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 RfC on how files from non-copyright states should be treated & used on WP RfC on aspects of the leadership of the featured article process Discussion about improving WP:PORNBIO RfC on the "deletion" of the no longer used Reviewer userright RfC on how or whether to add coordinates to highway articles Proposal on the implementation of Binding RFCs, structured discussions to create solutions to intractable content disputes.			Requests for Comment on User Conduct Candidate pages Certified pages Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kolins – RfC on potential editing against consensus and lack of discussion on talk pages. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DocKino – RfC on persistently uncivil edit summaries. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ - RfC on misleading citations and BLP sourcing. 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)

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 to look over everything to be sure and because there are so many comments. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Swiftboating#RfC - NPOV and "Smear"

The assistance of an uninvolved administrator, particularly one with some interest/experience in the resolution of POV disputes associated with highly contentious articles, is requested for a determination/closure of the above named RfC. In reaching a determination, consideration might also be given to a dedicated talk page section, additional talk page sections and 2 additional RfC's established attendant to this POV dispute and an associated NPOV Noticeboard discussion. Thank you for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Main RfC (i.e. first initiated and with participation) is here. There are multiple threads on the talk page and the POV notice board which makes it a city messy. --Snowded ^TALK 20:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough

The acute situation of User:Rich Farmbroughs edits, discussed at WP:ANI#Rich Farmbrough violates editing restriction and creates errors, is gnoe now that he has (temporarily?) stopped his AWB runs. The chronic situation remains though, and AN is better suited for this than ANI.

The problem is that, for years and years, Rich Farmbrough has gone on editing sprees where a basically sound idea of intention gets a poorly thought out implementation, with many errors, often for little benefit. Furthermore, he uses these editing sprees to impose some of his preferred stylistic choices, like the capitalization of templates and parameters, against consensus and/or policy.

This has lead to two Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, a number of blocks, and many AN and ANI discussions, some of them accessible through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough.

In his latest AWB runs (over thousands of articles), he has created many errors, mainly to do with incorrect sorting (a sample is checked here). Looking further back, it turns out that he stopped this Persondata run for a while to add a category to a group of pages. Sadly, again, in many cases that category was added incorrectly. He corrected his own error in some 125 cases[1] afterwards, but missed quite a few other ones; e.g. Netwitness, CSS Studios, Panorama9, CommunityOne Bank, and (most obviously) List of American exchange-traded funds are now incorrectly listed in Category:Companies listed on NASDAQ.

This raises the question: what, if anything, can be done?

• Let him continue editing in the same way, and remove the restrictions
• Keep and enforce the current restrictions
• Remove AWB access and ban from any use of tools
• Restrict editing speed
• Block
• Rewrite restrictions
• ArbCom
• Other... Fram (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So why are we creating a separate discussion from the ANI one above? I really don't think we need to fragment the discussion so everyone has to run back and forth trying to keep up. --Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Because sanctions (apart from immediate blocks to deal with an acute situation) are not handled on ANI, but on AN. Fram (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

At least one simple solution is possible: the community could forbid R.F. from running large-scale jobs of all sorts (including AWB) from his main account, and allow him to run bot jobs only when those jobs have proper bot approval first. The purpose of bot approval is to give people a chance to point out all these side cases, and to also work out exactly what other stylistic changes the bot is permitted to make. In other words the purpose of bot approval is exactly to avoid the problems that are caused by the ad hoc large-scale runs that R.F. has been making. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just ban him from using any automated or semi-automated tools, widely construed. And also slap a hefty block on him for violating editing restrictions. He should know better by now. Let's not start another Betacommand-type circus with an automated tool user. Jtrainor (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This. Enough is enough. Farmborough has shown he cannot use the toys responsibly, they must therefore be taken away from him unless and until he can. No access to automated tools, ban use of scripts, put a rate cap on his editing speed. → ROUX ₪ 17:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ban him from making any side-effect changes on AWB - all options on the first tab (see here) other than that which is necessary for the task he's doing (if any). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

One difficulty is that many of the changes are not built into AWB at all, he has gone out of his way to add them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And if you take my proposal, no one needs to go and check if specific changes made in his edit are standard AWB stock - he may not make any of those, either. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ban from using any automated or semi-automated tools, widely construed, per Jtrainor. Rich has been given myriad chances to follow his looser restrictions, and hasn't managed to get the hang of that. It's time to just accept that automated editing and him don't work together. I don't see a need to block/ban him also, as long as we implement a "no automated or semi-automated editing" restriction, as that will prevent the problematic behavior. Obviously if the restriction is implemented and he violates it, then blocks would be on the table. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Not a ban on semi-automated but requirement that any non-incidental (more than a dozen?) automated/semi-automated changes go through bot approval. We have the bot approval group for exactly these kinds of tasks and a widely worded block would create doubt about him using that approved process and also prevent more mundane but necessary semi-automated tools that he hasn't abused, like twinkle or huggle. Moreover, the problem is the small esoteric changes on big runs, not stock use of AWB. And he already has sanctions in place for those criteria. Tacking on the bot approval group requirement, especially because that project is aware of Rich's history, good and bad, would allow some formal oversight. At the very least I'd suggest Rich explore this option voluntarily because while there's a lot of good, necessary work he's done that otherwise woudln't get done, it's too much trouble to double check these things and the potential for harm from a small mistake is large. Shadowjams (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Shadow although I think a dozen is a bit low. --Kumioko (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everyone! I'm gonna block that SoB right now!

