Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive214

Cleaning up & revamping WP:LTA

Hello all, I've previously posted a comment on the LTA talk page seeking comment from the community on cleaning up and reorganizing the Long term abuse project. If you're not already familiar with the project, it basically provides a central place for recording information regarding long term vandals. I don't exactly agree with the existence of the project, since it is somewhat a violation of WP:DENY and doesn't help recent changes patrollers identify long term vandalism immediately, but since it exists, we might as well make it useful by reorganizing it. Currently it is extremely difficult to find the relevant entry fast, and this wastes valuable time when responding to abuse. Greater efficiency could be attained by reorganizing it using a chart in alphabetical order, with a subpage for each long term vandal. This would make it much easier to navigate and find relevant entries. As part of this proposed cleanup, I'd also like to integrate LTA with WP:ABUSE for contacting. These 2 would stay independent, but WP:ABUSE would contact the ISPs of long term vandals that already have IP information associated. Netalarm^talk 07:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Any comments on this revamp, or should I just continue? Netalarm^talk 09:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Link to discussion. Two hours is not a long time, especially at this hour, to get comments on a proposal. If you're waiting for feedback you should probably give it a day or two. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, I added that second line because I was concerned that other people might think it was just a "notice", since this is a "noticeboard." Just a note, the discussion on the revamping would be more beneficial if held at the link above (LTA talk). Netalarm^talk 12:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Duplicate Files

I just did a query and found that there are quite a few duplicate files which may qualify for F1 Speedy Deletion (~600). That query is ~12 hours old. After tagging about 30 of them I thought it would be a good idea to ask for help. I've noticed that many of them are bot created and some of them are similar but not identical (such as File:127 northbound.jpg and File:127northbound2.jpg). Thanks, --nn123645 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've converted the format from simple text into links, so that we can more easily select the images for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

North Korea caused the spill and other assorted nonsense

Resolved

 – semi-protection applied. Horologium (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a group of IP's from Spain that keeps modifying Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion with the allegation that the Gulf of Mexico spill was caused by a North Korean torpedo attack. While this has been thoroughly debunked (and as noted in talk page and elsewhere, the allegation is sourced to a far-right extremist website), more eyes in keeping the article clear from that nonsense would appreciated. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 11:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it bad enough for WP:RFPP ?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note, Truthout (the source for the crazy allegations) is leftist, not far-right. In any case, I semi-protected it for a week to stop the edit-warring. Horologium (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The link given was from EUTimes, which is considered far right... I guess that once you're that far into the fringe, you can't really tell what is left and what is right. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so you have seen me play golf then ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

AWB requests

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared Camw (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if someone could check AWB check page. There is a couple over 48hrs old and a few others awaiting approval (me included). Thanks --NavyBlue84 11:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Camw (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what happened there, I normally deal with these on a daily basis, but the page seems to have somehow dropped off my watchlist. Normal service has been resumed. Rodhullandemu 20:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Harassment & outing by User:ScienceApologist

