Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive195

Noticeboard archives

Edit war on Caldor

A couple of IPs, along with User:Caldorwards4 and myself, seem to be involved in a four-way edit war over Caldor. The IPs keep adding the lyrics to a jingle that the chain used, both in violation of WP:LYRICS and WP:IINFO. One even added an Urban Planet forum as a "source". I don't want to violate WP:3RR so I could use some help in stopping this edit war. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid Editing

This is overdue, probably: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid Editing. Given that this (and related WP:COI issues) seem to be coming up more and more, I've launched this basic RFC. We've never had an actual community discussion or mandate about this. Please review the statements, leave yours, endorse as you see fit. Should make for an interesting and enlightening discussion. rootology (C)(T) 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Ostrich page

On the June 8 Late Late Show, Craig Ferguson provoked an edit war on the Ostrich page by claiming "Wikipedia says the Ostrich can run at 85 miles per hour". Since then, multiple edits to the page have been made adding that (false) detail. All are being reverted by various users, but this is likely to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcunniff (talk • contribs) 20:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for 3 days to allow the meme to run its course. That's probably quite harsh for only minor vandalism that has been quickly reverted so far, so other admins should reduce/overturn if they disagree. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I tried parsing through the various warning / vandalism templates but could not figure out the right thing to do (I'm a relative newbie at official Wikipedia culture, sorry...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcunniff (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

They're hard going when you're new at it, so asking for help is the best thing. Thanks for doing so! I've dropped you a generic welcome template with some useful links that may help in future. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Far better than simply having your head stuck in the sand, and not asking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Easy speedy AfD close please

Resolved

I'm involved so would someone please visit and close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowthyneighbor.org? -- Banjeboi 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye.

(Undoing "resolution") no admin action needed. //roux   19:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please do not close this sort of thing anymore, Roux. Fifteen minutes, for pity's sake. Whether or not you think Shoemaker's Holiday has a point, he deserves to be treated with a bit of dignity and respect. Each administrator or editor may determine personally whether or not they wish to respond here, but a peremptory close by a non-admin on the Administrators' noticeboard is not called for at all. Risker (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you show me what admin action is needed here? //roux   19:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It may not need any admin action at all; however, this dismissive "don't let the door hit you on the way out" closing of the thread is not an acceptable response to a longtime contributor's expressions of concern. Perhaps the appropriate action would be for administrators not previously involved to review the incidents described below and determine if there is a better resolution. Whether it changes Shoemaker's Holiday's mind about leaving, I won't venture to guess. It is, however, a sign that there may be issues beyond this noticeboard that warrant attention. Risker (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It wasn't meant to be dismissive, just keeping the board on-topic and trying to avoid the inevitable drama. //roux   19:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Risker, there's already a section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alleged abuse of admin powers by Stifle. We have no need of duplication from AN/I to this noticeboard. Nor do we need a duplication of what could already be found in multiple sections at User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday, which is in response to a copy of the below announcement that was already posted to User:Shoemaker's Holiday. There's also a lengthy thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Please withdraw me from the cup. Let's not have this same discussion duplicated across umpteen noticeboards and talk pages. Uncle G (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And not one of them referenced with the intended close. This thread is hardly a dramafest, compared to any number of other threads on this page and on ANI; on seeing it, most people chose to respond by going to Shoemaker's Holiday's user talk page. If the thread had simply been closed instead of collapsed, with a reference to one or more of the other discussions, there would have been some sense to it. But a thread titled "Goodbye" and almost immediately collapsed with a "nothing to see here folks, move along" message is more likely to attract attention than one that is pointedly ignored by those who spend a lot of time on the messageboard. Risker (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving Wikipedia. It's more and more clear that even when policy is on your side, the general adminship will do nothing. Wadester16 modifies my posts, puts them under an inflammatory edit summary, and edit-wars to keep his version up? AGF. Nothing to see here. Someone invalidly non-admin-closes Plot of Les Misérables' discussion, then an admin claims that The changes to WP:PLOT made after a majority of people sid it shouldn't exist at all in WP:NOT were probably forced through without consensus because they watered the old, no-consensus policy down. So he protects the redirect. I complain, I get attacked.

Every time I state my concerns, I get attacked for raisingthem. Durova even often states they havee merit, but urges people to ignore me anyway.

Arbcom have been promising to deal with the Matthew Hoffman case for two months now. Kirril Has twice been asked for progress reports, and told me a statement was being prepared. No statement has ever been forthcoming.

I turn 30 today. That's too old to put up with this shit any more.

I'm out of here.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish you'd reconsider. Your contributions here are highly valued and appreciated. If there's anything I or anyone here can do to help you, please let us know. And happy birthday. 30 is the new 30. Kingturtle (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, can someone explain in a little more detail just what happened here? Comparing the edit history of Shoemaker's Holiday & Wadester16 sheds no light on this. And the AfD for Plot of Les Misérables was closed a little hastily for my taste, but hardly enough by itself to make one shake the dust from one's sandals & leave Wikipedia. This sounds like another case of WikiBurnout -- in which case, sorry to see you go SH, but the best of luck to you. (And if 30 is too old for Wikipedia, then what is yours truly, a 51-year-old, doing here?) -- llywrch (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you ask, Shoemaker made a more detailed statement at a talk page shortly before announcing his retirement. And in that he made specific accusations of misconduct regarding a dispute in featured pictures, but didn't back any of the claims with diffs. It's a bit awkward: Shoemaker's Holiday names me in the post as someone who agrees with him (which I mostly do), and I do confirm that he was in a conflict with a specific individual there, but I don't recall any of the particular actions he describes (edit warring, altering another editor's posts, etc.). Posted a query to Shoemaker's talk a few hours ago to ask for details. Awaiting reply. Durova^Charge! 23:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

SH, fortunately there is no "general adminship" --there are almost 1000 active admins who are a very assorted lot of people, not many of whom are likely tamely submit to domination by any attempted cabal. it takes some amount of time and effort to get things moving among them all, just as among WPedians in general. that's why actions like that of Roux who closed the discussion are totally wrong-- we need some time to consider things. And, as durova said, if there are multiple issues, we need to consider them separately. The first-level treatment for Wikiburnout is communal support & if necessary a change of concentration here--experience is too valuable to be just discarded. I'm even older than Llywrch, and I would hate to think the young people here did not have our stamina. DGG (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed baffling that "not plot" would exist given the clear lack of consensus behind it, but hey when it is clear something lacks legitimate support, then WP:IAR anyway. But look, do not allow one incident to bully you away from here. I see things that baffle and disgust me frequently on this site and frequently wonder why sometimes I am even arguing with non-experts on certain things (I tend to avoid discussions concerning content of which I am largely ignorant) and yet, I still find Wikipedia useful and worth volunteering my time for, although I am increasingly thinking some kind of reform may be needed, i.e. we had the model that we have had and seen its flaws. I realize the whole appeal of "anybody can edit," but I do not think some of that is working, and the fiction and bilateral relations discussions are really showing me the downfalls of having certain blocks of accounts wanting to deletes specific kinds of articles for which they just do not like them, but clearly have no real, even amateur knowledge of the topics, they just do not like them (and no, I am not saying "everyone" who says to delete them, but a disconcerting number nonetheless). Perhaps even now to be qualified to say comment in AfDs on fictional characters, you have had to have created at least one DYK worthy fictional character article or something? The same for bilateral relations articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday has quit wikipedia before. This is not something new. Not everyone has the necessary patience, skills and temperament for editing online. --Kleinzach 06:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but a tolerance for getting #(@*-ed over by ArbCom really shouldn't be a requirement to edit here. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Only two Wikipedia arbitrations have ever been vacated and Shoemaker's Holiday was the target of one of them. Kleinzach, please consider withdrawing that post. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul R. Traub

Paul R. Traub (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was created by Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) on 6 June. It uses this site as a source, as well as court documents, and was entirely written by Furtive admirer. Less than 3 days later, the article was given a prominent link on the same site. His writing style and the one on petters-fraud.com are practically identical. The article, in my opinion, is original research, and is not even close to neutral.

I am concerned that Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) runs petters-fraud.com, or at least has a conflict of interest. In this discussion, initially regarding an employee of Mr Traub whitewashing the article, Furtive sees himself as "superman", believing in "truth, justice, and the american way". He's quite adamant about 'outing' the alleged crimes commited by several people, leading to to believe he's not exactly neutral himself, even though he may have no link to the people involved. I'm very close to removing the page from mainspace, or possibly deleting it, unless/until it can be scrutinised for BLP problems.

Can someone provide me with a second opinion here?

Thanks, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing of the BLP is terrible, the way the article is written draws a line between someone who has been accused of a crime and someone who as far as i can tell has not been accused of a crime, which should be gotten rid of immediately, and i don't see how "petters-fraud.com" could be considered a reliable source, it's an attack page of some sort (says so right on the front page, i.e. "The plan is to GET TRAUB for his crimes and roque DOJ for Cover UP" (sic).Bali ultimate (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This still needs work but it's looking better thanks in large part to Bali's efforts. As for Furtive admirer, I have no idea if he has a COI, but he is clearly editing with an agenda and trying to publish original research on Wikipedia, and in a BLP no less. Also, Furtive's claims need to be checked carefully: I found one that said that Traub's firm was ordered to refund $750K worth of legal fees; in fact, that was what a plaintiff's motion had requested and the judge had denied that motion. Traub does have a PR person on Wikipedia (User:W Cwir from Saylor) but W Cwir was just unblocked after agreeing to religiously follow WP:BESTCOI so I hope that part will go away. Mangojuice^talk 19:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) also introduced, more or less word for word, the same sort of original research attacks (much of it demonstrably innacurate, much more of it simply not supported by reliable sources so it's difficult to prove or disprove) in the article on eToys.com with this series of edits.[1]. I've since reverted most of it. More eyes are needed on this, and we should really no tolerate more of this from an editor who's been around for a year, long enough to know better. I'm taking a look at a bit more of his contributions.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

--removed diatribe by Furtive admirer that consisted mainly of personal attacks and BLP problems--Shell ^babelfish 23:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Much of that above diatribe MUST be deleted as a violation of WP:BLP. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is the appropriate forum for this matter. I support a BLP review and am willing to work with Furtive Admirer and Ms. Cwir to perform one. There is no need for the escalation of a simple content dispute to this forum at this time. While both parties have a POV, I suspect that they are rational individuals who both want a functional and coherent article. I therefore offer my services as an independent reviewer who has no interest in the subject, to work with both parties to scrub the pages. Geoff Plourde (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I consider my commentary, a narrative, not a diatribe. Since you gentlemen exhibit a default negative POV and experience a catharsis when deleting, do whatever feels good. I have touched up and tweaked the traub page a bit, and it is satisfactory to me. there is no need for Geoff at this time, but i will save you for future issues. thanx in advance.

Furtive admirer (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Could one the editors familiar with this incident take a look at the comments Furtive left on my talk page? I would like to remove them, but given my COI I am wary of editing any material about Paul Traub, even if it is on my own talk page. I think the comment content might not conform to BLP rules, but I would like a second opinion on that. Weronix (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Any user is free to remove whatever content they do not want from their user talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My block of User:Diete003

Resolved

Diete003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I just did this in response to this. The user has a history of incivility, eg this edit summary and this comment, and therefore I felt my block was appropriate to prevent further disruption. I brought it here in case anyone felt otherwise, and I will not consider any reduction of the block a wheel war, though I'd hope that any reduction will be held off unless and until the user has a chance to make a comment. However as I was typing this I changed the block to prevent editing of the talk page as he restored the text in question. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hrm - looks like they recently had a dispute over content that got out of hand and ended up blocked for edit warring. It seems likely that the rant is probably a bit of blowing off steam after all that; I didn't notice anything in the post that prompted your bock was particularly shocking. It does look like they might have had some snippiness in their history, especially during that edit war but I'm not seeing anything here that warrants an indef block. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think I would have have blocked for that at all. Shell ^babelfish 09:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the text in question referred to Wikipedians as a bunch of amateur pricks. But most importantly he called a specific editor (who he named in 2nd paragraph and called his enemy WP:BATTLE) a capricious son of a bitch and a crook. And five days ago "Yankee sonabitch you die!". Nja²⁴⁷ 10:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This text is unacceptable, as was the restoration of it. That being said, I've re-enabled the talk page privileges so that the editor can request unblocking if he wishes and asked him not to restore the text in question. If he does, the talk page privileges should be revoked again. Indefinite =/= infinite and I hope that this user might issue an unblock request after calming down. –xeno^talk 14:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

He restored it again... Talk page priveleges disabled, block endorsed. –xeno^talk 16:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

general watch for Gabon articles

The entire country of Gabon has suffered an internet blackout since Sunday. This may be related to the death of the President Omar Bongo or a optical fibre problem, depending on the source. Some of the articles seem to be written by Gabonese (who now have no internet access) so a watch on these articles for vandalism is in order. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

neo-Nazi activist at work on White People article

Apparently endorsing Adolph Hitler's "the Jews aren't white" theory, Arjacent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is trying remove all images of Jewish people from the White People article [2], as well as censoring information that might make Nazi Germany appear anti-quantum physics; see my talk page comments for further elaboration. Since Wikipedia isn't an appropriate forum for blatant antisemitic activism, I am requesting administrative assistance in stopping this nonsense. Erik9 (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The account only has two edits and nothing but a welcome template on their talk page. Maybe try discussing it first and make sure its not a misunderstanding? If it turns out they're aware of policy and intend to ignore it, I'm all for taking action. Shell ^babelfish 09:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I've lost it, but could someone explain why we prominently discuss Nazi Germany's attitude toward quantum physics in our article on white people? MastCell ^Talk 16:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean the caption to the photo of Heisenberg? That is something that does not clearly tie into the rest of the article. (It seems to be a remnant from an earlier, less NPOV draft.) I have some other criticisms of this article in general -- for example recorded European racial opinions of the people of Ethiopia & how they have changed -- but seeing how I might get my toe bitten for dipping it into this controversial topic, I'll decline. -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect into userspace

Just a heads up here. I just discovered a link from this catgeory leading to a userspace article. He appears to be fairly new here (may 5). As far as I know, such links aren't permitted (linking from main article space into userspace). I'll remove it for now with a polite note on their page about this . I'm posting here to give notice, and, should anyone (admin or not) find fault, feel free to revert me, and if a trout needs to be applied, feel free!

--_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 21:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)}

Mainspace categories should not be used on anything apart from articles and, occasionally, portals. I was just about to remove it, but someone beat me there. In future, removal/dewikifying and a note to the user would be best. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You can always just put nowiki tags around the categories in the article until such time as the user is ready to move it into article space. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting user ban

Resolved: User has been blocked. --Vivio Testarossa^Talk 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I reported about up to 30 days ago the user Shedarian who was posting on my talk page asking for me to illegeal copy material and send it to them. a admin advbise them nto to do it and left at that. however the user has again today asked me to send them illegeal recording please cna they be blocked?--Andy Chat c 18:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked them, because that was all they were using Wikipedia for. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I aint one for reporting people but they are goign beyond what is acceptabel even in my books.--Andy Chat c 19:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for outside review of my action

Hi, I'd like some feedback on a move request I closed, moving Military history of the peoples of the British Islands to Military history of Britain. It's a big mess, but here are the relevant sections: Talk:Military_history_of_Britain#Poll_on_Article_Name, the discussion I closed. There's lots of discussion above and below it, but I'd primarily like a review of my evaluation of that discussion. My close of it is being challenged on my talk page, at User_talk:Aervanath#Vote_rigging_at_Military_History_of_British_Islands, with allegations of canvassing, although I did take the canvassing into account when I made the close. This is a controversial area, with lots of nationalistic fervor on both sides, and I'd like some other uninvolved admins to come along and give me an unbiased view. Thanks, --Aervanath (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you suggest Military history of the British Islands as a compromise? Drawn Some (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That would have been no better. No offense, but I can tell you haven't read the talk page; if you had, it'd be clear why that name wouldn't fly. The term "British Isles" is controversial among the British and Irish nationalist factions, and both sides hated the term "British Islands". Actually, the issue is kind of moot, now; the article has now been turned into a disambiguation page, and discussion has gone off in another direction altogether. What I'm hoping is that other editors/admins will go through and critique my close of the discussion. E.g., was it the correct decision, could I have worded my rationale differently, were there better ways to respond to editors on my talk page, etc. There's no actual need for emergency action, I'm just hoping for some constructive criticism. Thanks, --Aervanath (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin here but since I already stuck my unwanted foot in I went and read it. As a reasonable editor who normally doesn't question admin actions made in good faith even if I disagree with them let me point out that no matter what decision you made a majority of the editors would be unhappy. The argument there will go on long after both you and I are dead. The decision you made was a good one and you explained it well. Drawn Some (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Having looked this over, the source of the conflict is not the article itself, its the same old tired English/Welsh/Irish/Scottish/Cornish/Rutlandish/Whatever ethnic conflict and you can't be asked to solve that. You acted fine within bounds as an admin. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone stalking me

I believe this IP has been Stalking me, since it has removed several of my news items. --Chuck Marean 03:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, 76.64.168.94 (talk · contribs) has only 2 edits, one of which is a revert of your news item (a revert that I support, btw). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't support it because the increase in oil was more global than some of those current events. Most of those other current events don't sound to me like an article was updated either, and the current events page says nothing about updating an article. I wonder if it should.--Chuck Marean 05:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Chuck, that's a conversation to have on the talk page of that article, not here. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive, edit-warring editor

Resolved

In early July 2007, User:Peterdjones did his first beer article edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trappist_beer&diff=142217813&oldid=135505666 The information he added was generally inaccurate and seemed to reflect the POV of Beer Advocate or another beer fan website. He edit-warred with knowledgable editors (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trappist_beer&diff=146165701&oldid=146159214) and by 21 August 2007, he was gone. All the articles that he had inaccurately written and protected with edit-warring had to be rewritten.