Uh.. maybe first I'll just point out that all those articles were already in the category, and if people had only listened to their Uncle Rich, and forbidden content categories in templates completely, rather than just "recommending" against them, this would never have happened.

Foolishly (but forgivably) someone put the cat in {{NASDAQ}} - this not only meant the another template had to be created for articles where the cat wasn't wanted, but inevitably many articles got incorrectly classified. In particular some 125 that transcluded navboxen where the template had been used.

Thanks to my heroic efforts <hem> the category is more accurate by having 125+ incorrect entries removed. If someone is complaining that I didn't remove all the wrong entries form the category, then they simply don't get it.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC).

• Per Shadowjams, any set of 20 or more changes in an automated/semi-automated or rapid manner made by Rich Farmbrough needs prior approval by the bot approval group; unapproved "bot editing" prevented by escalating blocks starting at 2 weeks. The last block (which was lifted due to COI) to prevent the negative impact of this kind of behaviour was 2 weeks. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Did you even read what I posted? Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC).
    
    • You appear to be unable to comprehend the community's issues with your editing. You have been afforded plenty of opportunity to change your conduct, and have not done so. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Uh. Fram is complaining that I put articles in the wrong category. I did not. Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC).
        
        • What happened with these particular articles, where you added a category and then removed it? [2] [3] — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
          • They were already in the category' - that is rather the whole point. Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC).
            
            • This is one of the pages just before you edited it: [4]. By looking at the bottom of the page, I can see that it was not already in the category. Adding the category, and then removing it, certainly has the appearance of putting the article in a wrong category. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
              • • OK mate, look a little harder. Use your doubtless finely honed analytic skills. Rich Farmbrough, 10:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC).
                  
                • Less cryptically put, the page transcludes {{NASDAQ}}, which included the category before this edit. Jafeluv (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • R.F. himself said above, about the NASDAQ template, "inevitably many articles got incorrectly classified". Given that he realized that, going through and re-adding the category to all the articles that transclude the template is clearly the wrong thing to do - first you have to make a list of the articles that should have the category, then you can fix them. Just adding the category to every article that transcludes NASDAQ is sloppy at best, and would not have made it through bot approval if it had been properly proposed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
                    • No, first you resolve the problem, then the symptom. Once I had made the transition no new instances of the problem would be created. Any naive user can then resolve the categorisation (although it is not as trivial as you like to make out, for example one of the article you complain about, while not technically being NASDAQ quoted is the substantial business owned by a holding company which is quoted, and about which we do not have an article). You may wish to read Polya: "How to Solve It". Rich Farmbrough, 19:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC).
                      
• Restrict from editing using semi-automated or automated tools (I don't think the word ban is appropriate in this context.) – If Rich finds editing using semi-automated or automated tools absolutely necessary, he should either seek approval for his use of such from the Bot Approvals Group or optimally, post a request on Wikipedia:Bot requests and just let another user take it from there; I haven't seen a shortage of bot operators recently.

This incident has demonstrated clearly that Rich's use of even semi-automated tools is in violation of the bot policy; each edit using such must be judged before confirmed. Moreover, any editor using [semi-]automated tools is expected to be more responsive to feedback than the average editor due to the increase in rate and scope of edits. In contrast, Rich's response to feedback is frequently either condescending or dismissive, and he does not consider halting his current task and re-gauging consensus, which is the appropriate action whenever there's evidence of controversy.

Unfortunately, I have no confidence that if there is consensus for this restriction, he will heed it, as he does not even acknowledge that he's currently under editing restrictions. Indeed, in his most recent request for approval, he stated "for the record I am not under an editing restriction" [5]. This concerns me. — madman 00:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing restrictions are imposed by the community. Not by one editor saying "I am being bold and creating an ER". However since that editor seemed sane I chose at the time to work with them which was very effective, except when Fram kept sticking his nose in. And I also use BRFAs as suggested by other contributors here, which can also be effective except when Fram and CBM come and sabotage the BRFAs, which, these days, is always. Fram says he is raising this "because he is not welcome at my talk page". His drama is not welcome wherever he takes it, but to suggest that it is less unwelcome on a noticeboard than my talk page is disingenuous at best. Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC).