NOTE: ScienceApologist and I have reached an amicable resolution on this issue, and as the filing party, I do not believe it requires admin action. Thanks to those who commented; your insights and constructive criticism were helpful. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, apologies in advance if this is not the proper venue; and if it's not, I'd be grateful if someone could correct me. (Added Note: It might be better at AE? I am filing a formal complaint about User:ScienceApologist. He was topic-banned sometime in 2009 for about six months. Sorry that I don't have the wikilink at hand, but the case is well-known, and User_talk:ScienceApologist/Approved_articles includes discussion of what he could and could not edit (typically, he pushed the boundaries as far as possible even when banned). What he is doing now is harassing me by making completely baseless claims that I have a conflict of interest, and outing me for good measure. WP:COI clearly states: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." I have such expertise in acupuncture and Chinese medicine, and have contributed a lot (under retired usernames as well) to acupuncture. I understand the boundaries around here, and heed them, so I don't get banned or blocked. For example, I understand that WP:COI says that as long as I'm not pushing my own practice, writings, gizmos, etc., then it's fine for me to edit acupuncture. But not in ScienceApologist's world: he filed this patently absurd complaint about me: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Middle_8, and in so doing attempted to out me by linking to what he believed was my professional webpage. (Note: diffs oversighted by User:Vsmith; here's a multiple diff with the information excised). About a year ago I retired one account and started a new one precisely because I wanted to stop all use of my name on WP and be completely pseudonymous. I was quite clear about this.[1] It even came up in the context of ScienceApologist's ArbCom case that led to his topic ban (and please note that I'd have to provide that diff offline for privacy reasons). This is harassment, pure and simple, and if I recall correctly it was behavior like this that led, in part, to his topic ban. I generally just ignore him, but occasionally, Darwin forbid, someone gets in the way of his latest jihad and his full wrath rains down. Today I get to be that special someone. Tomorrow or next week, who knows? And how long does WP tolerate this? I request and challenge the good people at WP:AE WP:AN to deal with this as harshly as possible, and then some. If I read WP:OUTING correctly, outing is a serious offense that usually results in an immediate block. But there are aggravating factors here. ScienceApologist is a recidivist, disruptive editor who drives away some editors and sets a bad example for others. I suggest a preventative siteban of significant duration. Thanks for considering this issue. Middle 8 (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Well, you claim professional expertise. Like Essjay did. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, and other than the fact that he lied about it and I didn't, it's an awesome comparison! (Seriously, I've always said that any admin wanting to know my identity in good faith can email me.) --Middle 8 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC) This information is all linked from this editors various accounts, and was posted appropriately as part of a COI report. If the editor wants to start afresh, perhaps they should start a new account and avoid acupuncture articles. Verbal chat 09:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Verbal, I believe you are familiar with the history: I retired my old account (which was connected to my real name), and started this one stating that I desired pseudonymity. On-wiki, I never connected this with my old account. Off-wiki, I told a few editors, you among them, my identity, and was clear that on-wiki I wanted to retain pseudonymity. In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember warning SA about respecting my pseudonymity, though I'd have to dig up the diff (he was whining about the supposed COI thing). Read WP:PRIVACY; my requests for privacy are all well within accepted guidelines on WP. How could I have been clearer that I didn't want my personal information revealed? Put it in my fucking signature? --Middle 8 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC) It was and is clear that the two accounts are linked. You are free to start a new account that cannot be connected with the old. Verbal chat 11:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry, Verbal, that's just not true -- and I wish you wouldn't play fast and loose with the facts. If what you say is true, please document the supposed link between the two accounts. Just for the record. Thanks. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Middle 8, you should consider this discussion from the recent Russavia-Biophs ArbCom case. In it, Biophys (who had WP:OUTING issues and was sanctioned in the case) discusses establishing a new account for privacy reasons. Arbitrator Shell_Kinney makes some comments that are particularly relevant to your situation: [2] "While editors are able to start new accounts for privacy or decide to vanish entirely, there are some limits to what you may do if you decide to start another account. See WP:CLEANSTART for details ... one of the things the community feels strongly about is that you do not enter the same discussions or disputes without disclosing that you are the same editor that was in these disputes before. This precludes the ability to start over for privacy and re-enter the disputed topic area." [3] "... the community feels strongly that editors should not start new accounts, unlinked to the old, and start editing in the same areas/disputes. This has to do with transparency, accountability, not giving the appearance of additional support for a position and not being able to hide behind a new account and bother the same editors." [4] "... unless you intend to never edit in the disputed area again, it's likely that creating a new account would do more harm than good. We've seen it happen time and time again - if you edit the same areas you were before, especially when those areas are heated, editors will go to extreme lengths to figure out what your old account was, possibly link them together and may handle things more poorly as a result of feeling that you are trying to hide something." I make no comment on ScienceApologist's actions - I haven't looked at them - but if you previously edited in alternate medicine areas, which can be controversial, and have returned to them, and in addition have a potential WP:COI, I'd say the chances were high that your old and new accounts would be connected by someone... no matter what your wishes might be. I'm not arguing that this is the way it should be, more that it is the way things are. EdChem (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks, EdChem -- I took all of these issues into account, and contacted editors off-wiki to let them know who I was and that I just wanted to be pseudonymous with my new username. I was careful not to give the impression of additional support for a position. I was all about full-disclosure, just some of it off-wiki. All I want(ed) is for my requests at pseudonymity to be honored: an analogous case is User:Shoemaker's Holiday, whose name-change and privacy-boundaries seem to have been well-accepted. Thanks again for that background. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Middle 8 - happy to provide the links. The problem with full-disclosure, just some of it off-wiki is that it only takes one editor to whom no disclosure has been made to get suspicious (say because of something you said reminding them of something you said with your previous account) and to start digging. The only real way to ensure pseudonymity is to stay away from your previous areas. Without knowing your history I have no idea how closely it is analogous to Shoemaker's Holiday's case, but I would say that his experiences were pretty nasty over an extended period. His privacy may be relatively well accepted now, but that took a long time and his former editing identity is known to a considerable number of users. If you have been through anything like the amount of shit that SH was forced through then you have my sincere sympathies. EdChem (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I don't know exactly how much crap Shoemaker's went through. I gather I went through less, but still more than enough. I understand what you say about someone inevitably starting to dig around, but since I notified the rest of the world with a great big "Please let me be pseudonymous on-wiki" on my user page, I don't think I could have made my preferences clearer. On my user page, I also state my profession and explain why I don't violate COI, and ScienceApologist cites this in his complaint at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Middle_8 (multiple diff excluding oversighted material). His whole point is that as an acupuncturist I inherently have a COI because of some magic double standard that doesn't apply to other professions. He's not basing his complaint on anything specific to me other than my profession. Since I made that known on-wiki, there was no need to link to my (putative) web page -- other than harassment. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Part of the issue here is that Middle 8 isn't just an acupuncturist, he is a rank pseudoscientist whose website proves he promotes acupuncture far beyond the evidence-basis for it. The issue is that this user is heavy-handedly removing material that contradicts the documented POV on his webpage. I'm all for privacy, but there's this thing called WP:SCRUTINY that can be argued this user is engaging in. If this user wasn't active at acupuncture at all, there would be no problem. That he is and that his account can easily and verifiably be linked to three other accounts who have, in the past, been used to advocate the same POV-pushing tactics is extremely relevant to the WP:COI case. I do not take this charge lightly, but when people use Wikipedia rules to flout our WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS policies, I think it stinks of gaming the system to cry wolf about privacy concerns. There is a right to vanish, but one must actually exercise the right in order for it to apply. This particular user did not exercise that right by entering into the same venue and acting the same way and, by the way, linking to his previous accounts (note that WP:OUTING explicitly states that if the user links to the information, which this user did, then this is an obvious exception to the rule against posting personal information — and I only posted a website he had linked to from one of the previous accounts that he is verifiably connected to, and I manifestly did not post "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information"). If an investigation is supposed to happen, we need to be able to present evidence. There is nothing in WP:OUTING which states how this is supposed to be done. People refer obliquely to my identity all the time and I actually had the police called on me once due to Wikipedia. This doesn't bother me because the areas in which I work are high-profile and likely to attract attention. If a clarification could be given of how one is supposed to go about taking another editor's problematic behavior to task in such a situation, I'd greatly appreciate it. I definitely promise never to do such a thing again, as I was not really aware that posting a website as evidence was such an issue (and perhaps would suggest adding it to WP:OUTING if it is an issue). If we can explain how such a situation should be handled, I'd greatly appreciate it, and it might help future incidents such as this which are bound to arise. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Where did he link to his personal page himself? Email me if it will reconstitute outing. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC) @Rlevse: I never linked to my website with my current account; that's the whole point. Please email me if you wish. I specifically said "let me be pseudonymous"[5] with this account. Consider User:Shoemaker's Holiday as an example of another user who exercised something on the order of WP:VANISH and returned pseudonymously: the key thing being, like me, they didn't want their name or personal info on WP. I stated this preference at every turn. SA was at best negligent and at worst malicious (he's WP:GAME'd enough that I don't readily assume AGF, and he could easily be just making up an excuse when the intention all along was to humiliate and harass). As for SA's ad hominem argumentation ("rank pseudoscientist"), that speaks for itself. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC) The edits have been deleted or oversighted (not sure which). I don't have them saved and have no idea when they went down. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Middle 8, if you want to maintain, or restore, your privacy why don't you do as suggested here: get a new username and stop editing topics related to alternative medicine?   Will Beback  talk  04:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Will, I don't think it's quite fair to suggest that he stop editing topics that he prefers to edit, short of any evidence of malfeasance. That almost sounds like a threat (stop editing these topics otherwise you will get outed). I would like to think that ScienceApologist (or any editor on wikipedia) would have the courtesy not to out someone when they prefer not to be outed, even if it's possible to do it without too much trouble. Lord knows SA has filed his own (very angry) ANI thread when other people have outed him in the past. Can we all recognize that Middle 8 doesn't want to be outed, and agree not to do it? If SA had COI concerns, he can ask an administrator to discuss it with M8 off-wiki. --Ludwigs2 05:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC) The user here is accused of having more than just an interest in the topic, but an actual conflict of interest. Further, there's an assertion that this potential COI has been a disputed topic in the past. If that's true, then we have a situation of someone who may have a COI trying to avoid the accusations by changing his identity, but still editing in the topic. That's the wrong approach. If there's a COI, and it causes this kind of tension, then he should stop editing the topic directly rather than hiding his COI. As a hypothetical example, imagine I was the president and owner of Beback Enterprises. If I was editing the article on our latest product other editors might raise the issue of my COI. Would it be legitimate for me to change my username, go back to editing that article on my new product, and complain about anyone who connects me to my previous account? No. COIs belong to users, not to usernames.   Will Beback  talk  08:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Very well put. No, creating a new username doesn't solve the problem. On the contrary. The solution is to admit upfront that one has a COI and will attempt to edit carefully. Doing otherwise would be an attempt to evade the scrutiny of other editors, a practice that is forbidden here. Middle8, just write it on your userpage. Admit it and then just edit responsibly. We need experts here. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Brangifer - Thanks, yes, it's been on my userpage forever. Will, just because there's an assertion of COI doesn't mean there is COI, especially when the assertion originates from an extremely disruptive, angry mastodon type editor. ScienceApologist uses these things to attack, not to resolve. Which reminds me -- the whole reason I went pseudonymous wasn't to avoid COI at all -- no one except Science Apologist took the issue seriously, and his one complaint was dismissed out of hand -- but rather to avoid my real name being used in forums like this where editors like ScienceApologist go into battleground, say-anything, end-justifies the means mode (the end being: drive away editors with whom he's tired of discussing content). Gosh, what a bad editor I am for acting in this manner. Definitely let's blame me, rather than hold to account the handful of intensely disruptive, recidivist editors who think WP is a battleground. Let's blame editors like me, rather than call out the admins who enable toxic, battleground editors by failing to impose escalating blocks. --Middle 8 (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I'd agree, Ludwigs2, but the WP:COIN is supposed to be transparent to the wiki and there is no course of action outlined on that page which would apply for (what I did not fully realize) was "sensitive" information. How does one do a private or off-wiki COI notice that can abide by consensus rules? I have concerns about a COI and I want people to know what the concerns are. The issue was that Middle 8 was essentially refusing to admit that there could possibly be any concerns at all. A single administrator that I ask to act on my behalf isn't going to loosen this kind of intractable situation. The other problem is that "outing" is not a well-defined idealization. Linking to a personal webpage that a person had previously linked to on Wikipedia and wasn't on the blacklist seemed to me to be no real thing. "Let me be pseudonymous" can obviously be used to game the system so as to avoid scrutiny. If Middle 8 doesn't want this page linked, why doesn't he ask for it to be blacklisted on WP:BLACKLIST? That would solve a lot of issues and unintentional outings that may occur in the future. I'd also love to see that ANI thread and compare to this incident. I'm pretty sure it didn't have to do with a personal webpage that I maintained, but maybe my memory is faulty. Let me know. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC) You knew he wanted anonymity. You outed him anyway. Is there anything else to say about this? Anthony (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Plenty, Anthony... if there was a previously discussed COI issue, CLEANSTART may not be used to hide it. See the comments I quoted above from Arbitrator Shell_Kinney. EdChem (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Hi Ed -- ScienceApologist filed one, and it was quickly dismissed by an admin who cited Wikipedia:Coi#Citing_oneself. SA is trying to invent a new kind of COI, and has provided virtually no diffs showing my alleged extreme bias (because it doesn't exist). --Middle 8 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC) EdChem mentioned he'd quoted me here, and it looks like he's got it about right. Middle8, you simply can't do what you did. Yes, we want to be sensitive to editors who didn't realize how revealing personal information might affect them, however the editor trying to regain privacy has some responsibilities of their own which obviously weren't followed. The reason the policy states that you may not reenter the same disputes is demonstrated here. If you, as a new account, enter into a dispute you participated in as your old account, you will be recognized almost immediately by editors who had discussed the issue with you before. This is obviously bad for your privacy; an editor who wishes to regain a measure of anonymity needs to be very careful to avoid any behavior that would connect them to their original account. Reentering an old dispute without making it clear that you are the same person appears deceptive for a variety of reasons. It gives the appearance that a particular viewpoint in the dispute has more support rather than just the continued support of the same person. If the old account had been warned or sanctioned for behavior, or there were concerns of a conflict of interest, creating a new account unlinked to the old avoids scrutiny. Basically, if there were concerns over your conflict of interest before and they're obvious enough that someone was able to figure out that you were a returning user then what needed to happen was for you to be considerably more circumspect in your editing, not try to hide behind a new account. While experts are in fact appreciated, if your feelings about a topic are so strong that other editors have concerns, you need to consider that editing that topic may not be the best thing for you or Wikipedia. Shell babelfish 15:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Hi, Shell, thanks for commenting. To clarify several things: I changed usernames for the simple reason that I was tired of seeing statements like "John Q. Doe is a pseudoscientist" all over WP and then popping up in search engines. (These kinds of statements were being made by ScienceApologist and by User:Mccready who has left the project after being indef-topic-banned.) Talk to User:Shoemaker's Holiday; they went through the same thing, and seem to have been granted the courtesy of pseudonymity that I seek. No editor should have to put up with flagrant disparagement on WP under their real name, and there should be an expectation of pseudonymity for editors who are targeted in this way and want to change handles. I've been upfront about being the same person as my old account, but off-wiki. On-wiki I wanted pseudonymity, so I adressed the COI issue and handled my real-life identity on a need-to-know-basis. I emailed everyone with whom I'd routinely collaborated: Verbal, Brangifer, 2/0 and numerous others.... I don't remember whether I emailed ScienceApologist or not, but he figured out my identity anyway, so as I recall I reminded him about pseudonymyity as well (and had a big notice on my talk page; see link just below), and moved on. And I did address COI on-wiki (cf. old user page, and more explicitly here). What seems to get lost in the mix is that WP:COI explicitly allows editing in one's professional area. Just because ScienceApologist and his "posse" say I'm biased doesn't make it so; I demonstrably "write for the enemy" and so on. To tie up one more loose end, there was no appearance of my new handle giving added support for a topic because it appeared was after I closed the old one, and again, I notified my editing collaborators off-wiki. Maybe I could have handled this better, somehow, but I acted in good faith, and was diligent in notifying colleagues. I was never warned or sanctioned with this or any previous account. Indeed, I'm surprised that uninvolved parties here have taken ScienceApologist's spurious allegations at face value, since he's provided precious few diffs (just a few, showing me disagreeing with him on content! horrors!) and is mostly just hand-waving. He's simply trying to give me a hard time, and it's classic false equivalence to assume our misbehavior was remotely comparable; compare our block logs. Everyone was cool with my pseudonymous-partial-reboot for 18 months, with the exception of two angry, mastodon-type editors who would rather discredit those with whom they have content disagreements then pursue normal WP:DR. By contrast, I'm collegial, consider issues on the merits, and know my subject areas; do you want good editors or do you want to enable like ScienceApologist whose M.O. is to push good editors away with bogus accusations and wikilawyering? As always, any admin can email me if I've missed anything. I'm busy IRL and can't rebut every allegation. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC) I guess I'm a little confused then - if you told everyone you interacted with what your old account was, how was this outing? I will have to say I'm terribly unimpressed by your comments on ScienceApologist's talk page as well. If you do not have a problem writing for the enemy and your conflict doesn't show up in your editing, surely the COI noticeboard thread will bear that out? All in all, I'm failing to see what here merited urgent admin attention. Shell babelfish 17:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC) @Shell: when I retired my old account I explicitly asked for pseudonymity with my new one. I clearly requested that my real name and other identifying info never be used on-wiki. There is precedent for that, as I mentioned. Why would I want pseudonymity on WP when many editors know my identity? Because I don't want silly wikidrama and attacks on my name to end up in Google. Now do you see why I didn't want my (alleged) page posted? It's a matter of reputation: ask Shoemaker's Holiday about that. If you don't believe that such courtesies are worth extending on WP, then sure, I understand that you'd be unlikely to see a problem with SA's actions. I disagree; I think WP should be a respectful community where things like requests for pseudonymity are honored, rather than a "Wild West" kind of place. As for the COI case SA brought against me, yes, believe it's meritless and that it will be dismissed. The reason I filed a complaint, besides the privacy issue, is that SA files these cases just to harass editors with whom he has content disagreements (and as an extra bonus, he tried to post my webpage against my explicit wishes). That sort of vengeful abuse of process is part of what got him topic-banned last time, and why I brought it up again: I believe that it's a corrosive, disruptive behavior pattern that is the opposite of WP:DR, and apparently he hasn't yet learned much, in that respect, from his last Arbitration action. (BTW, I did intend to post this at WP:AE; Vsmith had suggested I post at either AE or AN and I mistakenly put it here. Sorry for any confusion caused by the venue). regards, Middle 8 (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC) SA-how is the different for the similar instance with you and Martinphi? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure I remember all the details between myself and Martinphi, and if I remember correctly Martinphi got banned for outing someone other than myself not in the context of a WP:COIN. Do I remember correctly? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC) I am not at all clear what the conflict of interest here might be. The topic is acupuncture: even if Middle 8 is a practicing acupuncturist, or an individual who has published material about acupuncture, COI seems like a bit of a stretch (unless M8 is involved in blatant self-promotion of his business or his writing). and even that (if true) seems more like market-spam than COI. COI really only applies when some editor begins working on articles that are directly about him - e.g. an employee of a business writing on an article about that particular business; a scientist editing an article about his own published theories, or published theories that oppose his. The COI rule is there to prevent real-world disputes from entering into wikipedia editing (because wikipedia should not be a venue for arguing real-world disputes). without any more outing, is that what is happening here? --Ludwigs2 01:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC) The problem is that acupuncture can be portrayed as being like standard health procedures, as if it were based on evidence. If a person is known to advocate that position in order to bolster their profession, that person definitely has a COI if they edit acupuncture articles by removing suggestions of pseudoscience, or by adding dubious references to support unwarranted efficacy claims. A neurosurgeon will not have those kinds of problems when editing an article in their area of expertise because there will not be any suggestions of pseudoscience, and there will be plenty of good sources available to back up any material the neurosurgeon wants to add. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, and I don't do that. I understand your point; what you describe is not really part of WP:COI as written, but it is a self-interested kind of POV-pushing. The thing is, (a) there is some evidence for acupuncture according to a lot of good sources, and (b) I don't overstate (a) here on WP; the position that I take is within the spectra of scientifically mainstream views on acupuncture, and I respect WP's policies and guidelines. Science Apologist just doesn't like debating the issue, so he substitutes these complaints for regular talk page discussion in hopes that he can get his way. It's part of his M.O. --Middle 8 (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Isn't the question whether Middle 8 has a COI best left to COIN? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC) well, SA, no: The question of whether you have done something wrong by outing Middle 8 (which it's pretty clear you did) depends on whether there's a conflict of interest that justified the outing. I'm not sure I see the logic behind that. Outing is never okay. The question is if someone is avoiding scrutiny, whether mentioning actions of their previous account in evidence is appropriate. WP:OUTING is somewhat vague and at least partially open to interpretation in such cases, obviously. But are we really equipped to parse the entire thing? There's a lot of commentary here about how WP:CLEANSTART works and whether that was properly engaged. That could be another tack. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Point taken. from my perspective, I guess, it looks like this. Middle 8 clearly did not want to have his personal information exposed (even though that information was nominally available to you and others). You chose to expose it because - as you say - you thought he was trying to avoid scrutiny for some bad behavior (in this case something akin to COI). However, the assertion of bad behavior is highly questionable (you seem to be implying that any professional acupuncturist would automatically have a conflict of interest - i.e., none of the people who know about the topic are allowed to write about it on wikipedia), and even if true it's doubtful that the severity of the problem would call for an extreme action like exposing someone's personal information to the entire internet. Any way you cut it, what you did was highly rude (which is not something I'm in a position to criticize people on, so no problem). the question, though, is whether it was a justifiable rudeness or a petty rudeness; petty rudeness is bad. --Ludwigs2 18:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for responding. I'd like to clarify one thing here: I absolutely do not think that "any professional acupuncturist" automatically has a conflict of interest. Rather I think that professional acupuncturists who adhere to a certain perspective (arguing in favor of certain theorizing and proposing that the acupuncture they practice can alleiviate diseases and conditions for which there is poor or scant evidence) and who also act to mitigate or eliminate critiques of their perspective are demonstrating a conflict-of-interest vis-a-vis the subject. Below, Middle 8 accuses me of "slander" (he likely means libel, but you get the picture). He wants to eliminate references to him on Wikipedia probably to protect his good name. Fair enough. Except this seems to me to be a tacit admission of a conflict-of-interest with regards to the subject itself and, specifically, the characterizations of the aspects of the subject that are criticized by sources he continually impugns, excises, or ignores. This looks to me like a combination of the Simon Singh chiropractic controversy and the issues we had with Dana Ullman. It is by no means meant to be a universalist prohibition. It's a matter of MMO. All three should be presented for a potential COI to become a concern. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC) conflict-of-interest vis-a-vis the subject? You seem to be saying that anyone who makes a claim that is not supported by scientific evidence in the real world is automatically guilty of a conflict of interest on wikipedia, and that doesn't make any sense. It would tend to imply, for instance, that every physicist who has ever advocated for string theory in the Academy has a conflict of interest and should be prohibited from editing physics-related articles. If M8 has made claims unsupported by scientific evidence (or worse, claims refuted by scientific evidence) in the real world, then that may be a reason not go to him for therapeutic services. If he is trying to edit such claims into wikipedia articles, then he may run afoul of FRINGE. but neither of those is a conflict of interest on wikipedia itself. You actually seem to be trying to assert that there is a conflict of interest between acupuncture and medicine, but that's not a conflict of interest, that's a matter of NPOV. --Ludwigs2 20:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC) @ Johnuniq: I have to disagree with the reasoning you've used here. Clearly a neurosurgeon who edited an article in order to (say) promote neurosurgery as a superior alternative to pharmacology for treatment of some disorder would be engaged in a conflict of interest; a neurosurgeon writing more generally about neurosurgery would not have a COI. likewise, a practitioner of acupuncture writing generally about acupuncture has no conflict of interest unless he is specifically promoting acupuncture as a superior alternative to other forms of medicine (which would also, in this case, run him afoul of NPOV and FRINGE). Wikipedia is not here to determine or assert that acupuncture is 'wrong' or 'bad', and you can not begin from the perspective that it is 'wrong' or 'bad' in order to claim that it conflicts with 'good'/'right' medicine. "Can be portrayed as..." is irrelevant. what matters is whether whether this is what's actually being done. --Ludwigs2 17:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Let's say neurosurgery was a discipline that wasn't as tied to evidence-based medicine as it was. If a neurosurgeon maintained a webpage advertising his services as a neurosurgeon that trumped up the dubious benefits of neurosurgery beyond that which was supported by evidence basis (for example, as a cure for lung cancer) and kept a wider range of text that was sourced to criticism of this fringe position off the page because there were conflicting anecdotal and less-than-rigorous sources which supported his position, then that would absolutely represent a conflict-of-interest. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC) No need to say anything about evidence-based here. let's say a neurosurgeon (one with a degree from Harvard, say) was using his webpage to promote the idea that neurosurgery could treat lung cancer - based on, say, removing brain material to change the body-brain mapping, or some other rubbish. Clearly fringe, and this theory is not something that should appear on Wikipedia unless it (somehow) gains scholarly consensus (or at least some measure of notoriety). but there would be no COI with having this neurosurgeon edit any article, so long as he is not trying to push his lung cancer cure into wikipedia or disparage other types of lung cancer cures. The fact that he has an unproven theory on his business webpage does not make him an unfit editor for wikipedia; it just means that he has to be careful not to advance his theory in wikipedia space. --Ludwigs2 18:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC) My wording above was concerned with a medical specialist writing in their area of expertise without any suggestion of pseudoscience (for example, a neurosurgeon writing only about evidence-based and reliably-sourced information strictly within the field of neurosurgery). Obviously that kind of non-promotional editing is good. By contrast, an alternate health practioner may have a COI if they promote acupuncture to suggest it is based on the same kind of medical evidence as applies to neurosurgery. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC) I understand what you were saying; I disagree with the reasoning. Conflict of Interest implies that someone has a personal stake in some matter that conflicts with his professional obligations. Even an expert, non-pseudoscientific doctor can be subject to a conflict of interest if he is promoting his services in a way that may not be in the best interests of his patients. This is actually a fairly common situation: doctors are frequently asked to decide between treatment recommendations where the differential benefits to patients may be marginal or ambiguous and the differential costs (which increases the doctor's bottom-line) may be large. Consider the difference between recommending short term therapy with a psychologist for the treatment of depression (at a cost of a couple of thousand dollars over a few months, all of which goes to the psychologist) to recommending chemical antidepressants, which are much more expensive, which are not clearly more effective, and where the doctor himself retains income from the patient). On Wikipedia, more to the point, conflict of interest can only mean that someone is editing the encyclopedia in such a way that it will (ultimately) improve his personal or professional standing in the real-world community. Wikipedia is not really a good place to advertise specific professional services, even if one somehow manages to slip by the anti-spam rules, and so the only way to establish a conflict of interest on project is to begin promoting one's own professional theories or insights in the hopes that it will translate to some sort of personal recognition or advantage in the greater world. The professional obligation of an acupuncturist (like that of a doctor) is to the health of his patients. An acupuncturist may have a real-world conflict of interest if he is promoting some practice that has dubious health benefits, but it would be just as unusual for an acupuncturist to have a COI on the project as it would be for a neurosurgeon. I see no indication that M8 is doing anything that will increase his real-world standing (personal or professional). There may be other issues involving NPOV or FRINGE that need to be considered, but there is no implicit COI just because he is an acupuncturist (with some questionable real-world ideas) editing acupuncture-related articles. --Ludwigs2 15:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC) convenience break (1) I haven't been very active over the last few days and just saw this thread by accident on my watchlist. Here are some comments based on what I know about the past: I can confirm that Middle 8's previous user name (and hence real name) is well known among editors for whom it is relevant. He sent me an email in March 2009 warning me about possible backlash from SA and his enablers after I filed an ANI section ScienceApologist asking for a block for an incident that resulted in a 48-hour block by Ryan Postlethwaite. In that email he confidentially mentioned his previous identity, but even though I don't edit in the acupuncture area I was well aware of it at that point. We are very fortunate to have an expert on acupuncture who has the intelligence and integrity to edit the area neutrally as well as competently. This is something which the extreme science-as-a-creed "skeptic" faction can't deal with, because it prevents them from skewing articles in such a way that instead of providing reliable information they focus exclusively on debunking and read like a piece from the Skeptical Inquirer. (It's much easier for them at the homeopathy article, for example, which has a steady supply of unreasonable homeopaths that makes it easy to scare away the more reasonable ones.) I was under the impression that SA was much more moderate recently than he used to be. I am not sure whether this has changed or whether personal animosities with Middle 8 were simply not covered by this change. When SA claimed a COI against Middle 8 under his previous name, the discussion ended with the following comment by Jehochman, which was the only third-party comment in the thread: "An editor's vocation does not create a COI. COI is when an editor writes about themselves or their own organization, not their own field of work. Whether this matter may involve Wikipedia:Advocacy, a violation of WP:NPOV, is another matter." (There is nothing surprising about this comment. It has always been like that and it cannot be different; remember that we want to write an encyclopedia as well as play this huge game.) If that is the kind of scrutiny that one may not hide from by changing one's user name, then it would be impossible for me to change my user name to an anonymous one and continue editing mathematics topics, and practically all experts who start editing under their real names and at some point become subject to a vicious character assassination attack would be in the same situation. In other words: Any determined editor of the ScienceApologist type would have a legal method for forcing our most valuable editors to choose between being libelled and ending their expert contributions to Wikipedia. This is simply not reasonable. It would be reasonable if accusations of the type "John Doe is a pseudoscientist" were generally regarded as insta-blockable oversightable stuff. But they aren't. Incorrect accusations of this type happen all the time and don't even raise an eyebrow. (I am not worried about the correct ones, which incidentally don't happen much because our methods for treating actual fringers are efficient enough.) ScienceApologist knows that his COI claim against Middle 8 is baseless. He has repeated a COI filing from 1½ years earlier when the only thing that has changed is that Middle 8 is now more vulnerable because he is trying to keep his name out. (Quotation from Middle 8's email to me in March 2008: "SA's nonsense was a major reason for my deciding to be pseudonymous".) Unless there is something surprising in the current situation at the acupuncture article, this seems to be a clear case of gaming and harassment by SA. Some time ago there was a lot of drama when SA tried to get an association between his account and his real name removed. At the time it looked very hypocritical given his disregard for the justified privacy interests of his opponents. It's interesting to see that nothing has changed. I would like to know whether (a) it is now allowed to link to the WP page where SA has outed himself, (b) SA is simply totally wrong in this case, or (c) there is an official policy to the effect that self-styled "skeptics" have a substantially stronger claim to privacy than their targets. It seems to me that WP:COI/N#Middle 8 is the kind of thing for which SA was banned. Is there some kind of probation? Surely he is on a shorter lash than he was before his ban. Hans Adler 11:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Aside from the continuing character assassinations perpetuated by this one-time homeopathy sympathist, the bizarre praise for Middle 8 (this user has provided no evidence for Middle 8's neutrality or lack of COI, I'll point out), and his straw-man false trilemma, I would like to thank this user for his contribution. In particular, this user has now revealed a smoking gun personal communication with Middle 8 which sheds light on exactly why Middle 8 is using the "pseudonym" excuse. Although I'm amazed that I'm the reason that Middle 8 wants to go "pseudonymous", the only thing I can understand is that Middle 8 is concerned that by pointing out his conflict-of-interest, he will eventually lose free-range edit privileges that he now exercises to censor critiques from the acupuncture page. What it looks like from my end is the following happened: Middle 8 saw a possible means to exploit the Wikipedia rules which came out of the IRL harassment issues associated with a third-party account referenced in this thread. Middle 8 saw people banned and blocked for referring to a particular accounts former user name, and decided that if he did a shoddy attempt at scrubbing his identity from Wikipedia and set-up a parallel set of accounts so as to avoid scrutiny, he would have the perfect boobytrap for someone who would complain about his COI. He could claim coverage by a narrow understanding of WP:OUTING in order to change the discussion from one of WP:COI to one of harassment. Far from the above user's claim that I know that the COI claim is baseless, I am more convinced now than ever that Middle 8 is viewing Wikipedia as a battleground in an attempt to keep his proprietary understanding of acupuncture protected at Wikipedia. This kind of advocacy is despicable and exactly mirrors the behavior of Dana Ullman. The only difference is that Middle 8 has been around Wikipedia long enough to figure out clever ways to exploit the system. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC) "one-time homeopathy sympathist, Hans Adler" – Thanks for demonstrating that Middle 8 was justified because apparently you have the freedom to engage in such character assassination unpunished and don't even refrain from it while you are under attack for it. Hans Adler 12:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Would you like me to dig up diffs that show your sympathetic approach to homeopathy? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Do you think that's an acceptable response? How about you stop bringing science into disrepute with your totally over-the-top pseudo-skeptic approach? I happen to have relatively high tolerance for bullshit in general but a very low tolerance for missionaries of bullshit who falsely pretend to speak with the authority of science. As a result I have to continually restrain myself not to tell you and some of your friends of the irrational pseudo-rational persuasion what I think of you. If you don't bother to show the same kind of restraint and keep your absurd fantasies about my opinions to yourself I really don't see why I need to remain quiet about your character. Hans Adler 22:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC) @ScienceApologist: um, no, the "smoking gun" is that I didn't want you or another chronically disruptive editor slandering my real name on WP. That's what it's about, not my running from COI, as Han explained. Your comments are about as good an example of bad faith as any I've ever seen. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Hmm, slander, really? I remind you of WP:NLT. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC) I'd agree with that and I think that there is no compelling reason to return to the regularly scheduled threads about him. Perhaps the ban should be reinstated and for a longer time since the message was not received.--Crossmr (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC) WP:PUNITIVE much? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC) No, it's to prevent further disruption.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Where's your evidence that I'm causing "further disruption"? There are disagreements as to whether my actions were disruptive or not, weren't there? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC) "Who? Me? Disruptive?" Your block log is a pretty good starting point, and your most recent topic ban was in part because of disruptive complaints in venues like this one. All of that is a matter of record. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Be careful, that kettle is hot! Of course, scrutinizing your record across multiple accounts isn't all that easy to do. The last time I was blocked was more than a year ago. WP:REHAB has done me good. Care to come to group? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC) This all seems pretty basic to me: Middle 8 didn't do a proper clean start. He returned to the areas that he edited before. If he really wants a clean start, he is free to start up a third account, abandon Middle 8, and not edit acupuncture-related articles again. Any editor is free to connect two accounts if he thinks the connection is relevant. Those of us that have usernames connected to our real-life identities bear the risk if connecting the two accounts also reveals our real-life identity.—Kww(talk) 23:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Or, alternatively, Middle 8 can keep his account, ask for the website in question to be blacklisted, and continue discussing how to edit acupuncture while acknowledging his potential conflict-of-interest. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC) In actuality, Middle 8 is this editor's fourth account used to edit altmed articles and engage in identical disputes. There was a flurry of renaming and reneged right to vanish requests in between the "account-that-must-not-be-named" and Middle 8. Interested admins can email me. Skinwalker (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, this is my fourth account, although it's wrong to imply that I kept having COI complaints: as Hans Adler correctly noted above, there was only one complaint from ScienceApologist, and that was quickly dismissed by Jehochman, who was the only third party commenting. Any editor implying that I've been skittering around running from COI issues, repeatedly raised, is either misinformed or untruthful. As to my accounts, I'm happy to explain them (again) here, and invite admins to email me for the account names or anything else that's not clear. My first account was my real name. Because of the "John Doe is a pseudoscientist" concerns I mentioned above, I changed account names while keeping that account; however, it became clear that I wouldn't be able to be pseudonymous. So I did a modified sort of vanishing (having seen another user, Shoemaker's, do the same thing and noting that the community accepted it), and came back with two separate accounts -- not socks -- which I intended to use on separate accounts in order to avoid bad-faith wikistalking of my edits. One account is the present one, and the other was User:Bodhi Agonist. The latter account I retired after using it briefly and accidentally self-outing as being the same as this one. I wasn't aware of WP:CLEANSTART at that time, and was not trying to avoid any sort of WP:COI because, as Hans Adler indicated above, I had no reason to believe I had one: there was only one complaint by one editor that was quickly dismissed. So there you have it. Getting to the main reason behind my username changes, I think Hans Adler's points above about pseudonymity say it well, and I endorse his account of our email exchange as being correct. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Assuming good faith, I think that this discussion has made clear that Middle 8 has had some difficulty finding a clean start and seems to want to remain anonymous so that people such as myself don't use his words and identity against him in discussions. There is a fundamental tug-of-war between conflict-of-interest matters and Wikipedia. User:Jehochman, far from being a "third party" was acting as a police officer in this case hot off WP:RfArb#Cold fusion, where a similar situation (though not involving any "outing" claims) played out. Jehochman thinks, idiosyncratically, that COI only applies to companies and personal information, not to topics. This is not accepted by the consensus of the community, and while topic-based COIs are harder to parse, they have been the basis of at least three different COIs that I've successfully prosecuted. For any part I had to play in unduly harassing Middle 8, I apologize and I offer my help to aid him in his endeavor to keep personal information off the wiki including his website. I will not link to his personal website on-wiki again, and I think that Middle 8 should ask for his personal site to be blacklisted so that future incidents such as these don't happen again. As it is, there are literally dozens of users who know Middle 8's personal website is connected to him, most through no actions of my own, and not all of them would have had the privilege of seeing this extensive discussion and know not to link the two. If Middle 8 prefers, I'll even do the dirty work of asking that his website be added so that additional connections to his current account are not made by casual history diggers. I'm also going to make it clear at WP:OUTING that personal websites can be considered "outing" and attempt to outline in the COI and COI/N rules how one should go about presenting potentially sensitive evidence. My current feeling is that one should present their case as follows: There is potentially personal information that can serve as evidence related to this case. If you would like to review this evidence, please e-mail the filing user and request it. I intend to add this quote to the top of my COI. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks, SA. I too apologize for any undue escalation, and would be very happy to go the good-faith route you describe. Also, I won't be on wiki for a few days but can be reached via email if anyone needs to ask me a question. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC) I'm reluctant to comment because I don't want to stir a pot which has already settled, but I do agree with Hans Adler completely, and I just wanted to say that particularly because several people expressed the opinion that Middle 8 is the problem. Middle 8 is polite, reasonable, well-educated, and was originally forthright enough to edit under his name. His greatest fault is that his posts are not as concise as they could be. Is there any evidence of him adding unreliable sources to promote acupuncture? The current content dispute is over whether acupuncture can be added to the pseudoscience category, despite current reviews which find it to be efficacious for certain conditions. As far as WP:COI and outing, the guideline says: Dealing with suspected conflicted editors: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban. Wikipedia places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this... Clearly, the guideline says the right thing. I think the best practice is to pretend there's no conflict of interest. So rather than jumping to the personal attack of WP:COI/N, try WP:NPOV/N or WP:RS/N. Conflict of interests and ad hominen attacks are a dirty way to engage in a content dispute. It's also helpful that Middle 8's COI is relatively narrow; we have an editor who suspiciously deletes scholarly material from Western academics if it is critical to China (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/PCPP), which spans hundreds or even thousands of articles, yet he got a pass on the RfC/U. II | (t - c) 06:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Again, II, WP:COI must exist for a reason. Taking your rationalizations to their logical conclusions would have us mark COI and COI/N as "historical". ScienceApologist (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC) @SA: To clarify, it's merely about one policy taking priority over another. The lead section of WP:COI says: "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest." So what II is pointing out is a simple matter of priority, as with WP:BLP's taking precedence over certain other policies. That said, I now doubt that SA meant to harass or "out" me by posting the aforesaid personal information, and indeed he has made a good-faith offer which I've accepted to help keep the material off WP. Bottom line, as far as I am concerned, this case needs no admin action and I look forward to SA and I "turning a new page" in our editing. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC) On the question of whether COI is historical, I don't think so. COI is a legitimate thing to keep in mind, but I would parallel it to an aggravating circumstance. You can't build a case around it but its existence in a case could be relevant. SA can perhaps understand - if SA was a tendentious, uncivil pseudoscience promoter rather than a pseudoscience critic, he would likely have been treated more harshly. Since he's critical of pseudoscience, he is probably treated more gently - it's an mitigating circumstance. Basically, if you want to pursue something against Middle 8, build the case around something substantive and then cite the conflict of interest as evidence that there's no hope for the future. Incidentally, I tend to hold rational people to a higher standard of understanding policy, using high-quality sources, and writing neutrally since I expect more of smart people. Meaning that I have a habit of treating intelligence as an aggravating circumstance. II | (t - c) 03:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I need an admin