A few weeks ago (25 May), he returned. The edit-warring is back: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quadrupel&action=history Plus endless and pointless discussions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quadrupel#Links

His lack of knowledge about Dutch/Belgian beer is enough of a problem. His edit-warring and pointless discussions prevent editors from working since we need to spend time undoing the damage he caused and trying to explain to him why he is wrong.

I have reverted many of his edits because I: a. hoped/expected he would soon go away, as he had before, and b. it was quicker than having to go through his history to collect diffs to file this notice. Please ban him from the beer article so that we can improve instead of defending the status quo. Mikebe (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As an independant third party, I have to say that Mikebe is as much to blame as Peterdjones. Pay no attention to this post.Beakerboy (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Two points Beakerboy. One is that you haven't provided any diffs to back up that assertion. Two is that in posting here, Mikebe is also inviting scrutiny of his actions in regards to this dispute. Administrators will look at all actions by all editors when formulating a response. Suggesting they ignore this post is ill-considered. Exxolon (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What I thought I was doing is making some small and uncontentious amendments to some articles. It seems to have blown up into a huge battle that I don't really have the time to take part it. I find it odd that I can amend the article reality without comment, as I recently did, but the minutiae of Belgian beer have to be argued out exhaustively. If anyone wishes to pursue this

matter (and I can't think why they should) further, I can provide examples of mikebe making misleading edit summaries and getting facts wrong. 1Z (talk)

Peterdjones, you don't help yourself when you refactor the comments of others to remove a diff (see here) at the same time as stating your case. I have reinserted it, you should note I spotted this and am not even involved in your dispute. Mine's a Leffe Tripel ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That was accidental. 1Z (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain how you accidentally removed a specific piece of text, that just happened to show the reason you were brought here, without disturbing any surrounding text, when your response was some paragraphs away from the link you accidentally removed? //roux   17:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was an accident, why didn't you undo it?

It's occurred to me that it might be useful to explain why I say his edits are inaccurate since not everyone is familiar with the subject. In the first diff I posted above, he calls Trappist "styles". Trappist is a designation of origin, not a style. Secondly, enkel he has confused with patersbier. Thirdly, tripels are not "usually golden". And fourth, no Trappist make a quadrupel (however, one makes a beer with the brand name Quadrupel). His description of dubbel, however, is generally correct. Mikebe (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The 'first diff' is two years old.

The recent edits mikebe has been reverting do not mention styles, so his grounds are spurious.

Mikebe's claims about trappist beer styles are his own POV. Many authorities disagree. I am unable to get mikebe to edit according to WP:V.

Mikebe's claim that La trappe Quadrupel somehow is not a quadrupel defies all logic.

Mikebe is reluctant to admit the existence of non-Trappist and non-Belgian Quadrupels since it spoils his POV theory that quad is not a style.

There are verifiable sources that can be quoted on quad's status as a style, but mikebe appears to prefer censorship.

The use of Enkel as a 'Patersbier' (for consumption by the monks) is verifiable.

1Z (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trappist_beer&diff=next&oldid=149962845) we've got Peterdjones declaring that authorities like Tim Webb recognise Trappist beer styles. That would come as a big suprise to Mr. Webb because on page 52 of his "Good Beer Guide to Belgium and Holland" (ISBN 1-85249-174-4) he wrote: "There is no beer style called Trappist. The term 'Trappist beer' is a designation of the brewery of origin."

The difference between 'style' and 'styles' is key. There is no one Trappist style, but Webb and others do recognise Dubbel and Tripel as styles. 1Z (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not specifically Trappist styles.Patto1ro (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So what? None of the material I want to add says anything at all about styles. Mikebe's POV-pushing of his styles-don't-exist theory has reached the extent where he deletes completely neutral material.1Z (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trappist_beer&diff=next&oldid=150440750) is PeterDJones again playing the POV card against an editor trying to correct the Trappist beer article against the edit warring of Mr. Jones. This anonymous editor, by the way, is [...] one of the foremost European authorities on the Trappists and Trappist beer [...]. Mikebe (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Here again we have something dug up from years ago. 08:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

While I am not up to speed with this latest dispute and Mikebe may well be warranted in filing a complaint about this other editor's actions, Mikebe has been known to push his own POV too. He has sytematically worked his way through beer articles over the last couple of years removing all links to the BJCP organisation to the chagrin of many editors and sparking off several edit wars in the process. So if someone looks into this I advise they look over the complete edit history of the article extensively because this other editor may be just restoring something that Mikebe removed at some point without consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a consnsus about those links until you came in and ignored it. Having shown no interest in the beer articles before you suddenly arrived and started reverting all of mikebe's edits. That couldn't possibly be connected with the fact that he'd removed irrelevant details about vegetarian beer you had added to some article, could it?Patto1ro (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for information about standing consensus. In the only case where it was supplied, it was in favour of my edits. Mikebe has misrepresented consensus before. I have no recollection of the vegetarian beer incident. 1Z (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

From the Talk:Tripel

"Since two of my quotes are being used in this discussion, I'll chime in here. My thinking is most in line with 1Z. If a specific brand of beer is noteworthy enough to be called out as an important representative of a particular "style", a sentence or two should be written within the article about that particular beer. In effect, working the notable examples into the body of the article. I've been pretty hands off on these articles for a while, and I'll continue to be for the foreseeable future.Beakerboy (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)"

1Z (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The above post by Mikebe might contain an unintentional outing of an IP editor. Unomi (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Refactored. If the anonymity is important to the editor, should the intervening revisions be oversighted? user:J aka justen (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I was indeed restoring one of mikebe's deletions with one edit: Here is a diff showing mikebe removing some material -- which is in fact verifiable--with the misleading edit summary of 'cleanup'. [3]

Assuming that is Peter just above, here is a later diff showing what he claims is "verfiable fact" was, in fact, not: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brouwerij_de_Koningshoeven&diff=next&oldid=294415007

Peter has chosen to defend himself here mostly by attacking me. I hope you will agree his reactions in this notice have given a good example of why I said he was disruptive and edit-warring. In defending himself above, for example, he uses phrases like "Many authorities disagree" and "There are verifiable sources..." But has he posted a single one? That is exactly why I brought this request. Mikebe (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Clutching at straws. My source is ambiguous on the issue of the use of Blonde as Patersbier. That is a small detail. Patto1ro was wrong to delete the whole passage over one word, and now seems to have accepted that he is. I amended the passage to remove the reference to Blonde as it is not unequivocally supported by the source, and mikebe deleted it anyway, as this diff shows: [4].Mikebe is still wrong to say that I am "confusing" enkel and Patersbier. I still have verification for that claim. Mikbe is still deleting verifiable material and arguing from self-declared authority.1Z (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a grand total of one. And that IS a fact. Mikebe (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And here are some of the references I have been using (I put them on the talk page to protect them from mikbes deletions). A glance at talk:quadrupel will show that it is mikebe who is making unverifiable claims:-

Here's one that brews a Tripeland a quad: Weyerbacher Brewing Company
here's another Boulevard Brewing Comapny
And another Midnight Sun 'Venus'

1Z (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And once again, proof of Peter's lack of knowledge and understanding of beer. Here, for example, are five other breweries:

http://www.churchendbrewery.co.uk/
http://www.drinkdrakes.com/home.html
http://www.emersons.co.nz/
http://www.falconbrewing.com/
http://www.thebackyardbrewhouse.com/

All of these breweries brew a beer called "George." According to Peter's logic, this "proves" that "George" is now a beer style. One of these breweries even produces a "tripel". This, according to Peter, would "prove" a connection between a George and a tripel. Clearly this logic is flawed and the claims are untrue. Should Wikipedia continue publishing fiction about beer? Mikebe (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The status of quadrupel as a style is doubtful, and I have reference , and I am happy to mention it in the article, and I haver already told mikebe that I am. Mikebe thinks it isn't a style and that there are in fact no beer styles at all. He has no evidence for any of that, it just his personal theory. Mikebe must stop removing verifiable material, and start editing according to the guidelines and not according to his personal theories. 1Z (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Peter writes: "Mikebe's claim that La trappe Quadrupel somehow is not a quadrupel defies all logic. Mikebe is reluctant to admit the existence of non-Trappist and non-Belgian Quadrupels since it spoils his POV theory that quad is not a style." (These quotes are taken from his posts above.) And now, suddenly, "quadrupel as a style is doubtful." Who is writing this? One person says it is a style, then says its not? Peter writes/edits ONLY without sources, and when sources are requested, he either uses flawed sources . He wrotes ONLY his POV, then turns around and says that information that contradicts his are "personal theories." Likewise, he criticises editors for "reflexive reverting" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Patto1ro&diff=prev&oldid=294418679) but, look at his history and what does one find? Why HE's the "reflexive reverter" (e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brouwerij_de_Koningshoeven&action=history). Have we somehow slipped into an alternative reality? And finally, as I have already said above: Peter tries to defend himself by attacking me (again).Mikebe (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The verifiable claim about quadrupel's status is specific, and not part of an all-encompassing theory about the non-existence of beer styles. Moreover, it is not conclusive, although mikebe's very strong prejudices on the subject naturally make him read it that way.

I have sources for everything I want to say, and I have demonstrated I do repeatedly despite mikebe's false accusations to the contrary.

Mikebe has still provided no sources for his no-style theory.

I cannot continue editing beer articles until mikebe is prevented from making spurious deletions, hence I must criticise his approach, just as he is attempting to criticise mine by starting this investigation.

08:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical post: 1. claim evidence, but don't provide any, 2. make baseless accusations against someone, but don't provide any evidence, 3. claim it is possible to prove a negative. If Peter actually knew anything about beer instead of just claiming to, he would provide evidence. But he doesn't, which proves the point of this notice. Mikebe (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

On wikipedia,negatives are "proved" the same way as positives: you find a notable source saying "there is no X". If you can 1Z (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Uuuuuuuugh. How about a pair of topicbans from the entire subject of beer? Anyone object? //roux   16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to my world! It's not fun, is it? Isn't there enough evidence here of what I said at the outset? - Unfamiliar with the subject, argumentative (edit-warring), disruptive. I say end it. Mikebe (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a matter for this noticeboard. Content disputes are a matter for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or Wikipedia:Third opinion. As the content is specialised, and the dispute is deep, I suggest Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Further discussion on this matter should continue on the talkpage of the articles concerned, and/or at Mediation Cabal. SilkTork *^YES! 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delete an article I created

Resolved

As the page's creator, I don't feel right doing this myself, as other people have made contributions to the article itself. I thought Adam London was notable for inclusion, but for reasons I was unaware, he is not, as yet.

Could someone please delete this article for me? Thank you. Bobo. 12:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just place a prod tag on the article to have it deleted? If no one objects, it will be deleted in a few days. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's gone. Thank you for the advice — I've never before used PROD tags on my own articles before — but if such a situation arises in the future, I will be sure to do so. Bobo. 13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia ArbCom Case

This is absurd, and I strongly encourage others who feel the same way to stand up and say so. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I second this encouragement. While I know many will sneer, I do belief this judgment is dreadfully punitive and threatens to undermine Wikipedia's core content values; it gives one-purpose CoI tendentious nationalist users a victory over one of the few admins who has put his neck on the line to stand up to them; it punishes a user who has given so much to maintain wikipedia's first two pillars, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view". It is a judgment which sends a message to all Wikipedians and to those outside that our leadership care less about our first two pillars than they do about attempts to subvert them in pursuit on anti-encyclopedic ideological goals. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. We have a serious problem with 'no go areas' already, and recent actions are likely to make this worse. Bottom line, is this going to have an effect on Admin involvement in these problem areas? I think it will and that effect will hurt Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an encyclopaedia any more, it's a social-networking site. Conduct is more important than content. The information in our articles may be biased, tendentious nonsense but - hey - at least it was written by polite pushers of biased, tendentious nonsense. Britannica must be kicking themselves they never used this way of compiling a reference book. --Folantin (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I also endorse the comments above. - Ev (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So it's OK for admins to return incivility for incivility without restriction, as long as they don't use their tools to block people? That's what I'm gathering from a brief reading of that set of rants. Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Rants"? Very civil. --Folantin (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I find this a bit ironic with your post a few lines up. Also, compared to some of the stuff we see daily, the comment is relatively civil. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was using irony. Well spotted. No, I don't care about "civility" as much as editing a decent encyclopaedia. --Folantin (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. :P Tone just doesn't pop out as well on the internet as well as in rl conversation. ;) Icestorm815 • Talk 18:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll just post here what I posted there: FutPerf is a one-purpose admin, the best kind; his purpose is to disallow nationalist bullshit to disrupt the project. More people, Arbcom especially, should be lauding him for doing the right thing. This... well, I have to call it a 'proposal' as any of the more accurate words would get me blocked... this proposal is an utter travesty, and a complete betrayal of everything this project stands for. I call on every admin to resign the bit en masse, and request that Arbcom deal with all admin-attention-needed problems from here on out. They are unequivocally stating that they know better than a hard-working admin how to handle the relentless nationalistic idiocy that infests large chunks of the project, not to mention the other excellent work FutPerf does. So I say to you, admins: let them. Show them exactly how shortsighted this ridiculous proposal is by either resigning or going on strike. Wikipedia should be cheering the admins who are brave enough to stick their faces in these blenders, not removing the very tools they need to enforce one of our core principles. //roux   17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

First, there are two good reasons why a lot of Admins stay away from these cat-fights: few of us have the patience to handle the grief that comes from groups who are only a few steps away from shooting at each other, & even fewer know enough about the disputes to know when the individuals involved are BSing. That said, if the ArbCom is correct about FPaS, I would be very surprised; he/she has always struck me as level-headed. Maybe FPaS did lose patience & wrote something incivil -- but considering the type of people who day after day push their nationalist POV over all other POVs on a topic, often using language which is hardly civil, I'd be inclined to cut him/her some slack for it & do no more than issue a warning. The ArbCom is going to need to provide a very detailed defense for removing the bit from FPaS if they don't want another round of "vote out the bums". -- llywrch (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I see arb com is currently backing off from the sanctions, and, without any personal feeling against any of those involved, I hope they have not yielded to the pressure expressed above and on the talk page linked to. Admins operate in a setting of almost complete freedom to conduct arbitrary action, and this is only tolerable to the extent that all of them retain the trust of the community. this trust is endangered by two things: appearance of non-neutrality, and rudeness. No matter how difficult the issue, someone who can not act calmly in it should not act in it, nor should someone whose neutrality is even subject to challenge. It is admittedly as I too have found difficult to continue involvement in a matter without acquiring a POV in some direct, and probably the only way to handle it is to take it in relays and act independently. Once one feels frustrated at something, one must step back from it as an admin. There reaslly should be no exceptions due to friendship or expertise or even overall quality of editing or adminiship-- but perhaps we need to be slow in transitioning to better expectations, to avoid the appearance of unfairness to individuals. The discussions above and on the talk page have an uncomfortable appearance of admins gathered to protect each other. DGG (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I see now that my comment wasn't as clear as it should be, so let me try again. These subject areas -- those touching on ethnic/nationalistic hot buttons are difficult to moderate well, & few people (Admins & non-Admins) try. And Nietzsche's warning about battling monsters also applies here: mediators in these conflicts will eventually lose their patience & cool. (It's not a question of if, but when; even handling relatively uncontroversial topics eventually & unavoidably leads to a potential WikiBurnout event.) And if a mediator has totally lost it -- say, banning all parties & letting the ArbCom sort it out -- that individual deserves sanctions. However, when a person takes on a difficult task -- like moderating these ethnic/nationalistic conflicts -- & does do something unacceptable, then the ArbCom needs to explain very carefully & in sufficient detail the reasons for the sanctions. Because otherwise potential mediators will avoid these topics if it appears that the ArbCom doesn't have their backs, & there will be a backlash against the ArbCom. And I don't think anyone who cares about Wikipedia wants to see that happen. -- llywrch (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's already happening. As a direct result of this case, one admin (myself) has resigned; a long-term editor and another admin have retired in protest. Other admins are saying that they never want to have anything to do with nationalist conflicts ever again. The message from this case is that ArbCom does not have admins' backs and there is already a backlash against the ArbCom - the strongest I've ever seen, in fact. FloNight has already explicitly summarised the ArbCom's attitude: "The topic ... needs all editors and admins that make provocative edits to be removed so that the article can include stable NPOV content." Note the criteria being applied here - "provocative" edits are declared unacceptable regardless of context. In nationalist conflicts especially, simply insisting on NPOV and reliable verifiable sources is provocative, because the nationalists do not accept anything that contradicts their fixed view of "the truth". The message from ArbCom appears to be that not being "provocative" is a higher priority than ensuring encyclopedic quality, which of course defeats the basic purpose of Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

When it gets to a stage like this, people involved with the article have to pass it into other hands. The question of when one is too involved to continue cannot be left to the individual to decide for himself. DGG (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not an article, it's a broad topic area. Lots of articles touch on the Republic of Macedonia, and even more touch on the Balkans. And no one has shown much sustained interested in dealing with the problems in this area except Moreschi, Fut. Perf., and ChrisO. Most admins who have commented at the voluminous talk page of the Macedonia 2 case have said that they're not that interested in getting involved in the topic area, because it's difficult, unrewarding, and seemingly futile...and the arbitration case gives me and many other editors the feeling that the ArbCom doesn't have much sympathy for admins who take on the task. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to take Akhilleus' statement even further. It's beyond just a broad topic area, as the revert war over the name of Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia/Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia extends almost everywhere in the project (including such odd areas as a Colombian telenovela and an American musician), and I have no doubt that some of the participants in this long-term war will scream for enforcement the first time one of the parties to the case reverts an edit which changes "Macedonia" to "FYROM". Horologium (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

@DGG: I will rush to the defence of anyone working to protect neutrality, admin or otherwise, and I'm pretty sure others involved in defending FutPerf will do the same. Furthermore, the notion that this is admins defending admins is clearly mistaken because a number of those defending FutPerf are not admins. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please remove Egyptian Language from Wikipedia

Resolved: This is the English Wikipedia which does not have any authority over other language projects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Administrators,

We are a group of Arabs including many Egyptians, who are not satisfied with the existence of an Egyptian Language in Wikipedia.