Before he blocked himself today, R.F. made a series AWB of edits to change the sort order of biographies of people with Japanese names, and then reverted himself on all of them [6]. Based on his contribs he did all this after he commented here, but before he blocked himself. This seems to be another example of a task where, if he had sought bot approval first, the error might have been detected before all the articles were edited. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I wonder why he did it, this too is an example of how the AWB sort logic doesn't quite work right for certain things. Its a known issue and relatively minor issue that mostly occurs with non english names such as Middle eastern, diacratics and Japanese type characters. --Kumioko (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is true... and if he had been judging AWB's edits before confirming them, the error would have been detected before the first edit... — madman 04:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

May be my settings of course, but I don't believe blaming this, even in part, on AWB is correct here. When I run e.g. Kuniaki Koiso through AWB, with Autotag, Unicodify and Apply General Fixes enabled, no changes are suggested by AWB. It seems to me as if the reverted changes were not suggested by AWB at all, but were Rich Farmbrough's own idea. Either way, doing this during this discussion is making it quite obvious why some action is needed. Fram (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Since most of that was manual, your assumptions are flawed, your conclusions even more so. The fact that I decided to revert a substantial part of what I did last night, rather than chase through the items individually today was partially to avoid this type of stupid sniping -vain hope indeed. I am, it seems, being castigated by Fram for substantially improving a category, and by CBM for making minor improvements to a few articles. (CBM has said he doesn't follow my edits, it seems that he does.) Rich Farmbrough, 13:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC).

In what way does editing an article and then reverting that edit constitute an improvement to the article ([7]] → [8])? In what way does adding a category to an article and then removing it constitute "improve a category" ([9] → [10])? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)It is not really clear to who or what you are responding here, and whose assumptions and conclusions you are criticizing. I don't think anyone is "sniping" or "castigating" you for reverting those edits; the question is why you made those 29 or so AWB edits in the first place, starting at Katsura Tarō and ending at Kuniaki Koiso, after you have just been criticized for adding incorrect defaultsorts to articles on Japanese people? Your reply here doesn't address this at all. Fram (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think what Rich was trying to say is that he undid the helpful edit. Not that reverting his change was a helpful edit. In the case of these Person data name changes I would agree that the probably should not be using the Given name, Sir name format commonly used in English cultures but have the Sir name Given name formatting. I am not 100% of how that culture usually sorts the naming but I believe that they normally do it by Sir Name given name so it appears that the sorting that Rich was attempting was a benefit. --Kumioko (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For Kuniaki Koiso, reading the article, the family name is Koiso and the given name is Kuniaki.The edit that R.F. made could only be correct if the family name was Kuniaki and the given name was Koiso [11] (look at the defaultsort). But that is not the case. There are other examples of this among the ones he reverted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)If he truly believed that these edits were beneficial, and no one complained between the time he made the edits and the time he reverted them again, then why the reverts? Anyway, according to WP:NAMESORT, it doesn't matter how other cultures sort, the English Wikipedia sorts always by family name - given name order. And even if someone is correct in his edits: when they are questioned, and (like here) many people are questioning whether you should be making such AWB (or similar) edits at all or without prior approval, then making a type of edits that has just been questioned (but not answered), in a manner that has met with disapproval, only sends the message that you don't care about the community and will do whatever you like. Perhaps that's not the intended message, but it certainly is the impression it gives. Fram (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You could be right on the name sorting thing. Like I said above I'm not quite sure on that one. To CBM, if he reverted it, for whatever reason then the problem is solved as far as I am concerned. He caught the error and fixed it. Thats all anyone could ask for. There are certianly other problems where this wasn't done but I don't think we need to dwell on this particular one. --Kumioko (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One is not allowed to make a mistake and revert it? Some new rule perhaps? Seems like you are clutching at straws here. Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

When you already know that something is an error, and these kind of edits are under discussion, then making the same error on 8 pages using AWB, and then reverting it, is not helping anyone or anything. Then, after you have noticed that your AWB edits were wrong (else why did you revert them?), making the same error on 21 pages again, and reverting those as well, is just ridiculous. If you want to test something, do it in your userspace, use preview, or stop after one or two pages. Fram (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not what happened there at all. First you misunderstand what happened. Then you impugn bad motives to me. Then you tell me what to do. Even if you were right about what happened, this is a clumsy way to interact with another human being. When you are wrong, and keep doing it, becomes even more annoying. Probably most annoying is when you are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but never admit a mistake. Rich Farmbrough, 10:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

Then please enlighten us and do tell what happened there and perhaps why you did it as well. Fram (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

First off I did not make 8 edits and revert them. I made 8 edits then I reviewed them in detail, in some cases I undid some or most of what I had done, in some cases I made additional changes to infelicities of prose and other minor things, in some I may have done both. Then I made some more edits, but realised there were some complexities I had not forseen, that weren't apparent form the first 8, so I reverted most or all of the second batch and went over the first batch again, together with a few others. Net result, some improved articles, me better informed everything is good. Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