Telus has just changed their internet service and TV name to Optik. Telus TV already has an article and I want to move it to Optik (which is a redirect page) and ad info about Telus Internet there.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, but Telus TV appears to still be the general product, with Telus Satellite TV and Optik TV as sub-products ... if anything, perhaps create the article Optik TV and redirect it to the Telus TV article? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Optik ia now officially trademarked under Telus. It's their name. Optik is also the name for their internet now too.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you need WP:RM. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I put it there. Thk --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

RomanRoman Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston

Resolved

 – Admin MBK004 took care of this already — Gavia immer (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

While reverting an undiscussed page move, somehow the title got messed up.. ie: "RomanRoman" instead of "Roman Catholic". I tried to move it to the correct name, but it says its not possible. I left a message on the Admin's page, who was previously involved in an attempt to move without discussion[6]. Could someone help straighten out the naming error. I have also opened a name disucssion on the talk page. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 03:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by Theirrulez

Theirrulez has delted twice the comment on talk page indicating his inappropriate behaviour:1st time without any explanation and 2nd time under some excuse of "disorder". Please resolve this! 13:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.78.105 (talk)

I'm not sure that meets the definition of "vandalism" yet (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi mr. unsigned IP, hi Bwilkins, thanks for kindly letting me now on my talk page about this attempt against me. My revert is widely explained in the talk page, I also asked a counseil to the admin, GTBacchus, who put down the rules for that subpages, and after he answered me I'd never more edited there. Regards, - Theirrulez (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I would note the IP is still misunderstanding that subpage use and rules, reverting my old edits and another IP. Maybe this is "vandalism" too in his opinion? Cheers. - Theirrulez (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your vandalism is deleteing comment that indicate your forgery here which you try to erase!--78.3.5.234 (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove rollback

Resolved

Hi, I don't need rollback anymore - please remove, thanks! Aiken ♫ 17:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Err.. this does not make any sense that I can see. If you don't want to use it, don't use it. But why try to get people to do work turning buttons on and off for you? The day may come when you once again find it useful. Friday (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he didn't want to accidentally click the rollback links. –xeno^talk 17:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Xeno is right. Otherwise I'd keep it. Twinkle does the same thing, and more so I'm happy with that :) Aiken ♫ 18:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As you wish... *poof* and gone. Five seconds at UserRightsManagement is not much of a burden to impose, at least on me :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation - request for uninvolved admins

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement closed a few days ago. The main remedy was to allow the use of discretionary sanctions by uninvolved admins. The ArbCom specifically requested uninvolved admins to keep an eye on the topic:

• Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case.

At least a couple of ArbCom members have expressed concerns that the disputes will continue and that the matter will return to the ArbCom. SirFozzie wrote, in voting to close the case: "With the Cassandra-ish prediction we'll be doing this again soon. Let's not folks." Though there are 72 articles more or less connected to the topic, the ones that have been the venues for disputes the most are:

• Transcendental Meditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TM-Sidhi program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maharishi University of Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please consider adding these articles to your watchlists, and helping to prevent another ArbCom case.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

72 Articles? To be realistic, that's asking an awful lot from volunteer editors, Admin or not. Realistically, most of us have better things to do than monitor such a huge tranche of articles. And the dichotomy is that we wouldn't watch those articles unless we had an interest in doing so, and if we did have such an interest, we would probably have been already involved in the ArbCom case. Expecting uninvolved, and disinterested, editors to step into the lion's den is a triumph of hope over experience, as far as I can see, since I've seen many well-intentioned editors destroyed by their efforts in similar situations. This should go back to ArbCom with a recommendation to get some balls. Rodhullandemu 03:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I realize that it's a big topic, which is why I listed the five most important articles. Even watching a few and making an occasional comment could help.

That said, I agree with you. I asked an ArbCom member for advice on preventing future problems and the only advice I received was to place this request. I expressed my doubt (mixed with hope) that it would have any meaningful effect, since the violations aren't the obvious ones like edit warring, but was told to proceed. Frankly, the decision seems to have made the editing atmosphere worse. If this is the only way to prevent another trip to the ArbCom then it's worth a try.   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation - request for uninvolved admins

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement closed a few days ago. The main remedy was to allow the use of discretionary sanctions by uninvolved admins. The ArbCom specifically requested uninvolved admins to keep an eye on the topic:

• Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case.

At least a couple of ArbCom members have expressed concerns that the disputes will continue and that the matter will return to the ArbCom. SirFozzie wrote, in voting to close the case: "With the Cassandra-ish prediction we'll be doing this again soon. Let's not folks." Though there are 72 articles more or less connected to the topic, the ones that have been the venues for disputes the most are:

• Transcendental Meditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TM-Sidhi program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maharishi University of Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please consider adding these articles to your watchlists, and helping to prevent another ArbCom case.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

72 Articles? To be realistic, that's asking an awful lot from volunteer editors, Admin or not. Realistically, most of us have better things to do than monitor such a huge tranche of articles. And the dichotomy is that we wouldn't watch those articles unless we had an interest in doing so, and if we did have such an interest, we would probably have been already involved in the ArbCom case. Expecting uninvolved, and disinterested, editors to step into the lion's den is a triumph of hope over experience, as far as I can see, since I've seen many well-intentioned editors destroyed by their efforts in similar situations. This should go back to ArbCom with a recommendation to get some balls. Rodhullandemu 03:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I realize that it's a big topic, which is why I listed the five most important articles. Even watching a few and making an occasional comment could help.

That said, I agree with you. I asked an ArbCom member for advice on preventing future problems and the only advice I received was to place this request. I expressed my doubt (mixed with hope) that it would have any meaningful effect, since the violations aren't the obvious ones like edit warring, but was told to proceed. Frankly, the decision seems to have made the editing atmosphere worse. If this is the only way to prevent another trip to the ArbCom then it's worth a try.   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy between Arbitration principles and CSD:G4

I have found a discrepancy between the arbitration principles and speedy deletion. The discussion about it may be found here: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Discrepancy between Arbitration principles and CSD:G4 Stephen! ^Coming... 10:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable source alert: "Encyclopedia Mythica" (pantheon.org)

An advertising-supported site called Encyclopedia Mythica ([http://www.pantheon.org]) is being used as a reference throughout Wikipedia. The problem with this is that the site is by no means a reliable source, and has a tendency to make things up out of the blue without any basis whatsoever. The result is that while Encyclopedia Mythica fills its coffers with these links, we're spreading their disinformation all over the internet.

I've encountered Encyclopedia Mythica links in the past in my work with our Germanic mythology-related articles, and all references to it that once existed on these topics have been removed. We once even had articles on figures that Encyclopedia Mythica seems to have just outright made up, and much of the information included on the site quite frequently seems to be exactly that—just made up out of nowhere or half-assedly and/or frequently entirely inaccurately transcribed.

Anyway, after doing a search for articles on the site that link to pantheon.org ([7]), it seems that many mythology-related articles are infected by this terrible site.

Outside of just rooting them out one by one, is there some bot we can use to get rid of these references or something? :bloodofox: (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Surely someone would have a bot to weed this out. I'll have a look to see if I could get my bot to work with AWB to bin them, and get a BRfA through. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 11:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, that would be far more efficient than digging them out. Is there maybe some way to blacklist it in the future? That way we don't end up with total nonsense like [http://www.pantheon.org/articles/e/eisa.html this] getting furthered. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Special:LinkSearch is the better search tool. [8] You can request it be added to the blacklist at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Bot won't count. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 12:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• pantheon.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Tracking. MER-C 12:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm running through this list with AWB making sure that all links are correctly removed. FinalRapture - † ☪ 16:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for putting in the effort, everyone. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a handful as well (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Review requested...

Resolved

 – I'm going to be controversial by suggesting that my actions in this regard were entirely proper. TFOWR 14:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just blocked The Wiki Undead as an obvious sock. This being my first block, could I follow tradition by asking that smarter folk than what I am review my actions?

Thanks! TFOWR 22:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In the usual WP tradition you shall be disappointed; I shall take a look... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a quack to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The block looks good to me. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

About as ducky as it gets. Case closed and archived. Hint: there's this fancy "spi block" link in the checkuser links template... Tim Song (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks all, appreciated. Ah, new templates to learn! ;-) TFOWR 23:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Obvious sock is obvious indeed. Courcelles (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to unblock Peter Damian

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

It appears that there was considerable support for lifting or rethinking the ban and a lot of editors in good standing who are familiar with the history expressed strong opinions. The result, as is fairly obvious, is "no consensus" for an unblock at this time. However, many of those opposing seemed to be opposing on a basis of "not yet". To me, this says that, rather like an RfA that is closed per WP:NOTNOW, while the community is not ready to have Peter Damian back (like not being ready to have an editor as an administrator at present) just now, that does not mean he will never be accepted back. The primary concerns seem to have focused on the recentness of Damian's socking. Therefore, I would suggest to him (and perhaps Slim will be kind enough to relay this via email) that he should come back in at the very least 3 months, having disengaged from the English Wikipedia entirely- that means 3 months minimum of absolutely no socking. If he wants to make himself useful on another WMF project, that may well work in his favour. It would also look favourable on him if he declared any "sleeper" socks he has. Obviously, should there be any further incidences of socking, then the timer will at least be reset and the community's willingness to assume good faith with future unblock requests . HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

---

I'd like to ask whether we can agree to lift the community ban of the philosopher Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Without going into the whole background, Peter got into a dispute regarding FT2 during the December 2007 ArbCom election, in which FT2 was standing. There was some back-and-forth about whether Peter's objections to FT2 were fair, and Peter responded too aggressively in the view of many, which led to an indefblock. So far as I know, he had been a peaceful editor since 2003, with the bulk of his editing starting in 2005. Since the 2007 block, he has engaged in a fair bit of sockpuppetry—see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Peter Damian—and there have been blocks and unblocks, and various discussions about how to proceed. The latest discussion was in March here.

I'd like to see Peter return because he's a good writer and researcher, and there's a shortage of philosophers on WP. He continues to edit, but with difficulty; for example, his History of logic was nominated in March for featured-article status, but I believe he was blocked in the middle of the process.

I've asked him by e-mail whether he's willing to make concessions in exchange for an unblock. He agrees to the following: (1) no more sockpuppetry or alternate accounts; he says he was socking to show that admins were willing to revert good edits rather than see a blocked editor make them; (2) no more breaching experiments; (3) any complaints he might have in future about editors will go through the proper channels; and (4) he'll avoid interacting with FT2.