We benefit from Wikipedia and we appreciate the Wikipedia Project and consider it as a useful source of knowledge، which comes from the community to the community.

As a part of this community we would like to share our opinion, in order to improve the way people receive this knowledge.

We would like you to remove the so called Egyptian language from Wikipedia under the link: http://arz.wikipedia.org

There are a lot of reasons:

1. There is not an Egyptian language as it is claimed to be. There is an Arabic language and in Egypt there are a lot of dialects which derive from the original Arabic language, but none of them can be defined as a Language, as they have no grammar, no dictionaries and even there is not a common pronunciation of words. Every one would write a certain word in different ways.

2. The expressions used on the Egyptian Wikipedia site are mostly the exact English expressions, just written in Arabic letters. like "IP, Login, Save, etc." They have no Arabic or Egyptian origin. It is English in Arabic letters. This doesn't deserve to be a language.

3. Arabic is the language taught at schoolsin Egypt, and the language of many important literature and knowledge sources. By claiming the Egyptian dialect to be a Language, people will neglect Arabic language and by time they will forget it and lose access and understanding of their culture.

4. In Egypt there are different dialects; each city has its own dialect, from the north in Alexandria, till the far south at Aswan and from Sinai at the East till Libya. There are a lot of dialects. Why is the Egyptian Language on Wikipedia the true and official Egyptian language? Then instead of calling it Egyptian, call it "Egyptian, Cairo, followed by the name of district where the dialect is spoken".

5. We don't think it is your aim to add all dialects in each country and all dialects of each language. Think what it means 23 Arab countries, each of them, has many dialects!

6. If your aim is to let people understand the information on wikipedia, then let them learn their own language correctly. This is easier and more helpful than inventing a new language.

Our Suggestion:

If the above reasons still don't convince you, we suggest you to make a voting, to see the percentage of people for or against the claimed language.

We hope you can cooperate as soon as possible. Thanks for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.83.168.2 (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is not something we here on the English Wikipedia can decide. Each language edition of Wikipedia is its own separate and independent project. The creation of the Egyptian-Arabic Wikipedia was decided on the Meta-Wiki (meta.wikimedia.org [5]), the central coordination place for all projects. Any closure discussion will have to take place there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Administrator above beat me to it. That's absolutely correct, this is a separate Wikipedia and we don't have the power to make the change you are asking for. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that it probably does not mean anything within a global community, but the IP that posted this request geolocates to Darmstadt, a significant distance from the Nile Delta.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I started the same discussion on the Egyptian Wikipedia and the admins deleted it. Because they don't want to listen to any critic. Being in Darmstadt, still doesn't mean that I'm not Egyptian. I do care about my language wherever I am. Please lead me to the correct admin. I sent an email to wikimedia admins. They said I have to join the discussion board. Now here you tell me this is the english wiki and it is different. So now who can I talk to??? Who is responsible for adding and removiong languages? Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.83.168.2 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want something done and believe it is a real problem, the only thing you can do is contact the Foundation itself. Even if people here "voted" to delete the entire Egyptian language wikipedia, the vote would have absolutely no influence as nothing decided here, on the English language wikipedia has any effect on any other language's wikipedias. Sorry if you feel like you are getting the run-around, but there is nothing anyone here can do. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should take place at the same venue where the request for its establishment was made. Please follow the link provided above by Future Perfect at Sunshine. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Xilbabans

I noticed the article on Pre-Columbian Maya dance had a red link for a reference to Xilbabans. However, there is an existing article called Xibalba. But when I went to create the redirect, I was led here with a message that the title was restricted or possibly on a blacklist. I see no reason why this simple and helpful redirect could not be done. An alternative, of course, would be to edit the Pre Colombian Maya Dance article so it cites correctly. I may do that...unless that is blacklisted too...sigh.... just trying to be helpful. Natcolley (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Ok, done. Natcolley (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tried to get the blacklist warning, but was successfully able to create the redir at Xibalbans (NB spelling: Your section here is called Xilbabans). Not quite sure whether Xilbabans would work, or whether it's a desirable redirect. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please restore deleted featured picture

Would an administrator please restore File:Military aviary2.jpg? The file was inappropriately transferred to Commons (where it cannot be hosted due to Commons policy), and then deleted locally. As a result, no WMF site currently has a copy of it. Durova^Charge! 17:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) BTW as a reminder to the admin community, when a featured picture is hosted locally it is always a good idea to check with the uploader before deleting it. Due to variances in policy and copyright law a small number of featured pictures must be hosted locally, and local deletion risks losing them entirely. Durova^Charge! 17:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that was weird. It let me see the deleted picture, but when I tried to restore it, it threw an error. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's back and running now. Much obliged. Illustrates a silly little article that just made GA. Would love to get it to FA for a chance at next year's April Fool's main page. :) Cheers! Durova^Charge! 17:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In case any devs happen to see this, here's the error I got:

Undelete failed; someone else may have undeleted the page first.
<p></p>
Error undeleting file: Could not find file "deleted/p/9/w/p9w061e3t8al312qgmd6r5v0lj5ba1g.jpg".

But I could still view the deleted file by clicking the link to the version. I ended up just downloading the image, and then uploading it manually myself. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits and Kittybrewster

Vintagekits (talk · contribs) and Kittybrewster (talk · contribs) were given some sort of topic ban by the community a while back, which was confirmed by ArbCom without ArbCom taking the case. The motion they passed is here. From my reading of that motion it seems clear to me that they are not banned from article editing on Knights and Baronets, only from page moves (plus pointy AFD noms). However, ArbCom also says that the community enacted topic ban is recognized and confirmed, and in that discussion, it was definitely not clear that the ban applied to moves only; in fact, at least one admin requested Kittybrewster be blocked for article edits: [6]. Both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster seem to believe they are banned from article edits as well. If that's the case, it's due to the community, not ArbCom. I'd like the community to follow ArbCom's lead and agree that the topic ban applies only to page moves related to knights and baronets, not to article edits. Mangojuice^talk 12:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Community topic bans normally include article editing. Got the link to the community ban so we can read it? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No. It's the constant fighting over the entire topic of nobility that causes this, and my understanding at the close of that latest AN/I discussion was that both were banned from the topic, writ large. ThuranX (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The (lengthy) thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive536#Vintagekits, Kittybrewster, and BrownHairedGirl –xeno^talk 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support this motion. I am of the opinion that the community consensus was somewhat shaky, especially considering a good number of the community who commented were hardly neutral observers, having long histories of animosity with one or other of the subjects. There was no evidence presented for a history of problematic editing, which leaves a complete topic ban without much justification. I suggest both editors are given indefinite community page-move bans on the subject, with a strong message that any further issues on this topic will result on it being expanded to a full topic ban. Rockpocket 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me also add that ArbCom actually rejected other motions that were unambiguous about the ban applying to article edits. And, furthermore, the proposal to ban, from Tznkai, was originally worded as a temporary measure until arbitration can be pursued, and some people (like me) supported it on that basis. And while we're on it, is the community ban temporary? It was originally proposed that way. Mangojuice^talk 21:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That thread is extremely hard to follow. I suggest the community start a new discussion with a precisely worded proposal. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Without going into personal details, I am very busy in meatspace, and that takes priority, but I will clarify briefly, and hopefully be back onwiki tomorrow. The wording on the community ban was rather specific "I think the amount of energy spent here shows quite clearly that all three disputing users are too passionate to remain suitably objective for writing on the topic. That, and there is obviously disruption, so I suggest a community topic ban on the the topic of Baronets (edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive) on Vintagekits, Brownhairedgirl, and KittyBrewster until disposed of by Arbcom or six months time, whichever comes first.'--Tznkai (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)" I found sufficient consensus to enact that ban on Vintagekits and Kittybrewster both, that ban was in fact confirmed by ArbCom. The subsequent discussion is confusing, especially on the matter of time, but I think there is definite consensus for the topic ban to go far beyond pagemoves, but is in fact a complete vacation from the topic area. Statements on the request for arbitration should be illuminating as well as to the reasoning involved. The motion passed confirmed that ban, and then restricted page moves indefinitely as a separate clause.

I am of the opinion that the record shows that the Committee avoided arbitration because they thought a topic ban + moveban was sufficient and reasonable, and that actual arbitration was unnecessary. If we want to argue this all on the merits, I think the committee should be invited back into the discussion. --Tznkai (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with a community ban (in practice, someone proposes and a sufficient proportion of those who comment - often those with axe in hand, ready to grind - agree) is that there it is difficult to interpret and enforce. As we found with Vk's all-but-boxing ban last year, community bans are ripe for lawyering and exploitation, even if the terms are carefully stated, because all it takes is a small cohort of like-minded editors to artificially sway the community consensus one way or the other. This one, quite frankly, it is going to lead to nothing but more problems. For example, Kb recently got in trouble for moving an article on someone who was not a Baronet, but, partly because the subject's father and brother were Baronets, it was considered justifiably within the topic ban. So Kb quite rightly would like to know where the line is drawn. Are they banned from editing bios about people who have brothers who are Baronets? How about fathers? Grandfathers? Husbands? Cousins? Who decides and how do we know that was how "the community" interpreted the ban at the time it supported it? Unless someone - and as proposer I guess it falls to you, Tznkai - is able to define what the ban to those affected and demonstrate those limits are what the community agreed on, I don't see much point with continuing it. Because as it stands only Tznkai seems sure about what the terms of it are. Rockpocket 03:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And furthermore, I wish I had a better idea of what exactly Kittybrewster was doing wrong this time around, apart from the inappropriate AfD nomination. As for inviting ArbCom in, I think their solution was poor and they should have taken the case. Mangojuice^talk 04:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that Kittybrewster's has a known/suspected (depending on who you ask) significant conflict of interest in the area of Baronets, in addition to a flare up in a known user interaction problem (the AfD nomination the latest in a series of failures). Kittybrewster and Vintagekits do not get along at all well, and both have demonstrated an inability to write neutrally and without causing trouble in the topic area. I'd ask Fozzie, Giano, and Alison to back me up on this, but I believe they've all left with their hands thrown into the air.

As for the topic ban itself, I generally make pains to define my proposed bans as widely as possible, and I believe most supporters understood that. Now, we can argue whether or not Arbcom was wise or not to do something, but the fact is, they did confirm the ban, wise or not. You may want to ask them to clarify what they thought the ban was on WP:Arb/R or whatever the shortcut is now, and you can argue that I called the consensus wrong the first time around, but I think thats going too far down the Wikipedia as a game path of problem solving. Instead, I invite those who have a problem with what I've done to come up with a better solution, take some time (a few days) and forge a new consensus. I however, remain adamant that whatever solution is found, the Baronetcy area needs to be quarantined from these two for everyone's good, and that the efforts by one or both parties to edit nearby should evoke more concern than sympathy.--Tznkai (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

First, can you explain the Conflict of Interest allegation? As far as I remember it was that Kittybrewster is titled and thus has a seeming interest in titles being respected? Because that is not really a WP:COI, just a viewpoint. Second, at least one commenter (me) supported the ban only as a temporary measure until ArbCom ruled. In fact, that wording is there in your ban: ArbCom has now ruled, doesn't that mean the ban has expired? Mangojuice^talk 11:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The COI issue has been "cold" for well over 18 months. It was in relation to Kittybrewster writing articles on his own family members. It was raised (somewhere) and addressed - Kb was told not to do it again and has refrained from doing so. There is one "exception" I'm aware of, where he edited an article on a geographical feature named after (I think) one of his family. So I don't know why it was raised again.

In addition, I am not aware of problems in the area prior to this issue blowing up last time. Kb had been working away in the area without any issues being raised, here or elsewhere. Vintagekits year-long topic ban ran out, and within hours he was moving baronet articles. Kb reported it here. And, somehow, bizarrely, ended up with a topic ban from his area of interest. Apart from his ill-advised and pointy AfD nomination of a Vk boxer article, Kittybrewster had done nothing wrong apart from follow procedure. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if you are saying all that out of blind hatred for me or you've had a wee bout of amnesia! I think you need to go back and read the ANI reports if you think that Kitty did nothing wrong except stupidly AfD Ben Flores.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits year-long topic ban ran out, and within hours he was moving baronet articles. - the flip side of that is - Members of the Peerage Project ignored that articles were systematically titled incorrectly and it was not until Vintagekits topic ban ended that this issue was hightlight - said members of said project didnt like that because they owned these articles and created a shit storm as a smoke screen to stop it happening.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The CoI cannot be discussed without risking an WP:OUTING violation, so I recommend that stop. We all know he's got one, so we should move on from there. This went through the community once, as I read it, it was clear that there was a topic ban from the community, but at the last second a couple people swooped in and sent it to arbcom, hoping to derail the topic ban. It seems to have worked. If people would knock it off on the asinine infinite good faith with obvious problem editors who continue to war and POV push, we could get more done around here. The topic ban clearly has great support for KB and VK, and a not as much for BHG. I see no reason to show up over here on a different AN, to restart this entire process after the events have cooled again, to see if a new consensus from different editors can be found which is kinder to VK and KB. Block them both for a year, let them actually go write articles that don't push their personal agendas or buttons, and get on with things. ThuranX (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont think it would be an "outing" as Kitty had on his user page who his is and a link to the page which had details about who he is.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Entirely agree with VK here. It's not "outing", given that Kittybrewster (to his credit) has always been scrupulous about making his COI as regards the Arbuthnot family clear – see here. – iridescent 13:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The big deal part COI issue is discussed above, but my concern is mostly with the little deal portion of it - in my opinion KB has demonstrated that his viewpoint is held strongly enough that he cannot keep his cool in editing disputes on the topic - black and white thinking, behavior in ANI threads, so on and so forth. VK is the same way, and more than a few administrators felt this was a long extant baiting/escalation cycle between the two. As to the temporary nature of the ban (Answering mangojuice's question directly) it was specifically worded as a topic ban that would last for six months, OR until disposed of by Arbitration, whichever came first. Since ArbCom has not seen fit to overturn the ban, that condition has not happened. It is still feasible that ArbCom may still get involved, at which point they will get another chance to dispose of the ban. As far as I'm concerned, that means ArbCom agrees with the ban as it stands, but has pawned off responsibility back to the community for changing it through normal means.--Tznkai (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The disputes between these two have been extremely disruptive. The topic ban seems to have worked and I don't see any need to alter or lift it. If the topic ban on these two users is lifted then I'd support proposal to replace it with a community ban.   Will Beback  talk  18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to have a dispute. Vintagekits' topic ban had already been reimposed on an indefinite basis before the temporary three-way topic ban was proposed. If we go back to that solution, we are still preventing them from fighting over these topics. In carefully rereading the discussion, here is everything that has been pointed out about KB's actions. (1) He created Arbuthnot Lake, and included a link to his personal website in describing it as named after a specific Arbuthnot (this is the point you raised.) KB is right that this is not exactly the issue he got in big trouble with in 2007, but at the same time, the link to his own website was not good and this is a topic he should have steered clear of. That said, I don't see how the topic ban prevents a similar situation from arising again: if it's Arbuthnots or WP:EL we're concerned about, that should be the issue in the ban. And in any case, KB has steered clear of trouble relating to Arbuthnot bios for 2 years. (2) Some of his actions were baiting, including his support for VK's topic ban, some personal comments about him, and the WP:POINT violation. This is handled by the ArbCom motion separately: they are restricted from nominating pages created by the other for deletion and generally warned to keep away from each other. Finally, (3) he is the other party in some of the page-move reverts, but not many compared to BHG. Again, this issue is handled by the ArbCom ruling in that he is restricted indefinitely from page moves in the area. So I think we should just lift the article ban for KB, or at least open that part up for discussion again. Mangojuice^talk 18:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you really open with "It takes two to have a dispute.", then spend the entire rest absolving KittyBrewster of his actions while insisting that only VintageKits be topic banned? That's rich hypocrisy. Both should be banned, as it DOES take two to tango, Mango. ThuranX (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All we have to do to stop the disruption is to keep them separated. The ban on Vintagekits, which has very clear support and for good cause, accomplishes that. Kittybrewster has been largely behaving himself for two years; he got defensive when Vintagekits' ban expired and he went on his ill-advised rampage. His behavior does not justify this. Mangojuice^talk 13:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Kittybrewster has been largely behaving himself for two years" - poppy cock! "when Vintagekits' ban expired and he went on his ill-advised rampage" - extreme poppy cock!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept the COI argument. I have a PhD, but does that mean I have a COI when editing an article about anyone else with a PhD? Of course not. Banning Kb from editing all Baronets because has happens to be one is ridiculous. Fine, ban him from editing articles about his own family on that basis, but not just because they share a post-nomial. But that notwithstanding, no-one has yet addressed what is and is not covered by this topic ban. If we - as a community - are going to restrict an editor from a topic on threat of blocking, we should at least have the courtesy to explain to them what the scope of it is. Are they permitted to edit articles of relatives of Baronets? Rockpocket 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you edited every PhD you found by adding "Dr. so and so PhD" at every instance of a name (for example) then yes, you would have an unacceptable editing pattern relating to a conflict of interest. And Mangojuice, I your willingness to slice and dice the ArbCom ruling a bit disconcerting they addressed the situation as they did, by confirming a community ban and then adding a separate clause about page moves.

As to the details of the topic ban, to requote my original proposal "edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive". I would also point to the wording I used in Vintagekits' topicban worked well: "anything that related substantially to Baronets, Baronets by name, a group of them, or the actions thereof". Inevitably, there will be some administrator discretion involved (as their always is) but yes, I would include family members - this is a topic involving heredity.--Tznkai (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it suggested I have edited every knight I have found by adding something? Where have I done that? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, no-one has provided evidence that there is an ongoing problem with Kb editing in such a manner. Where is the record of problematic edits to the relevant articles leading up to this ban? Secondly, that is not a COI issue whatsoever. If anyone went around adding "Dr. so and so PhD" to every article on an academic it would be a problem, solely because it runs counter to our MOS. Whether I have a PhD seems entirely irrelevant. These two accusations - COI and problematic editing - are being linked as a justification for a topic ban, but I have yet to see any significant evidence that either is an ongoing issue, never mind both. Therein lies the problem of a community enforced decision, the burden of proof is very low (or in this case nonexistent). Rockpocket 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hilariously, Vintagekits insisted that his pagemoves were enforcing the MOS by stripping the title from the pagename, bringing this argument full circle. But really, my example above on PhDs and conflicts of interest was just that, an example, not any clever insinuation. It goes to the point however, that if we bring who we are in meatspace, onto wiki, we tend to have problems.

