the RfC/U declared it harassment and disappeared from Wikipedia for a month. After his return, he vents on his talk page header with various accusations and gloating against other users. [15]. Without prejudging the merit of the RfC/U on him, Shakehandsman's method of dispute "resolution" still seems inappropriate. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you've properly considered your own method of dispute resolution? If you have an issue with an editor the usual thing is to approach them directly about it on their user page. Exok (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I observed that as well, and I chose to discuss it with them personally. It's usually a good first step before proceeding to the drama boards. He has alrady modified he remarks somewhat as a result. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wise words Exok, thanks. For the record there is no gloating nor any resolution, I've simply explained clearly my reasons for returning and stated my position, providing evidence that vindicates me. It's undeniable that I have been subject to significant harassment and various other unpleasantness on Wikipedia and despite there being no case to answer I did previously thoroughly engage with the RFC/U thoroughly debunking all 13 points of "evidence" that were provided (and i was even interupted in doing so by users posting in an area reserved exclusively for my comments). The header is simply a temporary update to my notice of departure and I'll move it lower down the page if it really offends people and I have already tweaked one sentence that I realise could potentially have been misinterpreted. TBH it would have been nice if a fraction of this level of concern had been given to the blatantly false comments and bad faith littered throughout the RFC/U - a page that must have had vastly more views than my talk.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected on your engagement in the RfC/U. However, I don't think that this is enough to address the concern that you are using your talk page header inappropriately per WP:UP#POLEMIC. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, here's the link to the previous AN discussion about said RfC/U: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive230#RFC/U needs examining. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've re-opened the RFC per your request, let's take this and all related matters up there. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)