For my own part I undertake not to support Peter further if he reneges on the above. With that said, can we try to put this behind us? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter has asked me to post this on his behalf:

All of the edits made through alternate accounts were there to improve the quality of the project. The most recent of these was the edit to the History of logic article a day ago. This was motivated by my concern about a long-term user (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85) who had seriously vandalized many of the articles on logic and philosophy. The edit is already being upheld by User:Athenean. I would respectfully ask the community to recognise that this was made good faith, with no harm to the project intended. If allowed back, I will help those who are already involved in the cleanup of these vandalised articles.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support. Before I registered an account here, I often read the talk pages of some of the philosophy articles, and his participation always struck me as constructive, educated, and full of good sense. As the proposer said, there is a shortage of expertise in philosophy on Wikipedia and I would very much welcome his return in that corner of content. The conditions sound reasonable. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The guy can make a great contribution to Wikipedia (can Non-Admin vote). Sir Floyd (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Those are appropriate concessions, comparable with the Arbcom restrictions which were in place. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I acknowledge his editing abilities. However, it is how he goes against the community that is my reason for opposing this unban. Even when we extend WP:OFFER to others, the editor has to keep their nose clean for usually 6 months or more. Peter has been socking as recently as March yesterday - at least to our knowledge. He has strong support on Wikipedia, and I'm sorry to suggest that even if he made a minor violation in the near future, he would somehow escape correction by the community. The fact that he was so willing to violate so many restrictions, his concessions mean nothing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by FT2: - I have committed to not discuss Peter Damian, however this may be a case for a brief IAR. There are a couple of other conditions that might be needed, both reasonable: Past conduct included personal attacks, on and off-wiki harassment, and (when those became too difficult to get away with), the attacks switched to snarky or offensive comments, targeting articles he believed (incorrectly) to be important to me and were selected mainly for that reason [9], indirect attacks, and other attempts to get in "under the radar". Due to past wikilawyering, I would like to know if Peter will agree to avoid the following behaviors, which cover the past attempts: Not engage in indirect interaction either, such as by reference or implication; Not target (including AFD-nomming) articles and pages; Avoid negative canvassing of other editors (on wiki or email); Act in a civil collegial manner; Not engage in actions and comments that appear to relate to myself or be provocative, even if not an "interaction". Because this was a campaign of years' duration, not weeks or months, I would like to ask that if Peter Damian does resume clear attacks, snarkiness, or targetted activity to myself (direct or implied), his unblock is conditional on not doing so and will resume if he does. Given the safeguards in these conditions, it might work, though only time can tell. Anyone can change and some do. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support Peter has the capability and willingness to do outstanding work on Philosophy articles and we have few people able to do that. Several of us are prepared to work on the other interactions --Snowded ^TALK 10:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Peter Damian turns out high-quality articles in a field where we urgently need expertise. More than that—he is a keen WPian. I can vouch for the user's expertise and enthusiasm on the basis of my role as a reviewer at WP:FAC. I believe the agreement he has given to the community via SlimVirgin is measured and reasonable, and I'll put my head on the chopping block to vouch for his bona fides, and to express my belief that he has learned from this unfortunate saga. FT2's points above seem reasonable too, if mostly either expected of all of us or covered in the agreement PD has already endorsed. I do hope to see an end to this matter. The project will benefit significantly by his return. Tony (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I have to agree with Bwilkins on this one. I do not oppose an unblock of this editor per se but I believe that everyone should be treated equally and if he violated his restrictions this often and this recently, he should demonstrate that he can follow restrictions placed on him before we can move to remove them. Otherwise we would effectively reward him for violating these sanctions since we usually expect people to go at least 6 months without socking. Regards SoWhy 10:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Competent editors of this calibre are now becoming increasingly rare on Wikipedia as the atmosphere certain administrators generate towards such editors becomes increasingly dysfunctional. We need more administrators who nurture and champion able content editors. The current ill-considered and heartbreaking administrator wars against able content editors needs to stop. If Wikipedia is to have some trajectory moving into the future, we need to find a way of encouraging real content editors to contribute again to Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I was leaning towards coming here to !vote, in a non-adminy way, for letting Peter Damien return. But then I noticed a bit of an issue over at History of Logic, and that Fram had just (yesterday) blocked Here for a bit as a new sock of Peter Damien's. Which makes for a quandary - on the one hand, clearly he wants to edit, and clearly he is more than capable of doing so and of producing high quality content, all of which are good things. On the other hand, this request today comes just after what looks like another sockpuppet. While I don't want to oppose outright, as I honestly believe that Peter operating openly within Wikipedia could be a net benefit, I remain concerned that he seems to be unwilling to abide by his ban, which doesn't invite confidence that he will abide by conditions for his return. Perhaps it is worth the risk, but disappointingly there's no evidence that it isn't a risk. - Bilby (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  Note Fram new that sock was PD because the sock said it was PD. It was sockpuppetry, and it was a mistake and wrong to do, but the sock was not used to mislead. Just an ameliorating factor. Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  So he did. With so few edits I should have followed them up to see that. It makes me feel better, but still generally concerned. - Bilby (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  Doesn't that just reset the stopwatch for another 6 months? How bloody frustrating. It's like he's saying to himself "eventually they'll see that my ban is useless, and they'll just unban me" ... and yes, that's what this proposal is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  Could we be careful in using the word "sock". It appears to me that this was an "alternate account", since its owner was announced. A sock is an alternate account that is used for deceptive purposes. Please see WP:SOCK. Tony (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  No, a sock is a "second account used in violation of this policy", i.e., WP:SOCK, and using a second account to "circumvent sanctions" is a violation of WP:SOCK. Therefore, this account is a sock. Tim Song (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Compromise proposal Would he also accept being limited to only articles and talk pages approved by either SlimVirgin, myself or (insert anyone else willing to be on PD patrol here)? Hipocrite (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Bwilkins and SoWhy. He may be a good contributor, and may really want to edit, but that he is still apparently actively flaunting his ability to sock and continues doing so knowing he is banned does not speak towards his actually wanting to be a good member of the Wikipedia community. As SoWhy notes, if he is unbanned at this point, he basically is reworded for his inappropriate actions and given the green light to continue ignoring those policies and guidelines he dislikes. As for his claim that he socks to "show that admins were willing to revert good edits rather than see a blocked editor make them", it seems dubious at best as the community generally agrees that banned means banned and that a banned editors edits WILL be reverted and/or deleted regardless of value because otherwise the ban is completely meaningless. If PD actually wants to return and be a productive editors, then follow the rules: no socking or editing for six months period to show that he actually will "play nice" with the community. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Where are you getting "a banned editors edits WILL be reverted and/or deleted regardless of value" from? That is not, and has never been, any Wikipedia policy or practice. May be reverted is not the same as will be reverted. – iridescent 14:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Banning policy: "A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a site ban is that even if the user were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good."[10] "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user, the community has decided that the broader problems due to their participation outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason."[11], further {{db-g5}} exists for a reason. In practice, as with almost anything else, it is not applied equally of course. Those violating bans who have friends and fans are often allowed, as this editor has been, to just continue editing in blatant violation of the ban because its "good", while those with few fans are properly reverted wholescale.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Anma, I am not a friend or a fan of the user in question: I simply judge the evidence impartially. And you may not know how much I disapprove of sockpuppetry, having lobbied last year at WT:SOCK (unsuccessfully) to ban even alt accounts except under specific circumstances. I ponder the likelihood that the user will, indeed, turn over a new leaf when given the chance. Wikis are unforgiving; but I do believe they should be a little flexible. Would the prospect of a restricted trial not even sway you? SlimVirgin has stuck her neck out, and so have quite a few people here. We do this for the benefit of the project, not as part of some back-scratching exercise. I suspect someone might even agree to act as a mentor for a trial period. Tony (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
        • If he'd only had one or two socks, and wasn't still act it so recently, then a trial might be something to contemplate. However, he doesn't seem to care that any one has "stuck their necks out" for him, so to speak, in that he continues to flaunt the rules and blatantly admits he does it not just because he "wants to edit" but in a WP:POINTed exercise to wave away the entire banning policy. Yes, he certainly is a better editor than, say our infamous BambiFan, but in the end, is he really any "better" just because he does "good" edits versus vandalism? He knew he was banned, and looking at the names of some of his socks, he seems to have even found it amusing. Several even seem to be "looks, its me again" type taunts. He just hasn't shown, IMHO, any real desire to be unbanned with such actions.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no evidence that this editor is willing to follow any rules. The quality of his contributions should not come into play if he purposely disrupts the encyclopedia and skirts its policies. J04n(talk page) 13:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The amount of socking and the reason for socking is worrisome to say the least. Par our policy a banned user may not edit, and any of their edits may (but are not required to) be reverted without a reason. This policy is in place to discourage banned users from creating sock puppets to evade their ban, as their edits may end up being completely futile. Creating sockpuppets just to demonstrate this rule in action is, in my eyes, disruption to prove a point.

Even so the oldest sockpuppet in hus category is three months old, which may have convinced me to allow for another chance as long as some safety valves would be applied. However, User:Here for a bit rings a sockpuppet alarm for me. The user name is similar to the other sock puppets username's, the user is involved in a discussion a new account wouldn't know of, and the edits strongly suggest that it is the same user as we are discussing here. Promising "no more socks" a day after one is caught does not convince me in the least. In this case i would say WP:OFFER - No more sockpuppets or edits for the next 6 months. If Damian manages this i would support unblocking. But as of current i will oppose. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Quality contributions do not make up for disrupting the site and ignoring it's policies. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 14:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose He needs to go a year without sockpuppeting, then come back. We cannot go 'Oh he is avoiding the ban, so we should lift it', it would make more of a farce of our policies than already exists. Bringing up his quality contributions as a mitigating factor acctually convinces me more to oppose, we cannot be seen to give someone a 'pass' for civility/PA/sockpuppeting/whatever because they made some good edits. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• I Support the proposal to unblock, and would like to put it on record that I think it's a bit of a pity that FT2 has felt called on to list his Peter Damian grievances above, despite having undertaken not to discuss PD, who has no way of responding and who will, I hope, not be provoked into listing his grievances on any forum. (You hear me, Peter? Please be the bigger man here.) Bishonen | talk 14:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC).
• Strong oppose. We don't unblock sockpuppeteers who just socked one day ago. Period. Tim Song (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support, but not yet -- if he's willing to demonstrate his good faith by staying away until January 2011, then I'd welcome him back without any restrictions at all (other than those we all live by here.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  Postscript: PD says, All of the edits made through alternate accounts were there to improve the quality of the project. What PD still doesn't understand is that "the project" is more than just the encyclopedia; it is also the community of people creating the encyclopedia. Good editors who are harmful to the community do not constitute a net benefit, in my opinion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• If he was socking again yesterday, I'd be curious to know exactly when the email exchange which led to this request took place... Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• It started a few weeks ago, Chris, and continued last night. I don't know anything about the vandalism that was concerning him, but he blogged about it here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be getting a bit of a puritan streak here, with more concern about form than substance. Having lived the grief of sock farms on Irish issues and the Heidegger article I almost wish we had more socks like PD. All the ones he has created have made contributions to content, and he had not been deceptive about who he is in the process. If there is a need for a proof of good faith OK, but a lot less than six months with some restrictions makes a lot more sense. --Snowded ^TALK 15:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If the Here for a bit (talk · contribs) account is actually PD, and not someone simply pretending to be him, then that’s a significant problem. Creating a new sock just yesterday, after he had contacted SlimVirgin “a few weeks ago” to request an unban proposal, is not at all acceptable. If only he had waited to see the outcome of this proposal, I would have some confidence in his willingness to abide by community policies and consensus. — Satori Son 16:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support A three-year-long block is an eternity in Wikipedia-years. His socking, in and of itself, isn’t a problem. He wasn’t using socks to game RfCs and votes; he was trying to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. We are talking about someone who has explicitly stated that he uses socks to precisely in order to set up conundrums where we either have ignore our own policies against socking or block his "constructively contributing" sockpuppets. He is actually a better contributor as a sockpuppet than he is under his own name, because when he is socking he follows his "breaching experiment" protocols, which require his socks to be positive contributors by Wikipedia norms. Under his own name, he is repeatedly disruptive, because his real persona has no respect for other editors or the policies that they have developed. The odds that unbanning him would lead to positive long-term results are very low. And that's without even going into his off-site discussions about how to "destroy" Wikipedia. --RL0919 (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Not that I doubt RL0919’s word, but can I ask if others have made similar observations? I am not familiar with PD or his history, but if only some of the above is true, I would have serious reservations about lifting the site ban. — Satori Son 17:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question How long has it been since Peter Damian violated any restriction other than socking, e.g. making personal attacks? In the absence of any other serious misconduct, I am inclined towards forgiving the use of sockpuppets to improve Wikipedia. IAR is tricky that way... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support Good editors are needed, especially ones who want to write here. Socking has prodiuced good quality edits - a refusal to allow a final chance shows a vengeful desire to punish rather than a desire to try to improve Wiki. Minkythecat (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support because 1) he is here for the right reason, to help us build an encyclopedia, and build it he does, exceptionally well; and 2) because his form of "disruption" does not create a toxic work environment for other editors -- if anything, it's just a workaround so he can continue to contribute positively. IAR, as SheffieldSteel above observes. Antandrus (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• support and FT2 needs to leave him alone, and vice-versa. Verbal chat 17:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the socking is evidence that Damian can't let it lie and serve a sentence; that fixation isn't helpful. We don't give passes for good contributions; there's a tacit agreement that he has continually broken. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support, but not yet, per Jpgordon. The opposes and the strong opposes are based on very real concerns: I'd like to see some effort to address those concerns, as I'm mindful of the disruption likely to ensure if we're hasty here. TFOWR 17:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now Socking as of yesterday, no, he needs to show that he understands and socking is not a good thing to do when someone is blocked or banned. If he shows he will follow the rules, like no socking for 3 months to 6 months, then maybe he deserves reconsideration. But now is not the time. We can't allow socking or what sense does it make to block someone? --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Looks like the same situation as the last time. If he can show that he can abide by the rules (that is: no socking) for no less than 3 months, perhaps then he can be trusted enough to unblock. Jarkeld (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose until it can be shown that he has gone 6 months without socking. If he can do that, then I would be more inclined to support this, but not at the moment. Socking is either bad, or it is not. If we allowed PD to be unblocked despite knowing that he has been socking, then we need to do the same to other editors who have been blocked (despite them having some constructive edits) and who have socked during the block - and I'm sure that I speak for many people when I say that this would not be acceptable. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• As a postscript - having re-read comments above, and read comments below - if the consensus was that 3 months without socking would be adequate, I'd have no serious objection to that - I said 6 months as that's the standard offer time. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - the original ban was a bit hurried for my liking, occuring with a limited number of participants and while I was in bed. But Peter needs to realise the moment he so much as mentions FT2 he's back on the outside.--Joopercoopers (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose' - Socking during a ban is just the tip of the iceberg. The bulk of the iceberg is Damian's bad faith towards the community. --Karbinski (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support, but with a question If the only socking Peter did was to add quality content to articles, then I support, given the conditions listed at the top of the thread. If this is the only thing he did, I don't really care if he did it yesterday, or if he did because he thinks it exposes how silly our banning policy is. If someone can point me to an occasion where he socked in order to attack another editor, I'm more than willing to change my mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose any unblock of a user who is still sockpuppetting. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The socking clearly shows that the ban had no effect on his bad faith towards the majority of editors on the project. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now Yes, we need more quality editors. No, we don't need more editors who think their contributions justify their actions. If he can knock off the sock-puppetting for 3-6 months, we can revisit the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support for a valuable contributor, provided Peter drops any vengeful agenda he may have against various administrators including those attacks he made across the board at RfA last time around...Modernist (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per CrohnieGal and PhantomSteve above. We have rules for a reason. IAR is nice and all, but when we apply it too liberally because someone is a "valuable contributor" we erode the rules until eventually they're pointless. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose He may be a valuable contributor, but he needs to follow the rules and I'm not seeing sufficient evidence that he's willing to do so. Reach Out to the Truth 20:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now until he stops using sockpuppets in violation of his ban and some reasonable amount of time has elapsed in which he has demonstrated a respect for the ban by not socking (say, 3 months). After that, conditionally support pending conditions similar to those outlined by FT2 above. I see no problem, though, with going ahead and commuting indefinite to some finite period of time. --B (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm ignorant of all the history, but, as per Tim Song, we don't unban users who have socked as early as one day ago. Come back after a year or two without socking.  Sandstein  21:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional support Per WP:Standard offer, no socking for 6 months. If PD cannot make and keep to that commitment, then discussing any other terms for return is pointless. If he can prove that he wants to be a valued contributor rather than just a great editor who does not care to be restricted by adherence to policy and practice, then I would like him to avoid FT2 both directly and indirectly broadly construed also. If he is agreeable to this, then I would welcome him back in 2011. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support No matter what, he will continue to try to evade us but his loss is something which really hurt the project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The project badly needs philosophy editors. Everyone will be watching him. Anthony (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support, condition support for WP:Standard offer I truly believe Peter wants to improve this project and his efforts will be very welcome. As long as he completes his parole then I feel he can be welcomed back. Basket of Puppies 22:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The socking seems to have been meant as helpful and if needed, a reblock will be easy. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose: an unreconstructed serial puppeteer who continues to flout the rules even as this is written, thereby deserving "assume bad faith". Past vile disruption was also reprehensible and removal of the indef block is therefore ill-advised.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Standard offer- If the user can show his commitment to following site policies by avoiding any socking for six months, and if he also commits to avoiding the areas and editors where he has had previous disputes, then it is reasonable to give him another try.   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose:There is no doubt that Damian is a very educated person, whose mainspace edits would be an asset to the project. However, some things are unacceptable at any price and cannot be endured. Threats he made to another editor show a flaw that is more than concerning - it was not the general stupid, drunken and thuggish: "My mates are coming round to your house to give you a good bashing/torch you house!" but a threat that was deeply unpleasant, disconcerting and personal. I forget if was on-site or emailed (whatever I expect it is rightly oversighted by now). I found that threat very sinister (and it was not made to me) and repulsive. Damian is not the sort of person to be accepted here.  Giacomo  22:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: I never buy the argument that x is such a good editor that their bad behaviour doesn't matter: no-one is that good, and no-one is indispensable. "Helpful socking"? don't think so. HeartofaDog (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This website is awash in socks. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, so what? if a banned user runs socks, it's scarcely a good reason to unban them. HeartofaDog (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read any comments in this thread which said the socking by PD (or anyone else) was a good reason to unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