As for significant evidence, I point you at the above linked arbitration request and ANI thread. You may not agree with it, and feel free to argue against it, but the fact is, many of the rest of us are convinced that Kittybrewster is unable to separate his personal feelings/stakes on Baronetcy and his editing.

Perhaps more significant, is that I, and others, is unwilling to consider Vintagekits the sole problem in any of these incidents, and one does not solve the abuse of Wikipedia as a battleground by letting one side carry the field.

I am more than a little tired of the moving goalposts. First it was what arbcom said or did, then it was what consensus was clear or not, then what the definition of of a community ban are, then a demand for particular evidence, then whether community enforced decisions are valid at all! These are my contentions, and I stand by them, and believe the record supports me. 1. It was a valid community ban. Reading the comments, and I'm not willing to dismiss them all on a blanket charge that "too many people had axes to grind" 2. The supporters, by and large, were convinced by and/or have submitted evidence and testimony that the problem is behavioral and cyclical. 3. KB has an established personal stake in the honoring, or lack therof, of Baronets as a whole, and of one family in particular. 4. The community ban was confirmed and then supplemented by the Arbitration Committee. 5. The community ban is easy enough to understand. KB and VK stay away from Baronetcy and Baronets as a topic, giving it a wide berth.

Finally, and most importantly, whatever difficulties, dislikes, and criticisms there are of me, Vintagekits, ArbCom, and the processes done, the proper course of action for those who wish for change, is to gather new consensus - over time and gathering wide participation and discussion, instead of just myself, Rockpocket, Mangojuice, the and principles - instead of trying to undermine the old one.--Tznkai (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I added some relevant information regarding Vintagekits and the Charlie Zelenoff article at the bottom of the page. I believe his recent behavior may warrant disciplinary action. (see below). Lordvolton (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow the guys to edit those articles-in-question. Just don't allow 'em to move articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

However, I am extremely interested in seeing them moved!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they will be moved 'someday'. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The topic ban placed on Benjiboi (talk · contribs) in relation to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine is rescinded.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Possible COI editing by Microsoft

Resolved

Closer at WP:COIN thread recommended taking directly to arbitration. Nothing more to do at AN. Durova^Charge! 00:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't download PDF of Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps.

I can't download a PDF File for printage^TM. Here's what I get (word for word):

The POST request to http://pdf1.wikimedia.org:8080/mw-serve/ failed (connect() timed out!).

Anyone else getting an issue like this? Glacier Wolf 20:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find that URL, or anything that resembles it, in either that article's wikitext or its generated HTML. There doesn't appear to be a link to a wikimedia hosted PDF file at all on that article (there are links to several others, all hosted elsewhere). http://pdf1.wikimedia.org is a valid machine, but it does not appear to host an httpd on port 8080. Perhaps if you say which specific link you clicked on that article we might be able to look further at the issue. 87.113.129.162 (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a problem when trying to get a "PDF version" of any page (I've tried on half a dozen so far). Someone else has posted at the Help Desk regarding this. Perhaps someone there or at the technical village pump (where I can't see it mentioned so far) would have some ideas? --Kateshortforbob 22:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Now mentioned at WP:VPT --Kateshortforbob 23:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bug submitted as bug 19167http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19167. Glacier Wolf 00:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Need an admin to restore a merged article

Resolved: article restored & redirected. KrakatoaKatie 03:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Striking "resolved" as the article was hastily redeleted. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugbears in popular culture was closed by Rjanag (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) as Delete and merge, which I believe violates GFDL licensing requirements. Rjanag declined to restore the file and redirect to the merge target, so I'm asking here for an admin who can do so. Powers ^T 21:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• It does, both because of the deletion of the origin but also because of the failure to follow Wikipedia:MERGE#Performing the merger, which notes the GFDL implications of not leaving clear edit summaries with mergers and gives a model. The options at an AFD include Deleting and merging but not both. The deletion and the cut paste merge should both be undone and the merge redone in accordance with WP:MERGE.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll take care of it. Back in a moment. KrakatoaKatie 03:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • And done. Marking resolved. KrakatoaKatie 03:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You'll find that it was just undone again by Casliber, whose edits merging content can be found here, and who also participated in the AFD discussion. It seems that at least two administrators need a refresher course in the requirements of the GFDL. Uncle G (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, what's going on here? The response from Rjanag is underwhelming (to say the least), and the immediate redeletion by Casliber (without discussion?) is a bit bizarre. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Underwhelming? I told LtPowers that he could ask an admin to restore the deleted edits if they wanted, and that was done right here. As for Casliber's redeletion, I agree with it. If you leave a useless redirect like people are suggesting, there's just going to be an RFD later when people realize we have a redirect for a search term no one is ever going to use. And, in case anyone missed it, I did tag the Bugbear talkpage with a notification that content was merged, and Casliber added a link to the AfD, so I don't really see why there are serious attribution issues. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, that's a bit defensive and snippy. Tagging the talk page is not a GFDL compliant way to note a Merger. Admins of all people, need to be familiar with GFDL and with the requirements of WP:MERGE. This is nothing personal Rjanag, but I'm very concerned when I see an Admin respond after deleting a page: "I'm not familiar with the GDFL issues". --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I just looked at WP:MERGE and noticed "Merging should always leave a redirect", which I was not aware of, so for the record I guess I was wrong there. Although, for what it's worth, I think that's a bit of a silly rule to have if the redirect is useless (I've seen redirects like that come up at RfD, and if I had left Bugbears in popular culture as a redirect I have no doubt someone would nominate it, who knows when, maybe several months from now after everyone has forgotten about its AfD) and the entire article history is still visible to admins and linked from the tag on the talk page. Anyway, this is not the place to argue over what the merging rules should be, so I'll just leave it at that for now; you guys can come in and do whatever you want with the article, I just wanted to explain why I deleted it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't preserving the redirect so much as it is preserving the specific edit history of the content that is being copied over elsewhere. Attribution is a key issue for the project, and without that edit history, we're violating the license under which the contributors donated their work. (I think you might also have previously highlighted that administrators can still see the revisions, which doesn't satisfy GFDL.) user:J aka justen (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and it's the edit summaries that provide the necessary link back to the history. If a redirect comes up at RFD a closing admin should be checking the redirect's (and target's) edit history for the "merged to" language given at WP:MERGE before deleting, among other things. Without the edit summary the history may be somewhere on Wikipedia but we'll never find it and that doesn't satisfy the GFDL either.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the redirect should be tagged with {{R from merge}} to make it more obvious. Flatscan (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, feel free to do what you need to do to restore the attribution the way Wikipedia wants it. I understand the arguments and I don't see a need for anything more to be discussed (with me, at least). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, you've been sufficiently trouted. I don't think we can resolve the specific page problem though without Casliber though. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, been offline. I am not fussed either way, I deleted as I couldn't see it being a valid search term. As far as history, the individual edits adding the bits of the IPC were added when they were part of the bugbear article before being hived off (I think). I am happy to restore if someone wants to do a history merge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'll take a look at the history but generally a full-history merge is not a good idea for an ordinary merger as it mixes the history of two different articles. Of course, now it's all confused, I'll see what the situation looks like.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, just let me know what you need me to do, if I can help. Sorry to have contributed to the confusion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

For my own future trouting, when I restored and redirected, did I do it correctly, or did I screw it up? KrakatoaKatie 21:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you handled it correctly. Unfortunately, as of right now, the article remains (re)deleted (twice over), and the content remains unattributed to its original authors...  ???  :) user:J aka justen (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I took responsibility for this and then didn't have time to fix it yet. I am just on for a minute and then off again. It needs to be undeleted then merged in accordance with Wikipedia:MERGE#Full-content_paste_merger. The important steps are: 3. Edit summary with "merge content from article name" and 4. replace source with "#REDIRECT [[PAGENAME]] {{R from merge}}", note the merger (including the page name) in the edit summary. These seem to keep getting missed, people keep saying just "merged" or "merged per AFD xyz" which aren't enough. The only thing keeping me from doing that right now, is I wanted to take a closer look at the mess of a history that everyone (including me - I goofed and forgot what tab I was on and accidentally posted a message to Casliber on the deleted article) has made. A history merge is NOT required normally for mergers but the history may be dorked up now and I wanted to check.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I broke the transclusion using nowiki tags. If anyone thinks the directions should be rewritten, let me know – I've been planning to do so for a while. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed that but was in a huge rush (BTW, I just moved the first nowiki tag back to cover the "article name"). What are you thinking about rewriting? Do you think they just need clarification or is there some point on which they are wrong? I think they are fairly straight forward, they've changed little in the past couple years and I learned to merge by following them, but I'm sure they can be improved on.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I started Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Rewriting merge instructions with some small ideas a few months ago, but never went back to it. Alan Liefting has started splitting the page, which seems like a fine idea. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to take a closer look at all this again tonight. I think the pages that merged just need a selective undelete and a corrective edit summary, if that hasn't already been taken care of by someone who hasn't been commenting here. I'm very interested in possible changes to the instructions and will take a look there too.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I finally got a chance to go over it all and I think it's all set now, I restored the redirect and noted the merger and this discussion in the reason for the restore, I added the {{R from merge}} and I added a null edit to the target page with a "merged from" comment referring back to the [Help:Page_history#Linking_to_a_specific_version_of_a_page|permalink] for the pasting in of the text. Any issues regarding what merged content should be kept in the target should be dealt with on that article's talk page. I think the GFDL issue is effectively and fairly simply fixed now. I'd appreciate a check by J or anyone else who understands exactly why this was necessary before this is marked resolved. Thanks and sorry for the delay in making the fixes.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It looks fine now. I added another dummy edit including revision ID/oldid, making it possible to construct a move-resistant permanent link with no title parameter. Flatscan (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, that looks much cleaner, thanks. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Appalling abuse by User:Sander Säde and User:Digwuren

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

This is going nowhere useful. Editors who believe that another editor, despite being warned, repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process in articles related to Eastern Europe are invited to file a well-documented arbitration enforcement request in order to request sanctions pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions. No invectives or personal attacks, please, just the diffs. Sandstein  09:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Sander Säde accuses me of removing sourced material ([13]) by modifying the article Erna long-range recce group to what I consider a NPOV version.

My version: [14] – I did not remove any sourced material. This claim is in bad faith and plainly wrong. This does not in any way stop Digwuren from coming back with this: [15].

Sander Säde subsequently (or – to be precise – right before Digwuren's revert) accuses me of making a Nazi attack (!) at the – get this – Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia/Nazi attack noticeboard against Estonia, on a very tendentious noticeboard created by his friend Digwuren just a day earlier: [16], a subsection of WikiProject Estonia specifically designed to recruit Estonian nationalist editors to whitewash any negative historical or current facts about the Republic of Estonia. (Digwuren was previously banned for a year for taking part in meatpuppet-related nationalist revert wars involving the Estonian Bronze Soldier controvery in 2007. See the landmark case WP:DIGWUREN.)

User:Digwuren's entire editing history here at Wikipedia is essentially a serious of POV-pushing attacks (see [17]), and this sort of little project is in very bad faith and merely serves to recruit editors for multisided edit-warring, which is hardly conducive to our aims as Wikipedians. Digwuren already regularly reverts any political article he touches twice or thrice, thereby continuously gaming the system and escaping under the radar without violating the 3RR rule. He's already been recommended for a block by Admin. Hiberniantears: [18].

On practically every Estonia-, Russia-, or Communism-related article Digwuren stalks around in packs: this is plainly documented at [19] – note that this is a partial list, the best idea of Digwuren's tendentious editing is to be gleaned by looking at his actual edit history. It takes only a brief look at the sum total of his contributions to see the apparent POV pushing that he is here for. Although what he considers to be sticking to NPOV is an amusing case in its own right: [20].

Being Jewish, I indeed care about issues like the resurgence of far-right sentiment in Europe and anti-Semitism. I take the pattern of Digwuren's editing and setting up a "Nazi attacks noticeboard" because I must have some kind of agenda to be deeply insulting. Note that this Estonian user has created an Anti-Estonian sentiment article where he portrays any semblance of an idea of bringing up Nazi sentiment in Estonia as anti-Estonian bigotry. (Anti-Estonian sentiment#Accusations of sympathies with Nazism)

I believe that this user should be warned. It not the first time that issues of this nature have arisen in regard to his editing and style of interaction.

As far as the "Nazi attacks noticeboard" – that is an unbearably insulting and prejudicial attack, certainly trivializing to the work of legitimate editors. This, simply, should be taken care of. I would appreciate seeing some kind of action from our administrators here as far as seriously approaching this. This is an abuse of Wikipedia's editing priveleges and of all those interested in making use of good-faith, productive editing.

PasswordUsername (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've not reviewed the substance of the above, but a glance at his contributions leads me to believe that PasswordUsername seems to have some issues of his own. Anyway, we have a relevant arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, and a well-documented WP:AE request for such sanctions – with respect to any editor – would probably result in swift action. This is hardly the forum for it, though.  Sandstein  17:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if you check my edit history you'll see that I had no interactions with this user (and a bunch of friends) prior to his attacks on me on May 10th. There have been major issues since then. I beg you to specify how listing "Putinjugend" – an entire article devoted to comparing the Nashi youth organization tot he Hitler Youth – as an attack page is an instance of my troublesome work here. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry for that digression. This discussion continues here).  Sandstein  18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername, I do not really know what the problem is here. Hasn't it occured to you that Digwuren and Sander Sade might simply be interested in Estonia-, Russia-, or Communism-related article(s)? Is this an offence to be interested in these topics, and to disagree over certain issues? After all, this is what democracy is all about. Tymek (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem in their interest in the topic. I have a problem with the manner they have behaved in these instances. (And as far as a good number of other ones are concerned as well – well, no one can say that I am the first one to point to this, am I?)

Thankfully, the tendentious "noticeboard" has already been deleted by an administrator, so I'm not the only one here who's finding it troubling. Thank you to the administrators here, and to Garden who has taken care of this. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

PaswordUsername, with all due respect, you shouldn't present things in different light from what they were. First was the Bronze Soldier real life, then the Bronze Soldier disputes in WP, then WP:DIGWUREN, when the community did its best to issue sanctions in order to prevent such things derailing in the future. Digwuren was blocked for edit warring, i.e. for reverting too many times. And now look what you write: "Digwuren was previously banned for a year for taking part in meatpuppet-related nationalist revert wars involving the Estonian Bronze Soldier controvery in 2007." Your comment shows that you have a lot of inner load when talking about these issues, and consider ok to exagerate things into "meatpuppet nationalist". I recall that the edit war then involved two sides, and that both behaved like true warriors, and both were punished with blocks. You present things as if it was just Digwuren. Now, let's consider what happened afterwards: Petri Krohn, etc have not improved, while in the case of Digwuren I see a total change of behavior, which suggests that he/she was caught in the heat of Bronze solders dispute and regrets that now.

But, what seems to me to be the problem now, is a content dispute on a number of articles. Why don't all parties sit down and try to resolve that in a civilized manner. Step 1: make a list of such articles and start a Request for Comment. The community can get involved and help you sort things out. Content disputes should not be ignored, especially if they tend to degenerate. I believe that over the last year there has been a slight change of heart among the community in the sense that now the community (and admins in particular) are more willing to get involved in sorting out content disputes at an early stage, including admins learning about the content matter, which is very important, in order to avoid (if you don't help resolve the content dispute before it degenerates) having to sort out pointless blames of misbehavior when such blames come from all sides and it is exceptionally difficult to see who and when misuses the system, and who and when has genuine grievances. Please, make an effort to help sorting things out, and not to increase the snowball. Good faith efforts are duly appreciated. Dc76\^talk 19:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, let's consider what happened afterwards: Petri Krohn, etc have not improved, while in the case of Digwuren I see a total change of behavior, which suggests that he/she was caught in the heat of Bronze solders dispute and regrets that now. - I think this is not correct. User:Petri Krohn did not edit war after his block. His only crime was to make an unfortunate commment which was misunderstood as a threat, and that he did not apologise strongly enough afterwards. User:Digwuren has continued to edit war, although now he has been more careful and has avoided breaking 3RR. Today, Digwuren was blocked for disruptive editing. So I think your view that "Digwuren has totally changed his behaviour" is not correct. Just wanted to point this out. Offliner (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And where is edit warring mentioned as the sole rationale for blocking Digwuren in WP:DIGWUREN?

"Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including sustained edit-warring ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]) and attempts to interfere with Wikipedia process ([32], [33], [34]), as well as incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and repeated attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground ([35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]). Passed 7 to 0, 18:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)"  – Arbcom

The case was brought up as a result of aggressive POV pushing and suspected meatpuppetry, involving editors based in Tartu. This is outlined in the first statement of the case: [43]. Offliner is completely correct insofar as he asserts that Digwuren has not stopped his aggressive edit warring: he has merely moderated it to comply with the 3RR rule as far as it has been noted since he came back.

I think you're not telling it like it is – or what am I wrong about here?