Then please tell us which of the changes you made in these 8 edits we are talking about[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] survived even in part? Half of this one[20], because you were lucky that it was half wrong before. Furthermore, your reply begs the question: why make 8 edits with AWB and only then review them? Why make 21 edits more, and again only then review them? Why don't you inform yourself before going on on short, long or endless runs of edits, instead of using the mainspace as your testing ground? Why do you think we have talk pages, projects, BRFA and so on? Just to prevent these kind of things. Why do you think you have editing restrictions? For exactly the same reason. If I wouldn't have checked your edits, despite your dislike of that, chances are that you wouldn't have noticed these problems at all, as evidenced by the remains of other errors in runs of years ago. Fram (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This is why I was reluctant to "enlighten" you, I'm just feeding you. You don't read what I say, you just read what you think I am saying. If you restricted yourself to simply reporting problems in a polite thoughtful manner, instead of always behaving in an "I'm right you're wrong", process bound, confrontational, manner, you could actually be useful instead of a perpetual pain in the backside and waste of time. Now as well as damning everything I do that you can, you are trying to claim credit for the rest. Rich Farmbrough, 13:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC).

OK, I'm back from hiding. I'll just give my opinion on him. He should be banned from using any bots, period. I'm actually surprised he's still an administrator. He uses bots and violates restriction, yes we know that. I just want to know why he still gets to use bots anyway. Enough is enough. --Hinata talk 20:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the vast amount of stuff I do is not only beneficial to the project, but even in Fram and CBM's avid pursuit of witchcraft there is nothing that can be found to complain about. And when I do make an error I go to any lengths to resolve it. Those who have been working with me for years know this. When Fram tried to take me to Arbcom one arb commented. "The creation of the ISO templates, and edit to template:interwiki, is absolutely ridiculous to be brought up here. Rich did the right thing by creating those templates." Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

People can read all the replies to that ArbCom case here. "Nothing that can be found to complain about" is a bit strange when you consider all the errors I pointed out, some of which you have then corrected, some of which you haven't. It doesn't seem though as if you have made any effort to see if there are more articles you edited that have the same problems as the examples I pointed out (e.g. this or this). I would rather describe your actions as "doing a minimal effort to resolve some errors that are pointed out to me" than as going "to any lengths to resolve it", but that's a question of perspective and attitude. If you had went to any lengths, you would have noticed articles like this one or this one. I have to admit that I do love someone with defaultsort and name = Texas, George W. Bush As Governor of. Another example? In 2009, you change a correct defaultsort to an incorrect one (using, of course, AWB) here. And then this week you use that incorrect Defaultsort as the "name" of the person in the persondata[21] (somehow chaning one "Of" in "of", but leaving the other one alone). You may blame this problem on an earlier error, but since that one was also made by you, using AWB, I don't think it would help your case. Fram (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• support no automated tools, no bots, no semi-automated tools and a very short leash.--Crossmr (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Let him continue editing in the same way, and remove the restrictions Perfection is not required, only good faith and reasonable competence. Thus far I've observed lots of rhetoric but little evidence of any actual harm to Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 02:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  Good faith is not an unending well. One would reasonably question the good faith of an editor that continually ignores community input and continually plugs ahead making edits he knows have issues. This is a cycle he often repeats and if one were to assume good faith, we would assume he would try to improve his process which there doesn't seem to be any indication that he's done.--Crossmr (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  The correct response to "Rich Farmborough not only refuses to follow his editing restrictions, he is claiming they don't exist, simultaneously claiming there is not any problem with his editing" is not to remove said restrictions, particularly when this is a problem that has been going on for years. → ROUX ₪ 13:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Formal proposal

Okay, let's clean this up, since support seems to be clear. Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) is:

• Prohibited from using AWB or any other script-assisted rapid editing tools, broadly construed including bots, at any time across enwiki unless previously approved by BAG
• Limited to a maximum of one edit per minute in mainspace
• Required to submit any batch editing jobs to BAG for approval. Asking for approval must include source code for any bot or scripting.
• Infractions to be met with the usual series of escalating blocks. Rich Farmborough may appeal to the community via AN for these conditions to be reviewed six months from implementation, or six months from the end of the most recent block, whichever is later.

Edited to add: Those who are claiming no detriment to enwiki might want to visit this page before saying so. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough.

• Support - as proposer. → ROUX ₪ 13:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose no evidence of harm to Wikipedia by RF editing has been presented. Nobody Ent 13:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  You may wish to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough. → ROUX ₪ 15:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  • What about articles which were sorted correctly before he edited them, but no longer after he edited them? Whether it does or doesn't merit (other) sanctions is open for debate, but it is clear that quite a few of his edits made Wikipedia worse. Fram (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