He's a banned user who's used socks extensively to evade his ban, which as far as I'm concerned is enough to indicate that the ban should stay in place.HeartofaDog (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's also the practice and policy. Some editors have noted that some WP:IAR for PD might be fitting. My own thinking is that a reblock would be easy and swift. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is one I respect, but I just don't agree here.HeartofaDog (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per Will Beback, if he accepts WP:Standard offer; Wikipedia needs good contributors; all in all, it only takes a few minutes to block again, should he start editing disruptively. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Undecided, can be swayed, either way - What this comes down to is a basic benefit/cost ratio. On the benefit side is that he wants to edit here, he's been variously a good editor, he's made featured quality articles, etc. On the cost side is that he used a sock to promote an article to featured quality. He didn't just get blocked in the middle of an FAC, he had a sock to promote the FAC. He had a sock account do it. I had an article up for WP:GA when I was blocked and fortunately I had an ally here who was willing to step forward and take up that work, on his own, not as a proxy. I didn't try to continue to promote it surreptiously. Then there is the block history since, which makes it look as if he actually has had previous unblock chances. Please correct me if that is wrong, but it at least looks like he kept slipping his leash even when he wasn't blocked. That's a lot of blocks for the main account, during a period when he was supposedly blocked. I'd like to see the user names prior to the ones listed through late 2008. There is WP:AGF and then there's the other side. Then there is the fact that he socked yesterday. At present the scales are tipped toward oppose. I'd like to look further back in his contributions and at whatever preceeded this.

This is sort of bizarre given that over at WP:AN/I there is a discussion of an entirely different calibre, that of whether to extend a community ban from 1 year to indefinite based on prolific socking. Then again, that editor was particularly disruptive before the ban. But I'm very curious as to what name he was using prior to the dates of the contribution history of December 4, 2008. Was it Peter Damien II? Then again some of the socks were registered within weeks of the 2008 ban. I'd also be more comfortable with a series of conditions that were sanctioned when another editor's ban was lifted, including full disclosure of all previous accounts, keep and maintain a list of such accounts, accepting a mentor for a specified period of time with no intermittent blocks, and an agreement regarding a firm stance on future blocks if warranted, including time frames and conditions. If all this is part of the conditions, I'd be more prone to support this lift. Without it, I don't think I trust the lifting. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - repeated, prolific, and recent sockpuppetry, combined with misbehaviour over a really extended period with multiple recurrences of his ridiculous experimentation and drama-mongering. Regardless of any good contributions to certain areas, he's just not worth the trouble at this point - maybe after a good period of time without any socking. ~ mazca ^talk 00:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. It's about time this hounding of allegedly difficult editors stopped. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, until and unless the conditions of WP:OFFER are met, including 6 months without sockpuppeting. Nsk92 (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, sockpuppeting is dishonest. The editor-in-question, has lost my trust. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional Support based on either a mentorship or a review in three months of the contributions made by the "reformed" Peter. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I cannot support the unblock of someone who has engaged in repeated and extended use of sockpuppets. --Deskana (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• 'Oppose. This editor relentlessly targeted another - personally. Wikipedia should no longer host this kind of behaviour whether they write good articles or not, or whether you like the "target" or not. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• 'Support - If agrees to and stays within the four conditions outlined above. Ceoil (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• 'Support - I think Damians socking has been productive editing and block evasion only, personally I think he has paid the price for what happened and we should allow him a fresh start. Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• 'Never' Peter has a history of bashing people for no particular reason over at WR. Just take a look at this I know WR is not Wikipedia but I will never support the lifting of a ban on someone who makes comments like this just to piss people off. It's called Don't be a dick and I belive that he fails to grasp that.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 15:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to point out that Peter was pretty much the only person in that WR thread you're citing who didn't say anything rude about you. I'm not sure why you're singling him out as the bad guy there. – iridescent 17:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
    • He began to the series of events. I've fogiven the others (yourself included) but I will not, nor will I ever, likely forgive him. He is a troll. Plain and simple.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 18:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
      • White Shadows was only a minor victim but not the only one. Having been targeted myself - though not by Peter Damian - I understand how White Shadows feels when those not so targeted either dismiss it out of hand or assume the fault lies in the victim, as if every spat were "always 6 of one, half a dozen of the other". Is there anything anywhere showing Peter Damian recognises his behaviour for what it was? Without this, we will simply get more of the same. This is more important than sock-puppeting in my view. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Not that I particularly care, but if FT2 is willing to unblock, sure. Also, given the amount of support above, I think it's pretty obvious that the conditions for a community ban are no longer met (no user willing to unblock, unless things have chanced while I've been less active), and he's merely indef blocked now; which means issues of sockpuppetry are drastically less important. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, community bans don't have to be periodically renewed by confirming !votes, and since, just counting noses, things are about equal, I see no particular support here for overturning the status quo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I'm no fan of the Wikipedia Review crowd, but Peter Damian wants to and can help improve Wikipedia. If he steps out of line, just block him again. Fences&Windows 17:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• Here's what's going to happen if you guys unblock:
  • He'll start contributing fine for a little while.
  • A few weeks/months down the road he'll revert to his old ways, and will eventually do something to get himself banned again.
  • A ban discussion will commence, going in a similar path to this, and eventually he will be banned again.
  • Lastly, all of you guys will act so shocked that this could have possibly happened.

  I've seen this story so many times. Hopefully he can prove me wrong, but everytime we unban someone like this they get themselves re-banned. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Ever heard of the admin, User:Rootology? I agree but there are exeptions....--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 18:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, he might indeed backslide but any reblock would be way swift, not drawn out in an ANI thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Peter Damian is a jerk. The project is better off without him. Jtrainor (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, although I agree with SlimVirgin that we need more good writers, researchers and philosophers, I have to oppose unbanning this user or any user who flouts Wikipedia rules in such a manner; still socking as of yesterday? No way. "Good editing" is never an excuse for bad behavior, bad behavior drives off other good contributors and creates a hostile environment unwanted in a community project like Wikipedia. We definitely don't want to set a precedent here, that banned users can freely sock with good editing and then be forgiven by the community. There are other projects to edit that can be used to show improved editor behavior, showcasing editing skills and dedication to following the rules. I agree with jpgordon's comment "..the edits made through alternate accounts were there to improve the quality of the project. What PD still doesn't understand is that "the project" is more than just the encyclopedia; it is also the community of people creating the encyclopedia. Good editors who are harmful to the community do not constitute a net benefit.." Dreadstar ☥ 20:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Peter e-mailed me last night to say that he's withdrawing from the request to be unblocked at this time. There's significant support for rethinking the ban, but clearly no consensus to undo it. I'm going to ask on AN/I that an ininvolved admin close this discussion with a summary of the main views, so that Peter has a pointer for the future in terms of what he needs to do before asking again. Thank you to everyone who commented, and especially to those of you who made suggestions for a way forward. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Close of File:NorwaySpiral.jpg DRV

I am bringing this to AN for review of the DRV close of File:NorwaySpiral.jpg. I don't think the close was made within the DRV process, and it seems like the closing administrator seemed to have engaged in some sort of a "supervote" while closing. As I mentioned on the closing admin's talk page, there are no free versions of this image out there, and so it could be used in the 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly article as fair use, provided a valid fair-use rationale is used per the NFCC. I would recommend that the decision be overturned and undeleted or at the last relisted at files for deletion. –MuZemike 07:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• According to Non Free Content press agency photos are never acceptable under the NFCC unless they are subject to sourced commentary about the actual image. This image is from PA and this is the argument which I felt trumped the suggestion that another discussion was worthwhile. This is not a supervote, its assessing the consensus of the discussion according to policy - i.e. the strongest policy based argument wins. The fact that discussion immediately ended after this point was raised by B and that the discussion languished for 4 days after that does support the contention that this was the killer argument. Quite why we are here when I already indicated I wasn't that bothered and that MuZemike was welcome to reclose the discussion is beyond me but there you go. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "the strongest policy based argument wins" is not "consensus" by any definition, but Spartaz is right in that a trump argument was supported by almost 5 days of WP:Silence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• You seem to discount my voice against that "trump argument". I didn't want to engage in polemics on the DRV page since that is supposed to discuss whether the closing was appropriate. That NFCC argument would have been perfectly appropriate for a deletion discussion once the image had been relisted. __meco (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• WP:Silence only applies if no one objects. Do you object? It could be argued that B's argument came so late that no one else read it. If the DRV close was wrong, I think it should be appealed at WP:DRV, not here. Is there no chance that the image owner could be persuaded to release a lower resolution version? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I did object as the discussion showed. And again, we are entering FFD territory. Which is what also happened at the DRV. Leave the arguments for the discussion when the file is relisted. __meco (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Clause 6 against press agency photographs is really weird. Instead of accessing whether the image is usable, based on the merits of the image, we look at who took it. So if it's a freelance photographer who has caught the image, then low resolution, low quality fair use is allowed. If Associated Press took the images, then we can't? So non-free images are only allowed if the potential financial losses (which are mitigated by the low quality reproduction) are directed towards independent photographers? That's not particularly fair. - hahnchen 15:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are welcome to start a discussion about that on relevant the talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Press agencies vigorously protect their copyright, including through the courts. That's why we don't use their photos. Fences&Windows 17:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

So Fair Use only applies when the copyright owner doesn't object? What hypocrisy! Anyway. This discussion needs to be reigned in. If we can recommend that the file is undeleted and relisted we can have a proper discussion on this topic. That's hardly going to happen here (although I could be wrong). __meco (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was explaining why, not defending the policy as such. User:Chris O is currently proposing this as a speedy deletion criterion: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Additional category F12: news agency photographs. Discussion should probably continue there and at WT:NFC. The use of press agency images is often not necessary (i.e. they not irreplaceable, as this one is in theory not irreplaceable) and the use will often impinge on the commercial rights of the press agency - which breaches fair use. Fences&Windows 22:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's continue this discussion over there. Seems like a good enough place. –MuZemike 20:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Problems during editing page