Although I had originally asked for only a warning, seeing how this user has been blocked over a completely unrelated incident of abuse, I suggest that we increase his block or perhaps make it indefinite. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, now that would be gaming the system from your part. Please, do try to resolve the content dispute and not wage wars on users. Dc76\^talk 21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Being uncivil doesn't look good at WP:AN, I'm afraid. There is no content dispute involved in putting up "Nazi attack boards" to wage wars against other editors. I'm sorry. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this the whole matter? Are you suggesting I just lost one hour writing here to learn it simply was because of some stupid board that anyone could deal with in a blink of an eye? Are you seriously suggesting permanent bans for that? Dc76\^talk 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole matter is clear if you read everything entirely. I am not suggesting a permablock. I am suggesting something like a warning or preferably something stronger, essentially some kind of gesture more inclined to get this user to be less inflammatory in such obvious ways. Laissez-faire evidently hasn't been a terrible success here. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about Baltic issues, so I only talk from my impression:

- Petri Krohn has been involved in edit waring in Continuation War with Illythr, who is a very civilized person and it takes serious effort to get into edit war with. Of course I am jumping to conclusion, but that's like seeing someone engaging in edit war with Jumbo Wales and assuming it is not Jimbo Wales going crazy all of a sudden. Allow me to jump to this conclusion.

- The funny thing is the question "And where is edit warring mentioned as the sole rationale for blocking Digwuren in WP:DIGWUREN?" is followed immediately by the quote:

"Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including sustained edit-warring (...)"

 :) :) :)

- ok, not the sole, but the main cause. BTW, assumptions of bad faith, and repeated attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground IS exactly what edit warring is about. And all right, is there actually evidence that Digwuren has recently re-engaged in sustained edit-warring, attempts to interfere with Wikipedia process, incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and repeated attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground? One single 8-hour block that is turned after 4 hours? Come on... Most people won't even bother to ask for unblocking after receiving it for 8 hours. To me this suggests he/she actually cared about the reputation, and not about edit warring.

- What is your goal, to block Digwuren or solve the content dispute? If you block Digwuren, there will be other Estonians. Why don't we address that substance of the matter, and within that scope we can see if there is also individual misbehavior that must be dealt with. It is much easier for an uninvolved person (I don't mean myself, I mean other editors and admins reading this) to sort who's right/wrong, who misbehaved after you understand the content dispute, and hopefully helped solve it. Otherwise it is like trusting one side. I agree that in the end it might turn out that one side is right and the other is wrong, but I sincerely would rather prefer to understand first the content matter. Being part of a (civilized) content dispute is ok, being part of an edit war is bad. Beware it is not good refusing to engage in content dispute resolution, or are you saying there is none in these articles? Dc76\^talk 21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My goal is to have a workable Wikipedia. I suggest everyone read the case. That he was blocked for a full year for edit warring isn't how it comes across to me – I wonder why all those other factors are piled up there – though a year-block for edit warring is enough of a statement. Again, from the very outset I have suggested that everyone look at Digwuren's editing closely. A good look at Digwuren's talk comments shows how well he's managed to conquer the task of Dispute Resolution – a decent collection of WP:FORUM-style comments and trivial objections that speak volumes and mountains for themselves. (Descriptive locutions simply fail here – one has to enjoy this with one's own eyes.) Though seeing how you've just come from the same article that he did, I'm not surprised you see it otherwise. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. You know what is the one amazing and unbelievable thing about WP? It actually works! :) As for that case, I watched it live, I know what was going on there. The community's reaction was exemplary, albeit some think it was too much. But in retrospective, it's better giving 200 dollar fines for crossing the road on red (light) when there are no cars around and having to deal post-factum with ramblings in court appeals than to have road accidents. I know that Digwuren and others complain it was too harsh, but it helped make the "road traffic" (so to speak) more civilized place.

BTW, what article are you talking about? You are not seriously suggesting what I think you are? Dc76\^talk 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Which article would you have in mind? People are generally referred to as "whos" rather than "whats" – although I'd appreciate it if you completely clarified whatever insinuations you would like to make. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You just said: "Though seeing how you've just come from the same article that he did, I'm not surprised you see it otherwise." What do you mean? And BTW, articles have no owners, they are whats, not whos. Dc76\^talk 21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant this one. I hope that was you editing from the Dc76 account. It was? PasswordUsername (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, this is my account last time I checked. :) But that's not how I got here. I was reading and editing the other day about European Parliament elections and was surprised by an Estonian independent candidate taking as many votes as the major party. This page is in my watchlist, and I review it from time to time, thought seldom bather adding two cents. All right, you misunderstood me and I misunderstood you. Forget it. Let me know when you start the RfC, please. Cheers, Dc76\^talk 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Very well. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Defense against accusations of Nazism

PasswordUsername has been intimately involved in attempts to portray, through quotes of news articles, incidents interpreted as such in certain organs of the press or individuals, as constituting bona fide expressions of Nazism, deleting and reverting restorations of content, most recently at Jaak Aaviksoo, in this case, regarding Finland. He contended that, regarding a specific incident:

This has zero to do with Finland. Everything in my edit summaries below explains why I did not violate any BLP, whereas I would not take WP:SYNTH material at face value. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

1. accounts of "Nazi symbols" in use must be taken as factual because "that's what the source said"--in gross violation of WP:BLP
   1. How are claims made by relaible third souces, like a news agency, a violation of WP:BLP? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
2. contrary material such as Aaviksoo's reaction to charges of Nazism (that is, that the Finnish use of the swastika is being intentionally mischaracterized)
3. associated pertinent material explaining historical use of the swastika by Finland (swastikas were used by the Finnish air force since before Nazism, and still are--there is no swastika stigma in Finland) is OR and SYNTH.
   
   1. I explained how I identified this as WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Sources must link everything in one piece to avoid this charge. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A synopsis follows. First, the article had been stable since 2008 with only minor adjustments of content. On June 5th, apparently as part of his current assault campaign, PasswordUsername begins his attack on Aaviskoo.

1. [44] - "Aaviksoo and Parliament member Trivimi Velliste appeared dressed in Nazi symbols in 2007." This quotes a JTA article by its Moscow correspondent. The file (link) is named "EstoniaSS" on the site, so it is clear that this is an author with an axe to grind. There is, of course, no mention of the historical use of the swastika, even to today, by the Finnish armed forces. The impression, sans explanation, is that Aaviskoo and Velliste are, minimally, open and unabashed Nazi glorifiers. This edit blatantly violates WP:BLP.
   1. I simply misread the ambiguous sentence. If you see the source, it alleges that Aaviksoo and a Parliament Member appeared together with a crowd of youth dressed in Nazi symbols. It goes in this fashion: "They were accompanied by dozens of young followers dressed in T-shirts with Nazi symbols, along with Estonian officials, including Parliament member Trivimi Velliste and Minister of Defense Jak Aaviksoo." Ask where the scope of those who were dressed in T-shirts with Nazi symbols is semantically broken... I did not revert to the same wording following this, as I had more time to consider the wording in the news report. It is unlikely, although Estonia recently erected a monument to an SS soldier – the Monument of Lihula, and Waffen-SS veterans still hold celebrations as heroes (just fighters "against Communism") in Estonia and the other Baltic states.

The source of the link was the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. This is a reliable third-party source.

1. [45] - PasswordUsername improves on his edit, moving the offending addition to its own dedicated section, POV-titled "Incidents", that is, now this is a Nazi glorification incident, per an encyclopedia article. Compounding of the WP:BLP violation.
   1. I improved as I considered the syntax of that sentence. "Incidents" sounds like a neutral title to me. Why is this POV? Where is the BLP violation if the source is actually cited? Where is the BLP violation when the source is a third party, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
2. [46] - PasswordUsername does some rearranging of categories (adding University of Tartu alumni)
   1. This is a terrible, terrible thing. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3. [47] - Sander Säde correctly reverts the offending text, noting: (rm "incidents" section - a) read the source, Aaviksoo was along the followers who were alledgedly wearing Nazi symbols, not wearing symbols himself; b) Erna Retk has Finnish Winter War uniforms, not Nazi;)
   1. This is not in the source. The third party source states that youth in Estonia were wearing Nazi symbols. They wore those on T-shirts, not reenactment uniforms: "young followers dressed in T-shirts with Nazi symbols." That you are linking this to the uniforms at the military reenactment even is WP:SYNTH. You would think a case like this would get sufficient coverage to disprove assertions of this. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
4. [48] - editor H2ppyme changes birthplace from Tartu, Estonian SSR to Tartu, Estonia. (This had been the object of a much earlier campaign to denote the Estonian SSR as a legitimate governing entity, here corrected again.)
5. [49] - PasswordUsername restores the incident, correcting his "dressed in Nazi symbols" error, quoting the news article indicating Aaviksoo and Velliste were "accompanied by crowds of youth dressed in Nazi symbols." There's also the letter of protest from Ephraim Zuroff (who denounces any Waffen SS event, as would be rightly expected given his position) and a quote from Rene van der Linden (who regularly denounces the Finns, Estonians, et al., anyone who fought the Soviets, as Nazis). That this is stated as an "incident" of a Nazi-glorification event is now, again, a gross violation of WP:BLP.
6. [50] - Sander Säde removes van der Linden's editorializing comment and adds Aaviksoo's reaction regarding mischaracterization of Finnish symbols as being Nazi. Note that PasswordUsername's text up to van der Linden is untouched, all Sander Säde has done is to add balance, per edit comment, (→Incidents: like all Russian hate-campaigns, this was misdirected as well - Finnish army symbols.)
   1. Van der Linden's comments were on the same subject. As they appear in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article covering the same incident. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
7. [51] - PasswordUsername reverts to his version (+ van der Linden, - Aaviksoo reaction) with the edit comment: (Undid revision 295527951 by Sander Säde (talk) I cited the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. That isn't a Russian source, sorry.) This is a curious comment, as the byline for the "youth dressed in Nazi symbols" is Igor Serebryany, a Russian journalist, writing out of Moscow. While true that the JTA's home office is not in Moscow, the source for the article is Russian. This is splitting hairs at best, the result being the elimination of any balancing information from the individual themselves, allowing the image of Nazi glorification to persist unchallenged. Back to gross WP:BLP violation.
   1. See above. Note, again, that Igor Serebryany works for the JTA. He does not work for Russia. You could have filed a note at the RS noticeboard. We do not, however, make prejudiced assumptions about journalists according to their ethnic origin or what sort of name they have. Or in which city they are stationed. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
8. [52] - Sander Säde restores his version (recall, it's still ALL of PasswordUsername's addition, sans van der Linden's comments, plus balancing content) with edit summary (rv, removal of sourced content. What has Linden's comment (on which he never acted upon... I wonder why) to do with Aaviksoo? Also, the piece is by a Igor Serebryany, Moscow - and so full of misinformation that it is simply shameful.)
   1. See explanation above. You seem biased about Jewish reporters based in Moscow. Is this OK?PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
9. [53] - PassswordUsername restores to his, edit comment: (Rv Linden's statements are in the same article at the same time. I looked through your sources, there seems to be nothing about any Finnish symbols: cite directly if you see that. Looks like WP:SYNTH.) This is the grossest violation of WP:BLP. Contending "there seems to be nothing about any Finnish symbols" in the news article he left, deleting Aaviksoo's reaction to charges of Nazism, is a blatant attack, with PasswordUsername now clothing his WP:BLP violations with a completely fabricated charge of WP:SYNTH. Because the news article quoted did not supply balance, it is now WP:SYNTH to add balance to an article quoting a clearly biased source.
   1. See above explanation. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
10. [54] - Digwuren restores Sander Säde's version (recall, less van der Linden, plus AAviksoo reaction, NO other changes to PasswordUsername's original — restoring ONLY balance
    1. Note false BLP claims. Only third-party sources were made use of. Other rationale outlined above. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
11. [55] - Shotlandiya reverts to PasswordUsername's version, (Reinstated factual referenced info). Notice, no mention of deleting Aaviksoo's balancing information. WP:BLP violation.
    1. Third-party sources from the press regarding a public figure are not "BLP violations." This is ridiculous. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
12. [56] - Digwuren reverts to Sander Säde's, comment (Removed BLP violation commited through creative abuse of a reference.)
    1. Already explained here. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
13. [57] - Shotlandiya reverts to PasswordUsername's without comment
14. [58] - Shotlandiya adds a parting shot under the guise of (Used a more neutral phrase) changing "Jaak Aaviksoo, born 11 January 1954 in Tartu, Estonia (then under Soviet occupation)" to "... (then part of the Soviet Union"
15. [59] - Jacurek restores under occupation (however not reverting the prior edit)
16. [60] - Jacurek adds wikilink to Occupation of the Baltic states
17. [61] - I correct a typo ("he" to "the")
18. [62] - Jacurek retitles "Incidents" to "Allegations" and restores Sander Säde's balanced version
19. [63] - Shotlandiya deletes Aaviksoo's reaction and charges of mischaracterization regarding the swastika with the edit summary (irrelevant) (!) in an astounding display of WP:BLP violation
20. [64] - Martintg restores, (rv deletion of sourced content)
21. [65] - Martintg adds "allegedly" to the sentence regarding "accompanied by crowds of youth dressed in Nazi symbols"
22. [66] - Shotlandiya reverts/deletes Aaviksoo's again (to PasswordUsername's)
23. [67] - Sander Säde restores balanced version including the "allegedly", (Undid revision 295772809 by Shotlandiya (talk) rv. This is BLP, not an attack page. Behave accordingly.)
24. [68] - I copyedit "allegedly accompanied by crowds of youth dressed in Nazi symbols" to a more accurate "reportedly accompanied by crowds of youth dressed in what were alleged to be Nazi symbols" (after reading the article), and added reference to military use of swastika (ref to follow)
25. [69] - Digwuren obliges with a reference on the Finnish use of the swastika
26. [70] - PasswordUsername returns to revert with lengthy edit summary: (Rv. Sources say zero about blue-on-white Finnish symbols. The third-party sources say the young crowds wore Nazi symbols, and anything else is OR / SYNTH, unless there is one source linking it. M'kay?)
27. [71] - PasswordUsername copyedits
28. [72] - Digwuren restores to mine (+ his ref added) version, (Sander is right, BLP applies.)
29. [73] - I request on talk that the BLP violation not be restored - IGNORED
    1. I did not see this talk comment, but I explained my reasoning in the edit summaries. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
30. [74] - PasswordUsername restores his WP:BLP violating version, (And which part does BLP apply to? The only part where his name crops up is sourced to a third-party news agency.) PasswordUsername's intent is clear. Smear a living person by quoting a single news article, delete any contrary information added as balance because it's not from the same article. This is a gross violation of WP:BLP.
    1. This is ridiculous and entirely bad faith. I have explained above – the point of the reversion was to avoid WP:SYNTH. Third-party sources aren't WP:BLP violations. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
31. [75] - Jacurek reverts, (Undid revision 295792344 by PasswordUsername (talk)- restoring proper wording and sourced information.)
32. [76] - PaasswordUsername reverts, (Rv: Read the sources - zero about blue-on-white Finnish symbols. The third-party sources say the young crowds wore Nazi symbols, and anything else is OR / SYNTH, unless there is one source linking it.) Note the smear tactic, invoke "third party" source, represent as factual, that is, Nazi glorification, delete any other WP article text adding balance as BOTH WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This is the grossest misapplication of Wikilawyering to defend a blatant WP:BLP violation.
33. [77] - Using the prior version as basis, I properly attribute all comments to the appropriate sources. (Please do NOT remove Aaviksoo reaction or reference for its basis; quotes from news sources NPOVed and section retitled to indicate controversy over interpretation)
34. [78] - I again request that BLP violations not be restored [16:28] and typo fix - IGNORED
35. [79] - Shotlandiya reverts, (fascinating, but Russia had nothing to do with this controversy, and this debate about Finland belongs somewhere else... "Neo-nazism in Estonia", perhaps?)
36. [80] - Jacurek restores, (- His response to the controvercy should be there for balance in my opinion.), appropriately
    1. In sum, I only insisted on using sources that did not violate WP:SYNTH. How you get violations of WP:BLP is beyond me. I apologize for not seeing your Talk page commments. However, not the lengthy explanations which were given in my edit summaries. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that I requested TWICE that reverts be discussed, including after editing for better attribution and balance (and retitling instead of "Incidents" or "Allegations", as "Controversy"). That request was completely ignored by PasswordUsername and Shotlandiya.

This attempt to paint Estonians as Nazis, in this case, that the Estonian minister of defense marches with Nazi-glorifiers (this after initially MISREPRESENTING THE ARTICLE AS STATING THE ESTONIAN MINISTER OF DEFENSE WORE NAZI SYMBOLS HIMSELF) is what constitutes "appalling abuse" of Wikipedia. What is at issue here is PasswordUsername's own combative conduct, witness attempting to take a page stable for half a year and make it an attack page. This behavior: the libeling of individuals as participating in Nazi glorification, the deletion of balancing materials under false pretenses, the refusal to discuss when requested to cease, must be met with zero tolerance. PetersV       TALK 23:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My comments are interspersed with PetersV's above. Note also that PetersV regularly edits with Martintg and Digwuren, whereas I have only worked on a bunch of the same articles with Shotlandiya in the past week or two. He's been here since 2007, and seems to agree as far as this being a very poor representation of this as a violation of WP:BLP. Citing third-party sources is hardly an attempt to "paint Estonians as Nazis." Meanwhile, real Jewish people (such as Efraim Zuroff) and European leaders such as Rene van der Linden of the Netherlands (all quoted in my version of the article – those quotes, btw, are finally there, despite repeated insistence on their removal by PetersV and others removing them out of hand as though they were unrelated or irrelevant to the story) have testified to the real existence of far right sentiment in the country and its significance for this incident particularly. ""I don't like what the Jewish Telegraphic Agency has to say" is not a reason for WP:SYNTH. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Note I regularly edit with..." Oh please! with the innuendo. I edit mostly in the Baltics and Eastern Europe. Your comment is like condemning everyone who lives in New York for conspiracy because they all go to Central Park. Your technique for practicing guilt by innuendo and fabrication is quite good. The bottom line on WP:BLP on Aaviksoo is that what you created presented one side of an incident painted as Nazi glorification and you contended that any countering viewpoint — including Aaviksoo's — or historical context (for those unaware of pre-Nazi use of the swastika) is WP:SYNTH. That is very clever, and it is very nice you deigned to respond above. Perhaps next time you would perhaps spend some time discussing content on article talk pages when requested instead of reverting, along with the same by your new-found friends. Unlike you, I won't make accusations of meat puppetry, tag teaming, et al. on the other side of this sordid affair you started. I judge editors by how and where they spend their time. You attack editors, accuse them behind their backs, and go shopping for sympathetic admins as you disparage the editors you consider your opponents from your high horse.