For me, evidence is diffs to article space. I do see that an RFC/U was suggested. Was one ever started? Nobody Ent 16:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you actually read the rest of this discussion? There are plenty of diffs there wher his edits made the article worse, not better. But if you want more examples, all of them not corrected at the time of speaking (despite his assurances of going to lengths to correct errors); incorrect defaultsorts are now added [22],[23],[24],[25], [26],[27] ... Obviously incorrect ones are the things like [28] and [29]. It doesn't take a long time to find these, and there are plenty, plenty more. Instead of checking his previous edits for errors himself though (apart from correcting some of those found by others), he has started on another tangentially related run of edits, without any interaction with people who know more about whatever he is trying to achieve to see whether he is correct in his changes. It's a pattern stretching back for years and over thousands of edits, many of which have been reverted, and many more which still are undetected. Fram (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is clearly an issue with defaultsort and {{Persondata}} name in (particularly) Japanese biography articles, which applies to many hundreds of articles - the vast majority not put there by me. The best resolution is to fix as many as possible, not merely those I have been involved in. According to you, however, if I get a persondata element wrong, or even use a style you don't like, I am on the verge of destroying the project, and probably most of the known universe. If someone else does it it, correcting it "is of no value for Wikipedia". Rich Farmbrough, 14:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC).

• Oppose I can see no editing offences meriting this action. Begoon ^talk 13:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  You may wish to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough. → ROUX ₪ 15:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• [30] Begoon ^talk 16:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• I wish to be clear: are you claiming that RF has not caused disruption, that he is not under editing restrictions which he has flouted (and has been under and done the same in the past), that there has not been a strong consensus that there are significant problems with his editing which he has categorically refused to address? → ROUX ₪ 16:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• No, I haven't claimed anything I can see. I'm saying don't badger me. Begoon ^talk 16:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Providing you with information is not 'badgering.' Not wanting to be badgered doesn't mean you get to opine without being challenged. Since you are not providing any justification, and you are ignoring information, one can only assume your opinion will be utterly discounted. As it should be. → ROUX ₪ 16:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks. Begoon ^talk 16:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with Nobody Ent and Begoon. From what I see above RF seems to be copping flak for making a bunch of edits and when he realised they may be incorrect he reverted himself. That's the exact response you want from someone doing semi-automatic editing. Also, one edit per minute is ridiculous – it's incredibly easy to go over that threshold manually. Jenks24 (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  You may wish to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough. → ROUX ₪ 15:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Um, no. He made thousands of edits wrt persondata and defaultsort, mixed with a few hundred for Nasdaq. He reverted 125 of the second group, which is a large part but far from all incorrect ones. But of the thousands of "persondata/defaultsort" related edits, he only reverted some of those that I pointed out as examples of errors, without looking for more similar errors (of which there are plenty). Furthermore, despite knowing of one particular group of errors in those, he made the same error in 8 more articles, reverted those, then made the same error again in 21 more articles, and reverted those as well. The reverting in itself is good, but why does he make these edits in the first place? There are plenty of errors from this recent edits remaining, and there are plenty of older AWB errors he created remaining as well (e.g. this example I pointed out above, where he changed a correct defaultsort to an incorrect one in 2009[31], but which he didn't correct when he corrected the persondata error today[32]. Fram (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • None of the NASDAQ edits were incorrect. And your other statements about he 8/21 edits are fallacious and misleading. Theodora is an empress, it's not clear that she should be sorted by her family name. Rich Farmbrough, 14:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC).
      
      • Having a reason to make some edits (like just putting them back in the categories they were in before, even the 100+ that were incorrect) doesn't mean that the edits weren't incorrect, only that they may have been somewhat more understandable than purely introducing new errors. I'll let you reiterate your defense of your 29 edits as often as you like, I don't think you will fool anyone with them who has looked at the diffs. And finally, if you believe that it is "unclear that she should be sorted by her family name", then you should have left it alone in the first place, instead of changing it around. (Semi-)automated edits aren't intended for "unclear" cases. At least the surname sorting is consistent with the other members of the Category:Kantakouzenos family. And including the "Wife Of Alexios 04 Of Trebizond" is just weird. Fram (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
        • • No it's not. There is more than one person of that name, one other is, IIRC, "Wife Of Alexios 03 Of Trebizond" so it's a perfectly sensible sort key. Your other points have reduced to nonsense and ad-hominem now, time for you to abandon those lines of argument. Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC).
            