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

The page as it was when I first looked it up today was missing some names on the Soviet side. So I clicked edit, and paying careful attention to the other entries, I added entries for Andrei A. Zdanov, who was one of the political leaders in Leningrad. I also added in Col. (later Lt. Gen) B.V. Bychevsky. When I previewed it looked great. However, I came back to make sure and it wasn't. I've tried removing Bychevsky (who was in charge of all Leningrad Engineers and had constructed most of the fortifications up to 100 miles out. It still looks all messed up. I have no idea what I did wrong, unless that frame only allows 3 commanders. If so, I recommend removing Govorov and putting Zhdanov in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.207.225.29 (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It can be surprisingly easy to break a template. :) I've reverted back to a clean version so you can start again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the template for the soviet flag was missing a set of curly brackets ({}), in order for the template to display you have to include two sets ({{}}) either side of the template name (in this case the flag template). You should also ensure that you include a <br> marker after each name (and before the next flag template) as this will start a new line. Thus the code you want to add would be something like:

<br>{{Flagicon|Soviet Union|1923}} [[Andrei Zhdanov]] <br>{{Flagicon|Soviet Union|1923}} [[B. V. Bychevsky]]

after the last name currently listed (Govorov). Note also that the ranks and titles of commanders is not normally listed in the infobox. However, before editing such a famous battle it is usually worth posting to the talk page to make sure there is consensus for such a change as it is likely that there has been previous discussion about who to list in the commanders section. Hope that helped, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments on redirect

I'm in the process of revamping WP:LTA with a few other users, and I cam across Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Komodo lover's entry. This entry has a shortcut of WP:KOMODO (is used to be WP:KL, but was changed June 14, 2010). I don't believe it is necessary or proper to have shortcuts to a vandal's LTA entry, since it really gives them attention and doesn't help linking anyway. Should this be deleted? Netalarm^talk 08:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I realize this is an archive, but I'm posting here only to clarify that the redirect has been redirected. This redirect was only used on this discussion, nowhere else. It is being redirected to WP:WikiKomodo. BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing page name

Resolved

 – Page moved by User:Atlan --Taelus (Talk) 11:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin please change the name of Dexter Yeung into Dexter Young? The latter is the proper spelling of his surname. Thanks. Germanomaniac (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

See Help:Moving a page. MER-C 08:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup Group C

Please continue this discussion on the talk page

Hello all. Yesterday England tied the United States at the FIFA World Cup, and today Slovenia beat Algeria For the group templates, there has been a green line dividing the teams advancing to the next round. The problem is, as of right now... Slovenia would advance Algeria would not advance It is unclear with the US and England. So, I was bold and put the green lines under the first team (Slovenia) and above the last team (Algeria), but it's been reverted and unreverted a few times due to misunderstandings. It's not quite a conflict, but let me show you the links. I hope we can be accurate here without creating future edit wars between the US and English soccer/football fans who want their team "above the green line". Edit User Explanation [12],[13] Doc Quintana (talk · contribs) Initial Changes with the green lines [14] Boddefan2009 (talk · contribs) Change back, no edit summary [15] Doc Quintana (talk · contribs) Revert on my part since there was no edit summary, I assumed it was a misunderstading on Bodde's part [16] Kante4 (talk · contribs) Now with a second revert of my initial edit, it seems clear to me that my change was unclear. However, since Kante also had no edit summary, I think it would be best to ask what they were thinking before I reverted again. [17],[18] Doc Quintana (talk · contribs) I ask both Boddefan and Kante what their reasoning was for the edit since they didn't put in edit summaries [19] Kante4 (talk · contribs) Kante reverts himself. He also changes Group D to reflect the same timely accuracy (Group D may change shortly, but for now it's accurate) [20] Doc Quintana (talk · contribs) I put in a notice about the confusion on the template talk page, and then put a note in the template [21] Chandler (talk · contribs) A new user ignores the note and reverts to the original, I asked him [22] with the same question since there was no edit summary Since this is continuing, I leave it up to you. Having either England or the US above the "green line" is inaccurate and could cause edit warring between those English and US fans as indicated earlier. Maybe removing the green line altogether until the group stage is over might be best, but that would be unfortunate since it's a helpful indicator of where all the teams stand. I brought this here since this is a continuing issue and further reverts on my part would be inappropriate and I didn't think this was serious enough for WP:AN/I. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Well, this is THE one and only reliable source for that, and they show US as in 2nd in the pool. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Having two lines indicates that the third placed team will qualify. The green line in not there to show that the second team will qualify, it's there to show that TWO teams go through the group... If you change group D why aren't Groups D-H changed? Everyone's on the same points there, will you have 4 green lines or 0? Again, having two green lines down't make any sense since there are not two different tiers of advancing similar to how it was in 1994. chandler 19:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC) The lines indicate who will and who won't qualify. If there's another way to show that difference (maybe shading in the boxes rather than having a green line), i'd be fine with that. If you think there'd be confusion, i'd suggest getting rid of the green line completely. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Is this serious? Do we really need to bring this discussion here? I shall explain the reason for the green lines: the green lines denote that the top two places in the group qualify for the next round, not that any teams have guaranteed qualification. When qualification is assured, the background to team's row in the table is changed to a pale green; when a team is no longer able to qualify, the row is coloured a pale red. This is not a difficult concept. – PeeJay 21:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC) PeeJay, I'm sorry you didn't read the intial part of this section. The fact is that the green line concept is currently inaccurate in Group C, and people use Wikipedia for timely information. Currently neither England nor the US has an edge of the other for the second slot, but showing one over the green line and one under it gives the impression that one would advance and one would not. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC) I did read the entire conversation, and I'm afraid it is you who doesn't understand the concept being employed here. For that, I apologise. – PeeJay 22:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC) I can't accept your apology because I completely understand here. Both the US and England are tied for second place. Putting a green line between them is currently inappropriate. If you and others can't accept this, I may have to open a Request for Comment on this for future instances. I'd rather not to because this is a fairly miniscule problem that shouldn't have to go that far. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Doc Quintana, you are massively overcomplicating this issue. As you have noted, this is a minuscule matter that should not take any more than a moment to understand. The line does not suggest anything other than that the top two places qualify for the Round of 16. FIFA has currently placed the USA ahead of England, but there is no suggestion whatsoever that the USA has qualified as the group stage is not over yet! Next you'll be telling us that it is inappropriate to place the USA above England and that the two should be side-by-side! – PeeJay 23:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC) They shouldn't, WP:NOTNEWS. If they want timely accurate standings they can go to the FIFA page, if they want an encyclopedic entry about the event they can come here.--Crossmr (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC) WP:NOTNEWS doesn't say that things should be incorrect as the green line between the US and England is. On a side note, I'd like to apologize for being incivil here. Despite what anyone else does, in my opinion it is incivil to address the other person rather than the concept being discussed. I briefly crossed that line, and I apologize for that. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Doc Quintana, as I understand it, the purpose of the green line is not to show at any one time who may or may not advance but to indicate that at the end of this stage of the tournament, it is the top two places in the group that advance (or rather the teams occupying them). But in any case, this is not an issue for adminstrators and I suggest that you go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, find out what the consensus is and follow it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Malcolmx15, I will head there to try and find a consensus similiar to the one earlier reached prior to the rversions. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As a note incase involved parties check back here, after this discussion was closed advising parties to gain consensus on the talk page, the edit warring continued. As a result the page has been fully protected till the 17th of June. Regards, --Taelus (Talk) 11:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

AN3

FYI to anyone experiencing insomnia (or, for that matter, anyone experiencing broad daylight), there are three open requests at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring that are rather complicated and could use some extra eyeballs. --B (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? --B (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Tarikkhaneh (talk · contribs)

Hi , please check this user . He added some ad links to Tushmanlu and i delete them (Wikipedia is not a collection of links)... but he really want to add that links and reverted my edit , in wiki-en and wiki-fa . also his account in wiki-fa has been blocked . Good Luck --Bersam (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a spam-only account. --B (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPRFC3 is now open

When the giant BLP RFC was closed, it included a mandatory review after three months. That review is now being conducted at WP:BLPRFC3. If you have comments about how the measures adopted are working, or how we could do better to protect out Biographies of Living People, your input would be appreciated. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlogs in the counter-vandalism sections

Would a few admins please sort the backlogs at UAA, AIV, and RPP? I'd do it myself but I don't have the mop. N419BH 17:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

RevDel Review

This is my first time using RevDel, so I'm bringing it here for review to make sure I did everything correctly. My logs are here. Thanks. TNXMan 18:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

All looks fairly straight forward to me. As far as I can tell all of the insulting material was removed, though I have not yet used revdel properly myself so someone else may want to check it over - Dumelow (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There are supposed to be potential log issues currently with doing RevDel on two or more entries at once. The page that loads warns you not to "delete more than one revision at a time." I honestly don't know much about it besides that, or how it works/doesn't work, so I can't really comment whether or not this matters here (I doubt it, in the large scheme). In reality, though, I see multiple revisions deleted at once many times a day so you're at least in good company. ;) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to comment that I would not have removed User:THAT MOD WAS A FUCKING TWAT from both its contributions and the UAA page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason why, or is it that you don't feel it's blatant enough to warrant removal? TNXMan 20:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes we see a lot worse and in my opinion the accountability and transparency outweighs any offence. In particular it wasn't aimed at any one person (though we can probably now guess who it was aimed at), rather the collective admin and we are big enough and accountable enough to deal with it. Furthermore there are existing logs of the deletion, the revdeletion, the block, the account creation, and the user, (as well as this post) all containing this text. If it was really offensive it should either exist or not exist. I feel quite comfortable discussing this username here, which is why I think it shouldn't be hidden. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah ... I agree. If that user had edited a user's talk page (thus telling us which mod is a twat), removing it from a user talk page would have been needed (or, at least, it would be an option if a user wanted it deleted), but I don't see a pressing need to remove it from the UAA history. That's rather tame as attack usernames go. --B (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is why I brought this here, as RevDel is something I'm only just learning about, along with what constitutes proper use, etc. . FWIW, it wasn't aimed at me (at least, I hope not!), but I did see it come across the UAA bot list. Thanks to everyone for the insight, especially zzuzz. TNXMan 21:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I think there are still some areas where we're all still learning on this tool. --B (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Community ban request - User:Jéské Couriano

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

---

Resolved

 – Ban, no. Blocked, yes, if you'd like. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It has become painfully clear to me that there is no longer any form of legitimate protest on Wikipedia. Administrators apparently cannot issue self-requested blocks without having another user threatening the admin in emails he or she sends to the blockee. It is with great regret, therefore, that I hereby request my own community ban from the project for the crime of blocking myself to protest FlaggedRevisions. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any purpose to this attention seeking? Aiken ♫ 21:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 Declined. Next? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest Jeske goes away for a short while rather than disrupt and remove other editor's comments. Rodhullandemu 22:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried to. An incident involving a similar self-request block prevents me from doing so, since I'm not using WikibreakEnforcer (too easily gamed). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 22:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then please try to exercise some self-control rather than use technical means. You'll probably feel better about yourself if you take that course. But so far I see no reason for any of this, and I don't see this being an appropriate venue for any complain you may have; and certainly not in the terms in which you've stated it. Even the best editors, and I, get pissed off occasionally. They don't throw tantrums. Rodhullandemu 22:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A block is not a substitution for you exercising basic self-control...

I understand you getting frustrated. This is not the appropriate solution. Just walk away and don't log in for a few days. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

George, this isn't a "few days" situation. It's a "few months - indef" situation. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 22:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you really want us to? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just scramble your password and walk away; it's as easy as that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The only one that does justice to are the ones who want HJ Mitchell's mop. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 22:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just walk away. The project is determined to light itself afire over is flagged revisions business. Let it burn. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• There might be a nugget of a legit issue here; did someone really threaten to try to take away HJ's admin bit because he did a self request block? It would be more useful in getting to this potential real issue if the "ban me" drama could be kept to a minimum. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You would have to ask User:BarkingFish (as he was the one whom requested the block), but the "ban me" stuff still stands, as I don't wish to be part of a project whom criminalizes its lifeblood. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 23:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Since there's nothing on-wiki about this, I gather this is some IRC thing? Meh. I hate that. Anyway, you want me to block you, I'll block you. Drop by my talk page. I think it's a dumb decision, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. It's a stupid idea, but if you want me to block you, I will. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I think you're over-reacting to the whole flagged revs trial thing, but if anyone wants to be blocked, I see no good reason not to oblige. BarkingFish, for example, was, to the best of my knowledge, an editor in good standing who requested to be blocked in good faith. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So why did three or four editors email him while he was blocked and threaten to have your tools revoked? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 23:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong end of the stick? Poking nose in where not required? Only heard half the tale? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm only stating what BarkingFish told me hirself. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of one of those gadgets that sucks brains out through a straw, I can't say why these unnamed editors said what they did. I'm not entirely sure which is the relevant bit of this thread anyway. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it Beeblebrox who has a list of self-requested block criteria? It was even MfD'd, wasn't it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, [23], but comeon why do you want to get blocked?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there's even a category for it, with a couple of other admins in it. Hell, I'll probably block anyone who asks me to. Never understood why it was such a big deal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU is prepared to issue self-requested blocks, but personally I'm not a fan of self-administered martyrdom. Rodhullandemu 23:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe we all just have to be kinder to each other. I am sure the request has nothing to do with sicking an attention, and it is not so easy just to walk away, not easy at all. One of course could "forget" the password, but what if later he wants to come back? I believe somebody should do what the editor asked to do, and if the editor changes his mind, and asks to let him back even few hours later, he should be allowed back with no questions asked. I am sure that after one such experience he will never do it again, but now please be kind to him.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• I take it back. There is no nugget of a legit issue here after all. Marking resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Permanently ban vandal accounts immediately?