   If you wish to discuss allegations of far right sentiment in Estonia, there are appropriate places to do it. But not in biographies of living persons, making them out to be Nazi glorifiers. You may argue how you like, that you insist on deleting balancing content — regardless of your rationale — speaks volumes, along with what appears to me to be a developing pattern of shopping for Baltic/Eastern European editor conspiracy theory believers. PetersV       TALK 03:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Have we just moved from the specific to the general here? How many times have I engaged in blockshopping? I love hove loosely you throw around the word: did you observe that I asked for a warning here? And that Digwuren got a short-term block on his own, without my help? PasswordUsername (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• No one will read your rant here. Please follow good advice by Sandstein, start an RfC or an arbitration case.Biophys (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No one will read your rant anywhere. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You may or may not be justified in this situation, but that sort of comment does not advance your case. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. I'm simply tired of rudeness from this user, but I think my case stands on its own legs – I'm just the medium here, not the subject. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.
• All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned. Editors enforcing a case where a binding Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.
• The following users have been banned from Wikipedia : Avg (talk · contribs)^{one year}, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^{one year}, and Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{six months} .
• The following users have been topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR: Avg (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{one year} and, SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs)^{one year}.
• The Committee takes note that ChrisO (talk · contribs) has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending, but also notes that he is desysopped as a result of the above case. ChrisO may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard. Because of this Future Perfect at Sunrise is subject to an editing restriction for one year, and is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.
• Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies. Diversifying one's topics of interest is also encouraged.
• Abuse filter 119, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. The community is strongly advised to consider adding a new abuse filter criterion; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.
• Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

The centralised discussion envisaged in the decision is currently initiated at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. Input will be highly welcome. Note that according to the decision, there will be a need for "a panel of three uninvolved administrators who will assess the consensus developed during the discussion". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Prehistoric religion

Resolved: Undeleted. Bencherlite^Talk 09:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I tagged this page earlier with {{db-move}}. I think (and I'm guessing here based on what I'm seeing) that two admins jumped on it at the same time. I'm guessing that the first admin deleted the page and performed the requested page move, and the second admin (within a few seconds of the first) deleted the new page and walked away. If that's what happened, then I'm willing to write it off as a mistake, but I need an admin to take a look at the page and see if that's what actually happened, and do some undeletion work if that is what happened. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, I'm no crat...

Resolved: Just a display issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AFuture_Perfect_at_Sunrise

Any ideas on how I managed to do that? I'm confused. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You're an administrator. Administrators can add rollback. Edit: Ah. You're talking about how he got is +sysop back, I assume. Good question. ÷seresin 22:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a display bug. He doesn't have administrator rights. So this is nothing urgent. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 22:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What Deskana said: Rights log and User entry. لennavecia 22:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is some odd entries, but UserRights does not show admin for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess it's just a really weird quirk then. Sorry for panicking. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a messup associated with the hack that allows stewards to manipulate enwiki user flags from meta. Probably worth a bugzilla, but I can't be bothered. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Vassyana/Difficulty

If you have knowledge of difficult areas of wikipedia, contentious topic zones that cause the burnout of good users, please help by contributing to User:Vassyana/Difficulty. Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, if you know how to remove ArbCom from ruling on civility in content disputes (without resolving to break the content dispute), please offer your suggestions. While "Declare The Great Wheel War", (wherein the admin corps rises up and blocks the ArbCom membership before turning to breaking the stalemate in contentious content disputes with a hefty dose of blocks) would be the obvious, quickest, and arguably most entertaining solution... I somehow doubt that we have the resolve to maintain such an effort through the weekend.

In light of this, a discussion thread to nowhere is the best, and apparently only alternative. Key areas of focus: differentiating between good editors and admins acting badly, bad editors and admins acting badly, and bad editors and admins pretending to act good to cloud the issue. An interesting side discussion could also focus on removing the bit from admins who are not abusing the tools, but rather are "not nice" in a contentious area, while failing to add a replacement bit to that area while Admin #1 is absent. After all, a blocked or banned POV-pusher can return with a new account at will. While an admin without a bit can obviously remain in an area, they cannot return with a sock mop, and if there are no equally engaged admins working in that area, then you have effectively turned that section of Wikipedia over to the lunatics. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for review/ FYI

I just deleted this article. It didn't fit neatly into one of the CSD categories, however, I felt it was inappropriate and probably a legal threat. I'd appreciate it if other admins could take a look and let me know what you think. TNXMan 13:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the deletion. It was a legal threat, and WP is not a webhost. hmwithτ 13:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the deletion. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it falls under the definition of G10 as an attack page. G10 does not make a difference between how the attack is made and a page full of negative content without any sources and threats and verbal attacks is probably covered by this definition. Regards SoWhy 13:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This deletion's ok, it's both a straightforward G10 soapbox attack and an A7, nothing to hint it's an encyclopedia article about a notable topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for the comments! TNXMan 13:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

We need more admins watching this category and responding to unblock requests. Only a handful of admins seem to be responding to unblock requests, creating a situation where some requests sit for a day or more. This is especially true with requests that require more review than one admin can offer or when a blocked user makes more than one request. We should be able to address most requests within a few hours at most. --auburnpilot talk 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I used to be more active at CAT:RFU, but recently most seem to be spam/username unblock requests that are a variant of "please rename me to Joe Schmoe and let me continue to add information about our wonderful business". I generally find it not worth the bother to find out whether these editors are interested in making non-COI edits about something else than their business, because they are generally not. If we can find some schematic way to handle these people, that would cut down on the backlog.  Sandstein  18:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I do a lot of work on unblock reviewing, and I'd say the number of admins active in unblock reviewing is about 15. If anyone is interested in getting into this area but feels like they need help, please let me know, I'm happy to give advice and/or mentoring. Mangojuice^talk 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I created User:Mangojuice/COI unblocks to explain my approach to that common situation. Maybe this will help us find a united solution? Mangojuice^talk 19:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The approach you describe is ideal in the sense that it ensures that all such editors who deserve to be unblocked will be. But it involves a lot of work for admins willing to follow it, and may yield comparatively little benefit for our project, if - as I assume - relatively few of these people are interested in any useful editing at all.

Might we come up with something like {{2ndchance}} tailored to this situation? Such a template would serve as a block notification, explain the problem and invite the editor to choose a new username and to draft a useful non-COI edit of some substance. Should the editor not follow these instructions, they would not be unblocked.  Sandstein  19:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it much. But I could help develop one for others to use. I don't know why, but a lot of these users are pretty nice about wanting to get to know Wikipedia's rules and I feel like they are owed a response in my own words. (Though FWIW, I detest {{2ndchance}}). Mangojuice^talk 20:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and draw something up, probably as a change or alternative to {{Uw-spamublock}}.  Sandstein  21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll do a bit more too. Yours, H.Ross Esq 86.153.37.232 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have rewritten {{Uw-spamublock}} in a form that should produce more immediately useful unblock requests. I suggest that we continue any discussion about this sub-aspect on Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Rewrite of Uw-spamublock.  Sandstein  22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In the same vein, we need a few more administrators active on the unblock-l mailing list. In recent months, there has often been only one administrator active on the list at a time, and there have been gaps when no one was seemingly fielding the requests at all. We promise blocked users a prompt review, whether via unblock requests on their talkpages or via the mailing list, and this promise should be honored. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In principle, yes, but this is after all a gratis and volunteer-run website and no actual harm is done if somebody can't edit for a few additional hours.

IMHO, the most practical way to reduce unblock wait times is to help users write better unblock requests, so as to reduce the time and effort needed for lengthy explanations and dialogues between users and administrators. That's the reason for which I wrote the original version of WP:GAB, too.  Sandstein  22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I'll look in on this from time to time and have subscribed to the list-serve too. I'm not around much though.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

Per these motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Wholesale deprodding by new account

New user:Rockyview has just deprodded Persian Student Association of UC Merced‎, Royal Roads University Student Association‎, Wisconsin Student Nurses Association‎, ADVANCE Student Organization‎, Floyd Hughes‎, St. George Asian Business Association‎ and one other not prodded by me. I view this as wikistalking and disruptive. Opinions? Thanks in advance. Abductive (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly someone's sock. Might be a Biaswarrior (talk · contribs) / Biasprotector (talk · contribs) sock.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Although, to be honest, i also have my doubts about a new user whose first action was to nominate for afd, Abductive (talk · contribs) [81].Bali ultimate (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a new user; this is a new account since I regularly forget my passwords, but I'm not a sock. Abductive (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: new user knowledge -- I'd just like to point out that my wife made her first few edits the other day, with me kibbitzing. Needless to say, she didn't come across as a n00b. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for an Admin to undo these deproddings? Some or all of them were past their 7 day expiration date when deprodded. AfDing those articles will just be annoying to all concerned. And I will have to do it, those articles are seriously lame. Abductive (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You would either have to prove the user in question is a banned one or invoke IAR as current policy is perfectly clear: any user may challenge any PROD at any time (including after it is deleted). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the after-it-is-deleted rule. Sigh. Abductive (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale deprodding with no rationale is a hallmark of banned sockpuppeteer User:Azviz, so that's a possibility too. DreamGuy (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder a little how anyone can survive in the real world who regularly forgets their passwords and get locked out of accounts because they don't activate the email that would retrieve them. Abductive, it would be helpful to know what user names have you used in the past, if you remember all of them? DGG (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

All that would reveal is my current pattern of behavior, with different account names. The whole idea of editing from accounts rather than IPs is faintly annoying to me. How would it be helpful? Abductive (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, let's wait again and see what happens and to see if there are any other signs that pop up such as any types of reverting, incivility, reports of harassment/stalking to ANI, stuff like that before we hit that button (yes, I am paying close attention, as well). MuZemike 17:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Uploading an image

I was trying to upload an image with the name of ℃-ute - 2 Mini ~Ikiru to Iu Chikara~ but I got an error. I was trying to upload with that name because the file here is tagged for renaming. The error told me the file name I chose was blocked and to request an admin to upload the image for me. The source I used was the image here and used on this page. If an admin would please upload that image at a size of 200x200, it would be most appreciated. I'd be willing to fill out the rationale, etc. Thank you.--Rockfang (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Try it without the tildes (~) in the name. Just a suggestion. --LiamE (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. I may do that if this request doesn't go through for some reason. I'd rather keep them in there though because they seem to be a part of the "official" name of the album.--Rockfang (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), the unusual characters should not be used in the title. It should be named File:Cute 2 Mini - Ikiru to Iu Chikara.jpg or something similar. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Rockfang (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Article writers' noticeboard

Per a dicsussion at User_talk:Peter_Damian/Established_Editors#WP:Article_writers.27_noticeboard, I'm working on a draft noticeboard at User:Juliancolton/AWN. Feel free to help out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I need help

Could somebody delete my userpage, please? Thx, --MARK S. (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Nakon 18:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

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

- For the Committee, Mailer Diablo 22:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny, the above link says the case is open. XD. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What link are you talking about? Tiptoety ^talk 06:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Was fixed by Danielηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delete this file I added

Resolved

I added picture File:Cigarettes brazil.jpg, and later uploaded the same picture on to Commons. Please delete its redundant page here. thanks. Missionary (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Next time you can just tag the image with the {{nowcommons}} template. Thanks, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:FUC

I know WP:FUC is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Where does the 'U' come in? I may be over thinking it here, but to me, WP:FUC seems kind of, almost offensive ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There?

The answer is in the page's history -- "Fair use criteria". Warren -talk- 22:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This would be a WP:Helpdesk question, for future reference. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeking comment if appropriate DR process has been followed

Most are probably aware of the long-standing issue on WP:NOT#PLOT - I am not asking for input on the policy itself, but if the recent to try to resolve it is flawed or not, hoping to use past experience to help out here.

The most recent action was a straw poll that became more like an RFC when it actually got going. [82] It ultimately asked "should NOT have a section about plot summaries" but the intro included various wordings of the policy, arguments for and against. The poll closed pretty much 50/50 (if you want to exactly by numbers, 66 in favor, 69 against, 10 abstaining). Now, a number of users tried to reconcile the results, including the user (Shoemaker's Holiday who has now left WP as I understand it) that started the straw poll as well as a failed attempt to bring in Arbcom ([83]). Because it descended from a straw poll into an RFC, there were a lot of comments in the objecting votes that we were able to pull from (not all of them, but a good number) a few issues that were common themes and came about and rewrote a suggested replacement for NOT to address those points that we'd (primarily myself, Shoemaker, Hobit and Gavin Collins) agreed was an acceptable replacement. [84]. When this was initially established, NOT was protected (from previous edit warring over PLOT), but shortly became unprotected. One of the editors involved in the rewording went ahead and substituted the new version, though I did advise that maybe a second straw poll to test that version will help knowing if that didn't work, we'd have sufficient reason to remove it from policy. Of course, there are still editors strongly against its presence, and pointing to the narrow winning margin of the straw poll as the reason to remove it. (see, for example [85]).

Again, I'm not seeking actions by administrators or the like, but I am seeking advice if the steps take to resolve this are correct (that is, taking a straw poll that provided enough rationales in the feedback to establish new wording), or if we should consider that poll binding on the numbers alone, or what another step would be to assure that there's community consensus for this? I'm hoping to figure this out before it breaks out into edit warring again. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the next step in the dispute resolution is mediation. Perhaps bringing it to WP:MEDCOM (given a pressing issue like this, not sure of the MEDCAB would suffice) would be a good way to get some closure, since the purpose of mediation is to help provide solutions that both sides can agree on. MuZemike 22:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

the discussion above presents the dispute as one over wording of a policy. It is not; rather, it reflects the general attitude of Wikipedia towards the inclusion of detail about fictional subjects, a disagreement between those who want the coverage to resemble that of a conventional encyclopedia, and those who want a much more expansive scope. The only reason there was any agreement at all was that both sides intended to interpret the wording in their own way. I do not see what a mediator can do about this. A mediator will at best, if things go very well, be able to find a neutral policy statement--certainly I would hope a more internally consistent wording that the most recent proposal. But the disagreement about scope is not just over fiction, rather about the meaning of a contemporary comprehensive encyclopedia, and affects other subjects also. The mediator will not be able to resolve the basic issue, because I think it is not capable of a single resolution. (My own proposal is to abandon the idea of a single unified encyclopedia--an inherently pre-internet environment-- and adopt a multilayered structure--not as separate wikis not under our control as with Wikia, but a means by which a reader could choose between different sets of content, in the same way they now choose between different languages.) Short of that, the most useful thing to do would be a very broad based attempt to gather the overall view on inclusiveness of our editors and readers. Myself, I'm willing to help give the users whatever sort of encyclopedia they want to have, to the extent I can do it.

Despite my interest in the subject, I did not participate in the latest round of exchanges, essentially because I had said it all already many times over that anyone who wanted to take account of my views knew them perfectly well already, & it did not seem useful to reword it once more into a policy that had no real chance of being effective, since our system does not permit any solution to be stable, or compel any actual decision to follow article policy. DGG (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree we need to find a way forward and frankly I've no idea how to do it. (Thus I've left off being involved in that discussion). That said, I want to disagree with Masem on one thing. It's not the narrow winning margin that is the issue, it's that there isn't consensous for NOT#PLOT to exist (per that RfC). Even a narrow losing margin would have established that. And WP:POLICY is fairly clear that policy that isn't consensous shouldn't exist (old or new policy). We've gotten a fair improvement in the policy over the last few months, but inertia is taking its toll. Hobit (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bruce01 - block request

Resolved: Users involved indefed for pupperty (confirmed by CheckUser), IP blocked one week. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring to the communities attention User:Bruce01. This user, during a recent AfD, started getting abusive towards myself and OIEnglish.

During the AfD, the user in question attacked several users in the AfD, using quotes such as "If it concerns you so much that [the Latrobe City Pacers] don't [have a article] and the 42ers do, may i suggest you write a page for them yourself." (diff) and "OK so there are some, excuse the term, wankers that exist within wikipedia who obviously have no brains (not [OIEnglish] of course), and the article was deleted." (diff). The user has also said he will continue to 'help' Wikipedia by "certainly going to redirect this effort in a number of different ways. I will actively discourage any potential editors from contributing to any articles to ensure their valuable time, unlike my own, is not wasted, and i will also give a couple of users, who looked to laugh off my attempt rather than appreciate it, many more tedious jobs and edits to do that will not stop." (diff)

If this was not enough, the user may have also resorted to meatpupperty or sockpupperty during the AfD (diff).

I am all for assuming good faith towards the user, however I believe the user has started acting in bad faith towards us, and deserves a block for personal attacks and possibly meatpupperty or sockpupperty. I am also considering starting a WP:SPI case against this user. Thanks -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't want anything to do with this whole thing, I just wanna edit in peace. I don't think this user will be making any more edits anyway but if they start trolling then just block them. -- œ^™ 05:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please take note of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bruce01. Tiptoety ^talk 06:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please moderate the Regine Velasquez page. So many false claims, there are no citations.