            • Could you indicate whether "(Semi-)automated edits aren't intended for "unclear" cases." falls in the "nonsense" category or in the "ad hominem" one? Fram (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Let's head this nonsense off at the pass. Jtrainor (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree there has been some problems but I still haven't seen anything warranting this action. --Kumioko (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  You may wish to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough. → ROUX ₪ 15:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  You may wish to quit badgering every person who says oppose. — Moe ε 16:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  Informing people of information which may change their minds isn't 'badgering.' And you may wish to read the edit summary I used when posting, but asking Wikipedians to actually inform themselves before wading in would probably be asking way too much. → ROUX ₪ 16:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  For what its worth I have read a lot of it and have been following it for some time. As I mentioned before I think there are some issues but by and large not worthy of a the proposal.--Kumioko (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  I disagree, but unlike certain other people here at least you're doing better than claiming 'badgering' when someone calmly provides them with information. → ROUX ₪ 16:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the personal attack, but when you leave a comment after every person who says oppose to your proposal, you can seem like you are badgering, regardless of how calmly you present your case. — Moe ε 16:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• (ec x2) Oppose as written. One edit a minute is unnecessarily harsh. I may easily do 2.5x that with entirely manual editing; I'm guessing Rich is as technologically adept and as fast a typist. Also, I'm thinking about striking my suggestion above that BAG be used and just support BOTREQ. Upon reviewing the Betacommand 3 proposed decision (which I initially supported), then talking with my fellow admins and BAGgers, I don't think in principle the BAG should be used as a vehicle for arbitration or community ban enforcement. We should be used to handle any BRFAs necessary per BOTPOL (this is a superset of that), nothing more or less. I'd be happy to entertain opposing views, however. I'm also concerned about some of the discussion and bad faith assumed above but don't really want to go into it. — madman 17:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• oppose escalation of conditions of editing? positive reinforcement is better than negative reinforcement. we need a standard offer for probational productive editors. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• While Rich has made some mistakes, the percentage of incorrect edits is probably lower than that of the average editor. For example, if I have made a grand total of 100 mistaken edits (and I've probably made more!), it would be equivalent to almost 2400 mistaken edits by Rich. To be clear, I oppose this proposal, which I see as one of the many attempts to get bots kicked off Wikipedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Um, as far as I can tell, the proposal is only supposed to affect unapproved bots. It explicitly says Rich can still run approved bots. Shouldn't we all be in favor of kicking unapproved bots off of Wikipedia? They are already prohibited by WP:BOTPOL ("Administrators blocking a user account suspected of operating an unapproved bot or an approved bot in unapproved ways should block indefinitely"), but nobody seems to enforce this. I'll leave it to others whether Rich needs yet another individualized restriction, but I do think BOTPOL should be enforced much more rigorously than it is, this incident being an example. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what makes you say BOTPOL isn't being enforced rigorously; as far as I know, notwithstanding the above, no bots are being run without approval at this time. If you're aware of any, please contact me or any other member of the BAG either via our talk pages or Bot Owners' Noticeboard. Thanks, — madman 23:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Can you point me at the approval for the bot operation that triggered this thread? Yes I know it's not running right now, and we're currently discussing possible after-the-fact sanctions against the operator. But I think not enough is being done to prevent this stuff from happening in the first place. Look at how long it took in the ANI thread to get the bot stopped, for example. 71.141.88.206 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC) (new address)
        • You seem to misunderstand the bot policy. Semi-automated edits do not require approval because each edit should be confirmed before it's submitted. It's also worth noting that these edits were made by AWB and editing by AWB does require approval, though administrators are automatically approved. For more information, please see WP:MEATBOT and WP:BOTPOL#Assisted editing guidelines. — madman 05:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
          • It's pretty clear from earlier discussion that these edits were just about certainly fully automated (and therefore under BOTPOL) and not confirmed one by one. Have you looked at the ANI archive? If Rich actually did examine and confirm all those edits, then that's a pretty terrible problem in its own right. Anyway, per WP:MEATBOT, once the edits became disruptive, it doesn't matter whether they're fully automated, semi-automated, or speedy but manual. Btw, it's amusing what Soxred's edit counter tool says about Rich's edits. It says: "Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 67108864 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 58 bytes) in /home/soxred93/public_html/pcount/counter.php on line 198" but takes several minutes to reach that conclusion. Rich is a good and thoughtful editor in most regards so I don't understand why he keeps doing this ill-advised stuff with bots. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• • According to Rich, yes, he actually did examine and confirm all those edits (AWB would have been prompting him to do so). I can't disagree with your conclusions, nor can I disagree that the edits should have ceased immediately once it became clear that they were disruptive. Finally, I don't disagree that he's a good and thoughtful editor in most regards. The only point I disagree on is that this was the fault of BOTPOL; it was the fault of the editor and it's being addressed by the community which is what needs to happen as this is essentially a conduct issue (and it regards an earlier editing restriction put in place by the community). — madman 18:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Support, with regret. Just make it stop. I'm bored. I'm bored of the diff-noise. The "for the record I am not under an editing restriction"^[33] is either delusion or dishonesty; Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Rich Farmbrough clearly exists (twice), and has done for some time. My hunch is the one-edit-per-minute is the part that will actually make the difference. It will reduce the speed of run-away damage by 600-fold 27-fold,^[34] down to a level where it is actually possible for other editors to review and clean up (ie. even at the worst case: maximum of 1440 edits to review/revert per day). …And if you have to wait a whole minute before saving (instead of 0.1 seconds 2.3 seconds), you might as well hit Preview and check-over the page content. A bit like a normal editor tries to do. —Sladen (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Let us prevent another myth arising "Rich makes 10 edits a second" - plucked out of air, and just not the case, at that rate my entire editing history would have taken less than a day and a half. Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC).