So many users in that page keep on putting false claims about Regine Velasquez' achievements and talent, to the point that they make up fake 'achievements' about her so-called 'reign'. Velasquez is not famous all over the world, she has not sold one million records all over Asia. They keep sensationalizing her page by writing over hyped and false claims such as having a 'palatial house', albums selling over 10X platinum, that Regine rejected the Miss Saigon role, and so much more. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.22.195 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What admin action is needed? While glancing, I don't see anyone that needs blocked, and the page doesn't seem bad enough to warrant protection, in my opinion. Try starting some discussion on the talk page, and make sure to let users who add unsourced information that WP does not allow original research and that reliable sources are needed. hmwithτ 05:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sanity Check please

Johnsy88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This guy has been inserting tendentious and poorly-sourced information into Unite Against Fascism and has been reverted and advised on several occasions. I have now blocked for 31 hours for edit-warring but I think a fresh pair of eyes would be beneficial. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 23:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The blocks looks legitimate, but I don't think those warnings that Andrewrp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) left Johnsy88 were appropriate. I also warned Andrewrp about participating in the edit war, and I noted that comments like "WE WILL NOT STAND TO SEE THIS DONE. STOP NOW!!!!!!" (diff) are not helpful. hmwithτ 05:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia

People are asking to close this AFD discussion per WP:SNOWBALL. I've participated in the discussion so I am unable to do it myself. Is anyone willing to provide a little assistance? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Closed by User:Xavexgoem. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Valued pictures

Resolved

Can somebody please close this disaster of an MFD? By my count, it's been open for ten days, and in my view there's absolutely no chance of anything even remotely resembling a consensus forming there anytime soon. I'd close it "no consensus" myself, but I've commented in it myself, so I don't believe that would be appropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

concur, and have done so. Privatemusings (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thankyou! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

New Adminbot brfa

There is currently a brfa open for a bot to clean out CAT:TEMP. These bots have been rather controversial in the past due to false positives, so I suggest you take a look at it now, rather than waiting until it has been approved as sometimes happens. --Chris 13:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

New noticeboard suggestion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Administrator abuse

Resolved

We all know how this would go: MFD, drama fest, ends up getting de facto redirected to my user talk. Which pretty much serves the same function anyway. Durova^Charge! 17:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account misusing my username

This new user has copied my username with only one non-capital letter difference (small "r")

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bullrangifer

and has vandalized by userpage and some of my subpages. Please block and perform a CU as this is likely a banned user taking revenge. Is there a "vandalism-only" template to use on his user and talk pages? -- Brangifer (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) (and heartily endorsed). Can't see a CU will help though, to be honest. Pedro :  Chat  14:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can name the banned user to give the CUs something for comparison, it might be worth a look, for other accounts as well. Without a name its much tougher to find socks. Thatcher 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the socks. The CU was indeed fruitful! -- Brangifer (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC bot deleting RfC tags prematurely

The user who runs the User:RFC bot acknowledges that the bot has a flaw that sometimes deletes tags prematurely, but continues to run the flawed bot. I request it be blocked until the flaw is corrected. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a flaw that is only triggered when there is no timestamp in the first paragraph of the description. You will have to put the timestamp in the first paragraph until I can release a working fix. —harej (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Lo and behold, problem solved. —harej (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question

Let's say I think I have interacted with another user before. I seem to recall there being a tool that shows article overlap. Can someone clue me in? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• http://toolserver.org/~pietrodn/intersectContribs.php works. Protonk (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[86] is another, which lets you compare more than two accounts. Don't over-interpret the results, though; there are a lot of factors that might lead two editors to have a lot of pages in common. When only comparing two accounts, it's better used as a starting point to look for suspicious behavior than a confirmation of guilt. You and I have 50+ just in the mainspace, for example. -- Vary (Talk) 16:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Block evading sock

Resolved: LatinoAussie was confirmed by checkuser to be a sock of Cazique. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• TeePee-20.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• LatinoAussie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

LatinoAussie appears to be indef-blocked TeePee-20.7: same incivility, same concentration on Australians with Latin American heritage (see Talk:Latin Australian throughout). Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

An SPI case would be the way to go here, but in order to do that you would need to be more specific. Could you provide us with a few diffs? Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 05:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, it's more of a "look and feel" thing. I think if you look at the Talk:Latin Australian page and compare the posts by TP at the beginning to the posts by LA from the middle down, you get the smell of it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize that TP was a sock of Cazique. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(out)Just want to note here that LatinoAussie has gone to User:Henrik, an admin, looking for a preventative block against me. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a sockpuppet investigation request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Cazique. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The results:

• Likely the following are Cazique:

1. TPTanque (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
2. LatinoAussie (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
3. VerceticarI (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
4. TruthTold (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)
5. CartelCacique (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser)

These accounts have apparently all been blocked and tagged. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat in email

What do I do with a legal threat sent to me via email? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEGAL. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Did. Doesn't mention email. Report it at AN/I? Include the email? Forward to some other address? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Depending on what the threat is against, I would suggest forwarding it to ArbCom or the Foundation/Mike Godwin - all of them if you are unsure. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this legal threat funny? Many are (vanity, cod-legalese, and crap spelling are a potent mix), and if I received one of these I'd be inclined to serve the merriment of all by posting it in full on my user page, complete with every last incriminating detail of the header. Not that I'm recommending this to you or anyone else. -- Hoary (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was sent from a non-wiki account, there's not much we can do unless you can figure out what that person's wiki user name is. If you can prove who the wiki user is, they and their email capabilities can be blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's from a user editing WP anonymously: User talk:75.85.5.190. (See also User talk:JHunterJ#Another opinion, [87]) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't post his e-mail (even if funny), as this is a copyright concern (private e-mails being subject to copyright just like any letter), but by all means check with ArbCom or Mike if you're worried. I can't fathom what you might be being threatened for. Not allowing them to publish their schedule? In any event, I've dropped him a COI notice, under the circumstances. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a short time owing to the reported legal threat by email (the IP does seem to straightforwardly identify himself in one of the contribs). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the copyright of an email, like written correspondence, is invested in the recipient - however, my question to JHunterJ is if the threat is to him personally, him in his capacity as a WP editor/admin, or WP generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the UK handles things differently than the US? In the US, copyright remains with the author, while physical ownership of the copy is in the rcipient. See, for instance, [88]: "The author of letters is entitled to a copyright in the letters, as with any other work of literary authorship....The copyright owner owns the literary property rights, including the right to complain of infringing copying, while the recipient of the letter retains ownership of 'the tangible physical property of the letter itself.' Having ownership of the physical document, the recipient (or his representative) is entitled to deposit it with a library and contract for the terms of access to it." (citations omitted) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In the UK it all depends. If the author/photographer is paid to write a manuscript/photograph something then the copyright is held by the person paying the author/photographer. It all depends on the contract drawn up at the time. If the document/photo is unsolicited then the copyright remains with the author/photographer. Obviously in certain circumstances if an unsolicited document/photo is sold then dependant upon the contract the copyright could pass to the purchaser. --WebHamster 17:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence. Daniel (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Thanks. I did contact ArbCom and Mike, and have gotten a response back from Mike. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User:I Seek To Help & Repair!

Resolved: Nothing really wrong here. –xeno^talk

This is not yet resolved. It seems like I Seek To Help & Repair is being forced into an unnecessary name change. Kingturtle (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I've been considering name change for a while. I especially don't like the ampersand anymore. Thanks anyway Kingturtle

---

Is this chap's userpage appropriate? It doesn't exactly make communication between users easier... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

His userpage is fine. His 'feedback' system's cumbersone, but nothing requires other users to jump through his hoops. The 'new section' button's still there, so it can be used instead of his charts and graphs based triplicate TPS report style. ThuranX (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

He should probably be told about the WP:UP#OWN per the statement at the top of the userpage, other than that, I don't see a problem. It's over-the-top-, yes, but you don't have to look at the userpage. –xeno^talk 17:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dear God, my eyes. You should warn people before doing that. Some of us have hangovers. //roux   17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm. His sig signs his username as 'Sought', which is actually the name of another, albeit never-active, user. My memory is hazy on this, but I was under the impression that one must sign with a username that is at least somewhat related to the account name, and definitely not with the username of somebody else. Am I wrong on this? //roux   17:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think someone suggested to him in his recent RFA that he change his name anyway, I would echo that; especially given the ampersand which can cause issues with templates and the like. Perhaps he would like to WP:USURP "Sought". –xeno^talk 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Signature forgery: "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents." There are established users who use a signature totally different from their username (like older≠wiser or the numerous people who sign with their real name which is not their username). I don't think it's a problem at all really. Jafeluv (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• I will change my signature (I was planning on a new signature anyway), but I currently have no desire to change my user name, also I agree with Xeno, you don't have to look at my user page, also, I keep my talk page at soft colors so it does not visually offend anyone, my talk page is necessary to all, my user page is necessary to some. My feedback system: Are you able to leave me feedback? Yes, then isn't that enough? Aren't there other Wikipedians that have far worse, more offensive user pages +? I am aware of the WP:USURP, I also am aware of the ampersand, so if my user name is changed I would like it to be something I like that doesn't contain an ampersand, and I would rather not have a user page that everyone contributes to. If you don't like my user page, then you don't have to stay on it, also, I made the main color yellow, when clearly the harshest colors are blue and red. Thank You, Please contact me if you have anymore concerns Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 21:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Feel free to check out my signature and maybe edit it for the better, remember the character count Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 22:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • There you go, it's changed ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 22:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fairly incomprehensible. Kind of reads like Ishtar. Have you thought of a simple "I Seek" - short, memorable, reference to the actual name. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please see my usurp notice Thank You, ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 07:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• I see nothing wrong with ISTHnR as a signature. If the & is a big deal, may I suggest I Seek To Help n Repair! or I Seek To Help And Repair! ? Kingturtle (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

CAPTCHA word list

Someone may want to look through the word list used to generate the CAPTCHAs (like the ones shown to IPs who add links) and remove "inappropriate" words. The CAPTCHA I was recently served with was "headshits". I'm amused more than offended, but you may want to change things so that you avoid serving up profanity with a vandalism prevention tool. Kinda sends the wrong message. (BTW, sorry if this notice is misplaced. I tried to find the most appropriate location, and this was the best option listed at Special:CAPTCHA.) -- 128.104.112.114 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Some previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 50#Offensive word in captcha, and see also bug 16166http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16166. Anomie⚔ 19:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Its only offensive if you don't see heads...hits ;) Shell ^babelfish 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Honi soit qui mal y pense. MastCell ^Talk 03:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Faverdale

Resolved.

Faverdale has been vandalized with the same text about 10 times in two weeks from about 5 sources. The first source was warned clearly. --Ettrig (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page with a duration of one month. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Aradic-es

Aradic-es continues to edit war with me on various articles while falsely referring to my edits as vandalism [89][90][91]. He responds at the talk page or edit summary in an uncivil tone with one his bogus arguments such as "well , people use English- not language itself!" or "bla bla bla... Until there appear to be symbols accepted on both sides. .. these ones will stay. Wikipedia does not obey not any constituition!!" or "officially is Croats from BiH-end of discussion!". Due to this I get a third opinion (as I know this will head down hill) which he responds to by ignoring and continuing to edit war and bait despite the discussion. Sometimes he goes so far as to copy & paste text trying to redo a move he created without a consensus [92] or blatantly removes information he does not like such as [93] [94]. I lack the patience to deal with this user’s stubbornness and realize that I could have handled the situation better. I wish for admin intervention as I hope to spend the time in more productive ways. PRODUCER (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm OK let me here present some of the PRODUCER' modus operandi:

• every my edit he reverts, calling my edit "nationalist nonsense" [95] "POV pushing" [96]
• at these articles [97][98] he started the edit war although I have shown the symbols are used.
• he ignores all my sources and simply reverts . See history of Bosniak language article [99]
• even in obvoius cases like this witht reliable acceptable source he keeps his POV pushing [100]
• hardly ever uses talk page-usually after couple reverts

(to be continued)...--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain this?

A lot of the articles I've seen so far have comments about how something is "too long" or that some data is "trivial". Am I to understand that articles are supposed to only have that information about the subject that are useful to understanding that subject? Like, if it doesn't do that, it doesn't need to be in, which I think keeps the article concise, brief and tight. I cannot seem to find any Wikipedia rule about that, though. - Contributions/24.12.64.34 (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT for a start. –xeno^talk 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Inside WP:NOT you should look specifically at WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

And if you want to get serious on improving your writing, try Wikipedia:How to write great articles and go to WP:FA, pick an article about a topic that interest you, and read with attention to see how the information is distributed, how much space is dedicated to each aspect and fact, and how the information from the sources is summarized --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done some of that. I'm on a public terminal most of the time, and have added things here and there. Once, when I was arguing about some bit of information that seemed unecessary (it didn't seem to have any instrinsic value), the other editrs said 'show me the policy about how we keep stuff out if it doesn't have instrinsic value to the article'. As I don't know everything, I let it go. What should I have done? - 24.12.64.34 (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

...is backlogged. --Folantin (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mostly better - could use a few eyes on some of the more complex cases. Shell ^babelfish 21:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed to close two discussions

Wikipedia:VPR#The .5Bedit.5D link for sections and Wikipedia talk:Upload#Free images and Commons should be closed. Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

William S. Saturn

A year ago, while I was away, my previous account, User:Southern Texas was blocked for sockpuppetry. The user talk page was protected after another member of my household used the account in an attempt to get me unblocked out of guilt for her actions as a sockpuppet. She was asked to create a new account by User:Sam Korn. After I returned from my trip, I found that my account had been blocked and the talk page protected. I had my sister log in as "Uga Man," (her main account) and I gave an explanation of what had occurred. This explanation can still be viewed at User talk:Uga Man. Administrators did not believe the explanation and declined to unblock the account. So I decided to start over and took Sam Korn's advise. That is when I created this account. If one looks at the edits of User:Uga Man and compares them to my edits under Southern Texas and William S. Saturn, they will see that the accounts belong to two different people. This month, I decided to return as an active editor, and I explained the situation to the admin User:Happyme22. He advised me to post the situation here. My request is for the Southern Texas account to have the sockpuppet label removed and for it to be redirected to my page. If possible, I would like for the edits of Southern Texas to be merged to this account. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Southern Texas (now William S. Saturn) and I interacted with one another on pages including Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008. That is why I was shocked to see that he had been blocked for sockpuppetry. He recently came to me as William S. Saturn seeking a copyedit on Tommy Thompson presidential campaign, 2008, revealing that he was Southern Texas and explaining the situation to me with his request.[101] I suggested taking it to WP:AN to gather other opinions. He was relunctant at first, fearing that admins would misundestand his quandry and promptly block his new account.[102] Thus here I am, informing all parties that I have had a history with Southern Texas/William Saturn and believe him to be telling the truth. The edits of Uga Man (his sister) and Southern Texas are starkly different and does give some credence to Saturn's claim that the two truly are different people; Uga Man edited a wide range of articles while Southern Texas' edits were usually contrained to presidential campaigns and political figures. I am unaware, however, if merging the edits of the two accounts and redirecting the old Southern Texas information and user space to the new William S. Saturn page is even possible -- I'm not an extremely experienced admin. Happyme22 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever the background on the claims of the actual human using the cited accounts, there is a constellation of sockpuppet accounts that were banned from use, and the history of the banning should not be obfuscated, nor should the fact of their banning be made confusing or obscure by merger of the account's history into other accounts. As such I oppose the request of William S. Saturn, whose accounts in the past, apparently more than a few times have broken past promises on the topic of intention to behave according to Wikipedia standards. This history should not be hidden. The constellation of sockpuppet accounts participated in editing, among other things, high profile political biographies and political article templates during the 2008 U.S. Presidential election campaign. I urge reviewing administrators to look at the the background made visible in this posting on the Administrators noticeboard:

Incident Archive: Case of good hand/bad hand sockpuppetry Reported at 19:24, May 13, 2008 -- Action by admin: User: east718

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Given the length of time elapsed, I have no problem in having the user page for the old user redirect to the new user page, but I oppose merging histories or anything like that, for the reasons that User:Yellowdesk has articulated above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

• Technical note: From Wikipedia:Changing username#General notes, "It is not possible for bureaucrats to merge [editing histories of] two accounts".--64.85.217.144 (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• I also worked with Southern Texas on political articles at the time. The user had a rocky beginning with some edit warring, then stabilized to become a better and useful editor who did a lot of positive work in the less visible parts of the 2008 presidential candidates set. I was surprised to see the sockpuppet-running come out, but after looking over talk pages and based on my WP instinct, I believed then, and still do, that Southern Texas really was engaged in some good hand/bad hand activity. I have no quarrel with the new William S. Saturn account, but I would oppose the obscuring or merging of the Southern Texas account or history. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Follow-up: William S. Saturn is asking me to explain myself beyond saying it's my 'instinct'. I didn't do then, and don't want to do now, the detailed histories analysis and time-period studies and diff-level work and IP address comparisons and motivational understanding and whatnot that goes into a sockpuppet investigation. (I've done enough of that to flush out some socks on other sets of articles.) I don't see the "different posting style" fact as necessarily clearing; any smart sockpuppeteer will adopt a different voice for the socks (although surprisingly, many don't). It's certainly true that if someone does masquerade as you on WP and act badly and you're innocent, then you're really screwed here and no one is likely to believe you. But at the time my sockdar didn't buy Southern Texas' story. If I'm wrong, then perhaps it's unfair that I'm saying this now. If an admin wants to strike my comments off, she can, but a topic like this at AN invites people to respond and so I did. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

THE COMBOFIX ARTICLE IS IN TROUBLE

WE GOTS TO SAVEZ IT. SaveComboFixArticle (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed If you'd like us to help you, you need to elaborate on the problem. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I made this account to SAVE DA ARTIVLE!!!!!!!! SaveComboFixArticle (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's at AfD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComboFix (2nd nomination). Let the discussion proceed in the normal way. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• I blocked this user as a sock of PSPbothmanlol. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This user created a new page CooomboFix, c&p the content of ComboFix to it and was editwarring with others who had turned it into a redirect to keep the c&p version. This was clearly disruptive behaviour and I've protected the redirect too for two weeks by which time the AfD ought be over. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

CooomboFix now deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

120+ edits within the last day

Resolved

I have a question, which is unclear. I have been wondering if there's actually a limit on how many edits you can make in a period of time.

One editor, SpectrumDT (talk · contribs) has made more than 120 edits within the last day. These edits occurred within less than five hours of editing. According to the edit summaries, all of these edits are category edits, although that's not really important though.

Here's a question. Is there a limit on how many edits you can make in a period of time? If there is a more appropriate forum, please feel free to take this somewhere else. I am pointing out who raised the question in case it is AN worthy. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not notified the editor of this thread. Can somebody drop a note on the editors talk page? Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

heh... well you probably should have, myth! - I've done so, but must let you know that your request for someone else to drop in a note could come across as a little bit rude, although probably well intentioned :-) - I think the correct response to this thread is 'lurk moar' anyways (or is that 'rtfm'?) - your question isn't a great fit for this board (answer - 120 edits in a day is no problem, no technical limit to edits per day, folk who work with bots will prick their ears up if you start to do 120+ per minute) - there's nothing wrong with using talk pages for such questions, so feel free to drop me a line directly (or someone you know, or someone friendly) if you'd like to chat more... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In future you can use the help desk, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

On 14 January, I made more than 5600 edits. No one complained, so it's probably okay to make as many as you want, even as a human. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Were those "5600 edits" all in one day or was that a milestone? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats just a day for J.delanoy. His edit count is in the hundred thousands, I believe. ~fl 03:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely it's not unusual to have hundreds of edits in one day's time if you're using AWB or Huggle (even for a brief vandal-hunting session) for instance. MuZemike 00:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What about how many of which are allowed? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? How many of which what, hmmm? (edit #156 for this date). Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How many edits are allowed to be made in a period of time. For example, is it okay to make more than 100 edits in a minute? Is it okay to make 2500 edits in one day? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just did a batch of 10 edits in less then a minute. I think there is a rate limit but it's higher than 10 edits per minute, so with that math, you could theoretically perform 14,400 edits a day (10*60*24) without rate limiting. ~fl 02:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've made at least 200 edits per day for about a year now, with the exception of a couple holidays. It's not a problem. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I used to pile up 100+ edits in the days I got started on vandal fighting. I guess there's no problem with high edit counts within a limited time unless the editing rate is too high for a human :) Anyway I hope there's not going to be a limit, because J.delanoy has already confessed to a rather scary number of edits in a single day, and he can't get away from us now if we decide to go hunting :P Chamal ^talk 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I once got 1337 edits in one day. (No, seriously 1337...). I've also gotten over 400 edits in 45 minutes when the vandalism was particularly heavy. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 03:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember young grasshopper. Its not the quantity of your edits but its quality that counts.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. A low quantity with a good quality is better than a high quantity with a low quality. But, you should also know that quantity also counts in many aspects. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may advise - we are all, supposedly, here to build an encyclopedia, so one should strive to edit in the mainspace as much as possible. Your contribution count, for instance, show 5,204 edits overall, but only 2,076 to articlespace -- which is 39.89% I'd say that's not a particularly good ratio. You need to work a little more and talk a little less (and start frivolous threads on AN nevermore). Wikipedia isn't about having rollback, it's about editing the articles and writing new ones. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"If your EPD is lower than 50, then you are a failure at Wikipedia." (WP:Edits Per Day). hmwithτ 16:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My EPD is 56.36 (on average), I'm just barely not a failure! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 20:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a darn about "edits per day", but I do care that some people seem to think that Wikipedia is some kind of gigantic multi-user role-playing game, or that it exists for the pleasure of these ruminations. It does no harm, on occasion, to remind folks of why we're here, and what we're supposed to be doing. It's bad enough that admins, are forced to spend more time outside of articlespace than they should, but an ordinary editor who isn't actively contributing to the encyclopedia and spends most of their time on talk pages, noticeboards and other frippery ought to be reminded: that's not what we're about. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Resolved.

WP:AIV is now backlogged, thanks to me reporting a bunch of IP's from a guy possibly using an open proxy to vandalize AN/I. Sorry in advance for flooding the place... Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 06:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No longer backlogged. Cirt (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

This arbitration case has now closed. The final decision may be reviewed on the case page. A synopsis of the final decision is provided below.

• All mass date delinking is restricted for six months
• Date delinking bots will perform in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group.
• Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is: banned for 1 year; topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation, from using any account but "Lightmouse"
• Tony1 (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page; placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Greg L (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic banned, placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is: topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation; prohibited indefinitely from using any account but "Ohconfucius"; placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.
• Kotniski (talk · contribs) reminded to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, topic banned for 3 months
• Placed on a 12 month editing restriction: Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), 2008Olympian (talk · contribs), Colonies Chris (talk · contribs), SkyWalker (talk · contribs), HJensen (talk · contribs), Dudesleeper (talk · contribs), John (talk · contribs), Tennis expert (talk · contribs), and G-Man (talk · contribs)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 12 months.
• Locke Cole (talk · contribs) is topic banned indefinitely, banned for 6 months, and placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Kendrick7 (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 12 months
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute.

Notes: (1) for "topic banned", read "banned from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions"; (2) an "editing restriction" is a prohibition from reverting any changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

For the Arbitration Committee,

AGK 19:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

• While I'll refrain from comment here on the actual decision, I'd like to thank the committee for their attention to this long-standing heated dispute. –xeno^talk 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'll second that. It's refreshing to see ArbCom issue decisions and remedies in a timely manner. KrakatoaKatie 02:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Grilled with dill and lemon?

• • Timely?Thanks to the hardworking arbitrators, actually. Good job. Durova^Charge! 02:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Case Opened on 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Case Closed on 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Unenviable job, and hard on the heels of Ayn Rand and Scientology Ohconfucius (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Plus Macedonia, and Obama soon to follow. Keegan (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• To be blunt, I wouldn't call it timely, but I am surely not complaining. I think the minor disruptions in between led to delays, such as the RfC, the introduction of new evidence near the end and the petty bickering even during the case. ArbCom had a lot to deal with, and this case involved intricacies, including just about every type of "bad behavior" that is possible on Wikipedia. Arbcom is to be commended for their persistence and effort dedicated the case. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• The time taken relative to the difficulty of the case is far less for the 2009 Committee than it was for the 2008 Committee, and for that they deserve credit. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd also like to give a shout out to Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs), one of the clerks for the case. He went above and beyond the call of duty in designing and managing the latest RfC on dates so that the stalemate could be broken. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Awaiting corrections. Tony (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• I hope that ArbCom doesn't burn out. With so much work done, no matter the time frame, a break might be in order. Even the Supreme Court breaks from session. I honestly recommend a break for all of them even if it's only a couple weeks. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. Seriously. Keegan (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Still awaiting the correction of an important mistake concerning Remedy 7, which has been notified as Proposed Remedy 9.4, rather than the 9.3 that superseded it (see implementation notes and Final decision Remedy 7. An easy enough error to make in such a huge case, but ... is it going to be fixed with separate wording for me in the notification? Tony (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Now done. You were free to simply fix it yourself, y'know! ;) AGK 12:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of that; I wouldn't have dared to alter a case synopsis posted by a clerk, actually—it's not my right. I'll do so on my own talk page, now that you've given the OK. Thanks. Tony (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Immediate Deletion Needed!

Resolved: By Bencherlite, Thank You! ISTHnR Knock Knock | Who's There? 11:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I accidentally created an incorrect portal. I was testing and I didn't realized it had saved, please see my contributions and look for the deletion notices. Thank You and Sorry! I may have used incorrect tags for deletion. Please delete any subpages for the portal also, again sorry! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 09:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unusual block request

This request at the Help Desk might merit admin investigation. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That account only has one edit. I don't think it's terribly important.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I couldn't tell whether it had other deleted edits, so thought I'd punt it to you guys just in case. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be checking this with others.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've figured out what it means by compromised. I've logged into the account and changed the password. Not that it really matters because no one's used the account in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I see the account's now been blocked anyway. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Janos BOROS

Could someone please move, and if needed protect, this article and AfD. The AfD is on the fence a bit but if the article survives it would be helpful to have the AfD under the correct name when we ever may look for it. It's under Janos BOROS with the AfD to match and I think both should be moved to the Janos Boros naming convention. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange. Special:MovePage/Janos BOROS shows that it was already moved to the proper capitalization back on June 10, tho I agree that Janos BOROS is still the extant page (Janos Boros is atm a redir to the BOROS version. Am I misreading something? Syrthiss (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw that it was moved then reverted. I wasn't able to moved it when I tried and didn't want to muck anything further. -- Banjeboi 12:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well I moved it to Boros and changed all the other bits (I think) in the AFD. Since I had to copy it out to a text editor to do the global find and replace, I may have screwed up some of the accented characters so my apologies to people in advance (tho I didn't see any faults). Syrthiss (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Likely this user will co-opt Janos BOROS again, could you protect that with a link to the AFD by way of explanation? -- Banjeboi 13:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have BOROS watched, I'll see if they do it again and nuke accordingly at that time. Syrthiss (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! -- Banjeboi 13:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Self reversion of edits by topic-banned editors

Resolved: Current policy dictates that topic- or page-banned editors should make no edits at those pages. No need for further discussion on this Fritzpoll (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Recreate and AFD.

Resolved.

Hello,

Just looking for somebody to follow up on this. The plan is to reinstate the article and then send it directly to AFD. The article is salted so I can't do it without an admin. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop forum-shopping, please. You made the same request yesterday at WP:RFPP, which I declined on the basis that you should wait for the DRV to close first and see whether the closing admin agrees with you. Nothing's changed, and there's still no rush. Bencherlite^Talk 10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is the only DRV left on the page, and we are waiting for it to be closed. I left an {{adminhelp}} tag on my talk page and the admin told me to come here. I really don't see why any of our admins can't follow WP:BOLD and just close the DRV for us.--gordonrox24 (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please close that DRV? It's now 10 days old. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion backlog

CAT:CSD has a backlog of nearly 160 items currently, and it looks like it hasn't been touched in about 18 hours. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I seem to be having trouble deleting anything at the moment. Just tried to delete Ronald Malík three times without any luck. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that. Just appears to have been a little server lag. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Appeal from Wikiproject User Rehab

"Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in event of success." Ernest Shackleton

Well, okay, it's not quite that bad ;-)

Current needs:

• Mentors who are experienced at dealing with difficult cases.
• Admins who are willing to give advice and help.
• ArbCom members.....ditto

We would very much appreciate the participation of more mentors, admins, and ArbCom members, especially since this project intends to be dealing with banned editors. This may often require extra careful forms of mentoring. We aren't interested in being gamed, as has been attempted by some banned users and socks. So far it's been relatively easy stuff to deal with, but we could risk that sneaky banned users will attempt to get back into Wikipedia through this process. We would like to AGF with everyone, but we know that AGF can only be stretched so far, and that editors with these types of serious problems may include those who will pretend anything in order to "get back in". Are you interested in getting involved, even just as observers who can give occasional advice, in a new project that is working in uncharted territory? Your help, experience and wisdom will be appreciated. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Just looking at project title in the header, I thought this was going to be for users who spend way too much time editing and are in denial, á la "Rehab". Bummer! I was going to sign up for help ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User Rehab was proposed at WikiProject Council/Proposals, where there were 14 editors opposing with only 9 supporters, see here. I fail to understand why this project went ahead. In the words of Computerjoe on 2 June: "Wikipedia operates on consensus. For a project like this to be created without consensus is quite amazing. The community's opinions should have been gathered." --Kleinzach 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The MfD ended with no consensus, and since projects are started by a consensus of those who wish to start them, it went ahead. It was even approved to change the wording of the Wikiproject text to make it clear that anyone may start a project when they wish. Opposers who WP:IDON'TLIKEIT have no right to stop a project that isn't violating any policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

See: Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab. (I personally wasn't aware of the MfD). --Kleinzach 02:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Opposers have no right, eh? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't get tied up too much wrt WP Council discussion, or bicker and argue about who killed who. Running an idea past the WP Council isn't a requirement. –xeno^talk 20:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocking/delete forms

Why have they been changed? They used to be left-justified, and now they are right-justified. I think the change happened about two days ago. Just curious. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:VPT#Central buttons; it's the same issue, presumably from the MediaWiki upgrade. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Doppelganger

Im a doppelganer of CalcbikeUSBPriapPs2. Actually, im the same person. I need the Doppelganer template. please User:CBU's pages and put doppelganer template. im havin a doppel ganr cos my sig is so big it needs to be ridirected to my page from another user :) thanks! CBU (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC).

Problem with unauthorized bot-use, requesting mass rollback if possible

It looks like someone somehow hijacked Anybot and generated a few thousand articles with it (overwriting many existing articles). These articles are very problematic and basically unwanted by the community (see discussion here). The owner of the bot has asked if there is any technical way to roll back all the articles (although I would suggest only those that have not been edited since). Unfortunately, I don't have the time or knowledge to deal with this issue, so I'm bringing it here for some brave soul to tackle. Good luck. Also see discussion here. Kaldari (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Schutz's tool

May I please have some help here? I need to head off for the evening, but there is still a medium-sized backlog over at Schutz's tool. Could an admin or two please clean out the backlog in my stead? Thank you very much! → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 00:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Need to find the name of a WP tool...

Can anyone help me with the name and location of the tool I described here? I saw it used a couple of weeks ago in the case of someone with a long history of uploading copyvio content and I believe that it may be useful in dealing with the current AnyBot situation. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe ask at WP:VPT or Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- Banjeboi 04:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will do, thanks. The reason I ask here is that someone recently linked to a page generated by said tool here (or was it ANI?)... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this it ? Abecedare (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I'll download it and take a look. Thanks very much. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for outside opinion

Resolved: Article restored and AfD reopened

I just speedy deleted Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion which had been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion as it was almost word for word identical to Michelle Obama's arms, which was deleted about a month ago through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms (the article had been started by the same editor and only a couple of paragraphs were different - all the other wording and the photo was the same). However, I'd appreciate it if another admin would review this decision on the following grounds:

• User:Jclemens had rejected a speedy deletion request on the grounds that the articles were sufficiently different - I had no intention to wheel war and hadn't noticed this at the time I deleted the article. However, I think that this was a clear CSD G4 case.
• I just noticed that I voted to delete the 'Michelle Obama's arms' article (though there was a very strong consensus that the article should be deleted and, again, the G4 case is very strong)

Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The speedy was incorrect insofar that you have have ignored a previous admin's decision to decline it. The fact that you !voted in the previous AFD does not mean you cannot G4 a recreation (which this was imho) but I think you shouldn't do so unless you have to. I suggest you reinstate the article and let Jclemens decide about it. After all, admins are allowed to decline even valid speedy taggings and if he decides to decline it, it's his right to do and ignoring it would effectively be wheel-warring. Regards SoWhy 10:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's good enough for me. I've just restored the article and reopened the AfD. I didn't notice the decline rather than ignored it, by the way. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

During the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms, it was suggested that the material from that article be incorporated into a broader article on her influence on style and fashion. So I created Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion for that purposed. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson

Talk page of the article refreshed in an attempt to restart discussion of content only. DrKiernan (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Short version - Major content dispute, disruptive editing and at times personal attacks by various editors at Anna Anderson and Talk:Anna Anderson; I need some help.

Long version:

Request for action on Anna Anderson page

I would like to request that urgent action be taken to resolve the Anna Anderson debacle.

I would agree with both Bookworm and Aggiebean that all of this has to most definitely stop. I have come to the conclusion that everything should be removed on the page from the Contents section down with the exception of references and links to other sites. Only the current summary should remain. Anderson is a very insignificant page for wikipedia. Wikipedia is certainly not the place for unverifiable garbage to be openly touted.

If admin believe it necessary, I would support the removal of the entire page from wikipedia if this is seen to be the only solution to the current debacle. I will put in a request for speedy deletion soon. Finneganw 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point, yeah, I guess I'd agree to go ahead and delete everything except the lead paragraphs, with some tweaking of the language to insure neutrality, and to protect the page so only established users can edit it. Any additions should not be made without achieving consensus on the talk page. I still favor a good accounting of Anderson's life, with her time in Germany, America, marriage to Manahan, etc., but for the time being it's probably best to go back to bare bones and discuss how to rebuild the article on the talk page. I don't think deleting it entirely is necessary. Anderson is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, but it's true that she's of interest to a pretty rarified crowd. We appear to be the four or five in the world who have the most interest. In any event, the bad behavior (insults, accusations, etc.) MUST stop. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Anna_Anderson above. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also agree to deleting everything but the lead paragraphs. It would be nice to tell some of the story, but I'm afraid the details will never be agreed upon and only lead to the same lengthy mess we have now as everyone feels obligated to add their 'side' and add opposing material to what someone else posted that they find objectionable. From past history, way before I even got here, this seems to be what any AA article is destined for and this is why I don't think we can get too far into specifics without arguing. One thing I hope we can at least get out of the way is that anything that is conclusively proven wrong by the fact that AA wasn't Anastasia should not be included, especially the writings of Harriet Rathlef. If we have to start from scratch, that might be the best thing, but we should retain all the info from the current article for reference in case we need some of it. So can we all agree to scrap the current edition?Aggiebean (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And why are you so adamant in wanting to scrap the writings of Harriet Rathlef when you have not even read her book?ChatNoir24 (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read Kurth's book, which is heavily based on Rathlef's notes. I have already posted passages that completely prove that things could not have transpired as she described because Anna Anderson wasn't Anastasia. She is now totally discredited and thus are the parts of Kurth's book which use her writings as a source. I challenge anyone to read "Shadows of the Past", a chapter in Kurth's book, and come back here and disagree with me. You can't. It's quite an emotional piece of writing and would make a great novel, but that's all it is- a fictional story. Remember AA was not Anastasia, therefore she couldn't have remembered. Therefore the stories by Rathlef are bogus. Look at the current article, everything you've added that is sourced to Rathlef is pro AA and opposite from the people who turned out to be right.Aggiebean (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A mod has spoken over at the AA page and I think this means we are to take this back there?Aggiebean (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Kydrivs Lipof

Hello, I would like notify you that this is article about fiction person. This person was created in 2007 by group people around Town Gallery in Vysoké Mýto [106]. Paintings of Kydrivs Lipof was painted by Filip Dvorský (name Kydrivs Lipof is anagram of name Filip Dvorský). It is the same case like Henryk Batuta. For details see this: "Articles for deletion" page on czech wiki about Kydrivs Lipof.--Slfi (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest an AfD. You'll make more headway there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)