My apologies. Now corrected; thanks for spotting that. —Sladen (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the server generally takes longer than 2.3 seconds to display a diff from when the link is clicked, so that speed is still faster than anyone can actually look at the edits even if they take no time at all in actual evaluation. That still seems excessive when done over sustained periods. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Let's take a look at his current edits. He is again running some script or tool to change the persondata parameter for Japanese people articles, which goes against his editing restriction, but seems to be basically correct. He also changes the defaultsort for a number of them, but it seems unclear to me whether this correct. Some discussion before going on with this would again have been beneficial. The problem is with "no" names, the Japanese equivalent of "Of", "Van" or "Von" in a name (see Japanese name#Historical names). Is the new defaultsort for these articles better or worse than the old one? I don't know, my gut feeling tells me that the old ones were better though.[35][36][37][38][39] ... He has again edited hundreds of pages, without any discussion about these edits, and has again seemingly made a number of them worse (for Wikipedia), while the improvement (the removal of a comma in the name parameter[40] to an invisible and mostly or totally unused metadata template) is of no value for Wikipedia and of rather hypothetical value to the rest of the world. Note how e.g. here[41] he corrects part of his earlier error, but doesn't correct the error he made in the previous edit[42] of removing a specific, separate correct sort to one category (changing Yoritomo to Category:Minamoto clan) Basically, the more you look in detail to these edits, the more errors you find in them...Fram (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  Looking at a number of cases where the defaultsort had been set up manually, the comma placement after the "no" seemed to be the result of more thoughtful editing practices by experienced editors in the field. If you can find consensus for the other position, then I will gladly change - but something tells me you have already searched for it. Stop clutching at straws and start being constructive. Rich Farmbrough, 13:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC).
  

  Instead of guesswork, you could also take a disputed edit to places where more expertise may probably be found. I did this for you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Defaultsort. I have no idea if your edits will turn out to be correct or not, but the normal, contructive way of doing these things is first to get some expert opinion if you aren't knowledgeable in the field yourself. We have the luxury here of having editors from many backgrounds, we don't need to make hundreds of edits based on guesswork, we can discuss it first. If nothing else, perhaps you can take this with you from the comments by many other editors here; before you make large-scale edits, make sure that what you are trying to do is correct and based on consensus, not just what you believe will be better. Fram (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  A logical deduction from the data available is not guesswork. Rich Farmbrough, 16:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC).
  

• Oh, and congratulations on finding one error you made without anyone needing to point it out first, but could you please in the future, when correcting the minor error in the persondata, also correct the more major error in the defaultsort[43]? I've done it for you in this case, as that is the fastest method of getting this actually corrected. Fram (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Damming with faint praise? It's very 2007. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC).

MfD a week past due for closing

If I can get another admin to review this MfD and then close it appropriately, I would appreciate it. Since I participated in the discussion, I can't close it myself, and it's been open for 14 days. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done --Jayron32 19:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What is this?

Since I can't tell what this is, I don't know if it requires any action, such as nominating for MfD. Could someone please take a look? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the user's contributions, there's a bunch of other, similar pages in their userspace. User hasn't editied in 3 years. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

These look like unattributed copies of web-pages. I would suggest that they either be MfD's en-bloc or speedied as copyvios, and a not left on the user's talk page. They can be undeleted in the unlikely event that they are needed. Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC).

Apart from possibly "hrunk". Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC).

Ah! That makes sense. I'm going to tag them for speedy deletion as copyvios. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've tagged them all as copyvios (inlcuding Hrunk, which comes from a user page on Wiktionary and is not attributed) and have left a note on the editor's talk page, with a pointer to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the pages in question as they were technically copyvios in userspace as the user didn't attribute the original author/website properly as noted on the websites. I even deleted Hrunk for the same reason. As Rich Farmbrough said, I can undelete them upon the request of the user if they attribute the original works properly etc. AngelOfSadness talk 20:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. For most of the pages, the amount of material copied was far too much to qualify under WP:NFCC, or even broader American fair-use standards, so even attribution wouldn't legitimatize those. For any of them which were taken from webpages which were not copyrighted, or were released under a copyleft standard, attribution would be sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandal help, I'm overwhelmed

This didn't seem right for AIV, so I'm hoping I can get help here. I've recently stumbled across a ton of IP's, all starting with 201.19, that have been vandalizing articles for the last few months. This is not obvious vandalism, and so a lot of it has gone unnoticed, making it all the more harmful. It's consisted of adding directors to movies they weren't a part of, adding songs to soundtracks, and a multitude of believable but harmful edits. At this point I've realized I'm not patient enough nor am I skilled enough to comb through all these edits. I'm going to a link to a bunch of the IP's below, but I'm pretty sure there's more (although I've cleared a bunch already) but any help with this (and ideally with blocking the range or something to prevent further damage) would be much appreciated.

• Special:Contributions/201.19.86.109
• Special:Contributions/201.19.164.8
• Special:Contributions/201.19.67.169
• Special:Contributions/201.19.84.216
• Special:Contributions/201.19.163.6
• Special:Contributions/201.19.168.162
• Special:Contributions/201.19.103.75

For a lot of these, going to the history of the vandalized articles turns up even more 201.19 IPs. Thanks for any help, and sorry if this is posted in the wrong place.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

IP range is 201.19.0.0/16 (block user · block log · WHOIS), which is pretty wide really... Spitfire^Tally-ho! 02:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Action of 25 January 2012 back to January 2012 United States Navy SEAL Somali raid

Resolved

Can an administrator look at moving Action of 25 January 2012 back to January 2012 United States Navy SEAL Somali raid - it was moved without discussion. Mtking ^(edits) 02:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that the article is now at Action of 25 January 2012. I'm very much involved, but I really don't see why admin intervention is needed. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That name doesn't even begin to meet the naming policies... the New York Times only recently published an article about it, so maybe we should wait a few days to see what name gets used in the press. But the current name is untenable. Shadowjams (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

An update: I don't think this subject has any business at AN... however, while we're here, perhaps we can move protect it, or at least have more eyes on the name issue. I'm of the opinion that we need to wait a few days until there's more coverage and then maybe we can deduce a good common name. In any case, there's a discussion started on the talk page. It's not contentious [from what I can tell], but it'd be nice to get it right. Shadowjams (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think an admin should move this (and definitely not as a BRD move). Looking at the history, the article began at "Action of 25 January 2012", was boldly moved to "January 2012 United States Navy SEAL Somali raid" by Lihaas, and was then moved back to "Action of 25 January 2012" by XavierGreen. Looks to me like the B and R have happened, now we just need some D – my suggestion would be to start a requested move (and yes, the current title is dreadful). On a side note, I'm not sure why this is at AN when any autoconfirmed user could move the article "January 2012 United States Navy SEAL Somali raid" at the moment. Jenks24 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've move protected the article, so any move will need to be done via WP:RM. "Action of (date)" is an established style of title for these sorts of articles, so the title is valid, if inelegant. Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Inelegant is probably a better description than untenable. I'm gonna mark this resolved unless there are objections (if so just remove it). Shadowjams (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

India Education Program - Pune pilot report

This is to draw your attention towards a report published by independent consultant Tory Read for the Wikimedia Foundation on the lessons and learnings from the Pune pilot of the India Education Program. The links are available below:

• Wikipedia:India Education Program/Analysis/Independent Report from Tory Read (discussion)
• Wikipedia:India Education Program/Analysis/Quantitative Analysis (discussion)

See also: Wikipedia:India Education Program/Analysis (discussion).
Your comments are welcome. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Willing to talk about being an admin?

Just a courtesy notice. :) There's a class looking at adminship on Wikipedia. They're hoping to do brief interviews (30 minutes or so via Skype (edited to add) or IRC) with active admins. I've signed up at User:Jaobar/Admins to Interview List 1. If you're an admin and are willing to help out, please add your name to the list like so:

|-
| {{user-multi|user=Example User|t|sul}}
| {{Y}}
| [Skype or IRC]
| *List sites and elevated user access levels

I don't think believe this is a major time commitment; just an interview with a single student. If you have any questions about format of the interview or anything, I'm sure they can clarify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl. That answers that question. Dlohcierekim 23:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've changed my note above to reflect that they've decided that IRC will also work, for those who would prefer an alternative to the Skype option. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

MRG, I'd love to Skype with you, if only so you can follow the progress of your offspring. Let me go shave and dress right now. As for the class--I like to pretend that there's a modicum of privacy here...I do wonder what we all look like, though. Who's the prettiest admin? Drmies (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not conducting any interviews. I'm being interviewed myself. :D Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't there used to be a userbox for Wikipedians who edit naked? Should people displaying it be discouraged from signing up here? Just saying... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we're clamping down on self-expression and professionalism simultaneously. And MRG, I know you're not interviewing--I was just looking for a chat. BTW, if your name is Maya (or Maja, I guess we still need to fight over that), then she (if she is a she) will be named for you. ;) Drmies (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but her name is Maggie, which is still a perfectly fine name. :) -- Atama頭 17:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

inactive admin needs to deflag account

Since this really belongs at WP:BN, I've gone ahead and moved it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Eyes needed on an SPI case

Could someone who cares please figure out WTF is going on over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol. This exact case was rev deleted over privacy concerns a few hours before it was reopened; I'm not entirely certain how to deal with it, but its getting rather TLDR, and if anyone has an inkling, feel free to deal with it. This is above my pay grade. --Jayron32 03:01, 27 January 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)

Original description and source of File:Bonifas.jpg

Hi, File:Bonifas.jpg was transfered from en-wp to Commons in 2008. As it has currently been nominated for deletion it would be helpful if the original description could be made available as it is unclear whether the original uploader provided a source. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)