Well, there are many "Vandalism-only accounts" out there, and I think that it would be better to just simply permanently block them when it is clear that they are only here to vandalize, not to do constructive things. I would say like after 3 disruptive edits, they would get permanently blocked. Why is there even a reason to warn them, when their purpose is pretty clear from the beginning? Heymid (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to do test1, test2, test3, test4, block. If they are obviously vandalizing, use {{subst:bv}}, then step 2 is block. --B (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

'Tis a matter of admin discretion. –xeno^talk 18:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously disruptive accounts should be dealt with promptly, but warnings can be useful because people just screwing around for fun may not realize exactly the extent of what those edits mean. We don't need to always need to shoot first and ask questions later. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Like Xeno said, it is all discretion. there is no minimum or maximum number of warnings before blocking. Protonk (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may comment, I believe this brings up the point that there is no standard or guidance I can find as to when the 4IM warning is proper. While I do not personally believe a hard rule on 4IM use is appropriate, I have personally searched for guidance on when to use it and have found none. Where would the proper channel be to create a guideline on this and seek proper input? N419BH 21:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the 4 step warning thing mostly on school IPs. When I see light, one-off fiddling and pranking, I more often than not revert but don't block. If it's hard core vandalism but still a one-off, I might block for a day, but when I see way over the top stuff, moreover PAs or something that shows some knowledge about how the site works, I'll indef. I do keep every IP I block on my watchlist, so if someone shows up asking for an unblock, it's likely I'll see it, but this more or less never happens. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I only tend to use 4ims for libel- {{subst:uw-biog4im}}- but they can be useful for blatant and obvious vandalism (such as replacing the content of the TFA with "penis" or something equally mature) or for issuing one warning for multiple edits. The reason we don;t have a hard rule is so that it can be left up to an editor's judgement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me a 1,2,3,4,block progression is the standard. I've seen admins at AIV decline blocks if this format is not followed. And the 4IM does seem to be used only after a recent unblock and continued vandalism. However, I have noticed that IPs always seem to get a 31 hour block for first offense, while usernames get an immediate indef. N419BH 21:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandal-only user accounts are often disgruntled users who edited under other accounts, which is why they do tend to get indefs straight away. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

1,3,4 or 1,2,4 are often fine. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"1, Block", "4im, Block", and "Block" are all valid in my book. Anything else is usually a waste of time. NW (Talk) 07:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My experience is that warning a vandal in some cases encourages further vandalism of the juvenile sort. (Think of the warning as a kind of dare.) But yeah, I consider four warnings to be an exercise in edit count padding. "2, 3, 4" or "nothing, 2, 4" is fine for juvenile vandalism I guess. MER-C 09:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's mine, too: sometimes a "warning" only serves to advise the vandal that "someone has cleaned up after you. You'd better do it again". I usually assume that a first instance of vandalism is a test edit, rollback (with AGF) and leave it at that (i.e. don't warn the vandal, but continue to monitor their contribs).

Having said that, if they do vandalise again all bets are off, and warnings and/or blocks follow as appropriate.

TFOWR 09:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes trial live until 15 August

Thread retitled from "Pending changes trial imminent!".

Pending changes ("WP:PEND") is likely to go live in about 3 days, on 14 or 15 June. This is a quick summary of key information as it stands:

What is pending changes? What does it do?

Extended content

"Pending changes protection" can ensure the most recent changes to a troubled page are not displayed to the wider (non-editing) readership until checked by a more experienced user for obvious vandalism and similar clear issues (although they can see it if they choose). It only affects pending changes and only by holding them back from wider non-editor viewing until checked (can someone check this for full "pending changes protection"?). It doesn't affect logged in users. All autoconfirmed users are automatically reviewed except in some rare cases. Reviewer rights, the ability to review other users' edits, are expected to be widely handed out and require roughly the same trust as rollback. It is useful for persistent vandalism, BLP tabloid news, and other inappropriate edits that cannot easily be prevented from some exposure using existing tools, and on high sensitivity articles and issues. It can be applied to prevent IP/non-autoconfirmed editing or editing by all users (except admins) the same as semi- and full- page protection.

What is the purpose of the trial?

Extended content
One aim of the trial is to test in practice that the delay can be kept short and see what impact it has and how it works in practice.

When would it be appropriate to use it?

Extended content

See the page protection policy section. Its primary targets are pages with "hard to address" vandalism and inappropriate editing, such as very variable IP vandalism, breaking news with high visibility/high vandalism risk issues, BLPs with persistent rumors or internet gossip, or other activity that has usually needed permanent protection. Pending changes should be used during the trial for pages that have a clear requirement that edits need checking before being readable by the wider world, and when normal existing tools cannot resolve the problem, or where the disruption to good faith editing would be severe. In terms of policy, use of pending changes protection level 1 is subject to the same conditions as semi protection, and use of pending changes protection level 2 to the same conditions as full protection. Examples include Persistent ongoing vandalism that cannot be prevented by usual means without much disruption Repeated insertions of BLP violation/internet gossip/tabloid news/urban myth insertions, etc Edit warring by large groups that cannot be controlled by usual sanctions High profile articles with a high risk of inappropriate editing (requiring both editing and an absence of vandalism), especially those on permanent, long term, or very repeated protection. The trial only allows 2000 pages - use judiciously.

How does the tool impact editors and readers?

Extended content

See the help page. Editors (logged in) are not affected at all. Non-editor readers are not affected except on "pending changes protected" pages, where they see the latest version that is marked as vandalism/abuse free. In effect "anyone can still edit", but "pending changes protected" pages have a delay before non-editors see the latest versions. No material is hidden and non-editors can still see the latest revisions (if any) at the click of a tab. The trial is starting slowly in order to test whether we can in fact do this without significant delay.

How are reviewer rights obtained and removed?

Extended content
See the help page. Database reports will be used to automatically generate lists of users likely experienced enough and they will be granted the rights. Administrators can grant the rights, in the same way as rollback (which has a very similar trust level). There's also a page to individually request the right linked from there.

What is the policy?

Extended content

The policy on usage has been largely incorporated into page protection policy and processes. That's because of a pragmatic point about time (trial rolls out in a few days). More specifically, the reviewing aspect is different but the scope, usage and requests (ie WP:RFPP aspects) are likely to be nearly identical to semi-protection and can usefully go on the same page. It keeps it simple to have all forms of page protection and their requests in one place, and describe it as "pending changes protection" (which is intuitive and fits existing wordings), even if they are in fact 2 tools. Also treating it as "another form of protection" means we don't need to copypaste 2/3 of all PP and RFPP pages, guides and processes, we can just update those pages to include mention and coverage of this new method, and it's a lot less change and disruption, and much more likely to fit into "what people already know". In other words, current protection policy and requests are close enough to be adopted for a lot of it, and doing so brings this immediately into the "realms of the familiar" for anyone who uses protection already, rather than making entire new processes and pages. Other aspects of the policy such as granting of rights etc and guidance are still at Help:Pending changes and Help:Pending changes review process. The main page Wikipedia:Pending changes ("WP:PEND") is outdated and until rewritten, best ignored for a day or two.

How are requests for "pending changes protection/unprotection" made for a page?

Extended content
See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Ie, in the same way as other forms of protection, or by any administrator. A time limit can be defined, as for all other forms of protection.

Key information:

• Help:Pending changes (and related Help:Pending changes review process  · Request rights)
• Wikipedia:Protection policy has a section on "Pending changes protection" now (section link) covering usage policy.
• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is being updated to reference requests for pending changes protection and its removal.

To do:

• Mark pages referencing other proposals, possible implementations etc as "historical"
• Create necessary templates similar to semi-protection
• Check if "reviewer" and "autoreviewer" need distinguishing anywhere
• Inform users if needed (non-editor readers will probably rely on templates as for existing protection)

(apologies for cruedeness of this post, I have to run and needed to post this up 1st! Will refine when free! Please fact-check and improve this.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

this was not the proposal approved by the community; the proposal approved was limited to BLPs specifically, was for reviewer=autoconfirmed, and was for only of level of flagged protection. I've gone into this in a little more detail at Help talk:Pending changes. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

↑ What he said. – iridescent 16:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been proposals to use flagged revisions on all BLPs, but they never reached consensus, this proposal was approved in this poll. Cenarium (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Methinks this is going to be implemented in the most aggressive form because of the desires of certain individuals, & be made permanent regardless of what the majority of editors think. Protests like DGG's aren't going to change that. -- llywrch (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, it's one of the less aggressive form ever proposed. Cenarium (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• First off, I think it's a great idea that Wikipedia is continuing to evolve and use technology to protect BLPs and high-visibility articles from vandalism. But I do find a bit of this slightly confusing. If I want to protect an article from vandalism, do I now have three choices (pending changes level 1, pending changes level 2, or s-protection) that I will choose from? Is that how this is going to work? Is there any reason why level 2 would ever be appropriate other than maybe an extreme campaign of trolling sleeper accounts? I don't particularly think level 2 is appropriate at all. --B (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  Level 2 is indeed aimed to handle extreme campaigns of trolling sleeper accounts, see also this reply, current examples include Satanic ritual abuse, King Alfred Plan, a bunch of monasteries: Amaras Monastery, Yeghishe Arakyal Monastery, Gandzasar monastery,..., Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, Queer Collaborations. We have had this configuration since the proposal. If people think we shouldn't have level 2, we can remove it. The doc pages are not all ready yet. Cenarium (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  That makes sense and I think it's fine to leave in provided that the instructions and the protection page itself make extremely clear that it is not for ordinary protection and that abuse of it will likely lead to an immediate and summary desysopping. To me, abuse of this feature is on the same order as unblocking yourself or revision hiding your own mistakes (two things that make you most likely to get the desysop first ask questions later treatment). An admin or group of admins could use this feature to essentially create their own fiefdom so I'm very, very, very leery of it. I would be greatly concerned about the potential for this feature to be used to enforce content decisions, rather than simply preventing vandalism. --B (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with B. Level 2 could be used to "patrol" or "screen" articles for unwanted PoV. Worse, level 2 could bring about a lower "caste" of autoconfirmed non-reviewers. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it could be mis/abused, though to extent similar to semi and full protection, but since it would only be used on a very small number of articles it should be easily monitorable. Edits are actually for every reviewer to see, so one in particular couldn't take more control. Also this is not definitive, this level can be repealed, or possibly restricted to a smaller usergroup such as oversighters to ensure finer control. Cenarium (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually since new edits by non-reviewers (at lvl 2) to the page are for every reviewer to see, I think it is less abusable than full protection, which prevents any editing, so the admin can keep their preferred revision without any challenge, or anyone else knowing. Cenarium (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My worries are that level 2 would be a handy tool for PoV screening/patrolling, where semi-protection is only like a low garden wall (so to speak), not at all the same things. Likewise, through "the tyranny of iVotes," level 2 could be used as a tool to more or less ban a wide swath (caste) of user accounts with "unwanted" but wholly citeable PoVs from high traffic, core articles which already have deep skews as to PoV. I'd be ok with level 2 if it only had sway on BLPs. Beyond that, it will be skillfully used to further skew cited outlooks in articles and I wouldn't be at all startled if that's what it's indeed meant to do. So, I think level 2 should be dropped but for BLPs. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've given examples of where level 2 could be used here. It wouldn't be possible to restrict to BLPs. But could be possible to restrict to CU/OS. Cenarium (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know that. Taken altogether, I don't think level 2 should be implemented now, even for a test, because knowingly or not, it will very likely be used as a tool to screen high traffic articles from encyclopedic, cited edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

We could require a consensus for using level 2 PCP on an article. Articles under PCP, esp lvl 2, would receive considerable scrutiny during the trial. There's some discussion here.

I do see on occasions 'suspect' full protection, I guess it wouldn't be too difficult to have a bot reporting all full protections in mainspace to AN. The vast majority of full protections are dispute. It would also make some uninvolved users aware of contentious issues where they could help. Cenarium (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I started a discussion on reconsidering level 2 protection here, and suggested a bot to report full protections in mainspace here. Cenarium (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The first database reports have been generated at Wikipedia:Database reports/Potential reviewer candidates, the usergroup (with no permission before the trial begins) has been requested here. There are already 6000+ users listed, and the requirements will be progressively lowered so there's going to be a lot more; we'll certainly need to use semi-automatic tools to grant the rights, with minimal review. Some requests have also been made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. If we can't keep up then we should reconsider using an autopromotion (it had been rejected in prior discussions). Being autoconfirmed is sufficient to be automatically reviewed in most cases, exceptions being level 2 protection and when a non-autoconfirmed user edited the article just before and it's still unreviewed. But having a large base of reviewers is needed to limit the backlog of old reviewed edits; so the rights should be granted liberally; to users experienced enough to know at least about diffs and basic content policies, and with no recent clearly problematic content edits. The guidelines are not yet fixed, please weigh in at wp:reviewing, wp:pending changes and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Flagged revisions trial. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Where's the list of editors who refuse to have this "right"? Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins will see when checking contribs the users who have made known they don't want the rights, otherwise those users can request it to be removed. Cenarium (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've raised the issue of removing the rights, which has become controversial, here. Cenarium (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins, by and large, couldn't find their own arses without using both hands, hence my hollow laughter. Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Where's the sign-up sheet for editors who don't ever want their edit count listed, have never wanted their edit count listed, were assured that listing their name at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Anonymous was sufficient for this, listed their name there, and have now had their edit count listed publicly regardless and would like it oversighted? I am, let me assure you, very serious. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my curiosity, but you do realize that your edit count is publicly available regardless of whether or not it is on a list, right? Anybody who uses popups as I do can see your edit count by simply hovering their mouse over your user name. --auburnpilot's sock 03:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you accept being granted the right, your name will be removed at the next update, otherwise an exceptions subpage will be made available. Cenarium (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::It is available through various offwiki tools, and through various onwiki tools (like popups) that query those tools; all of them give different numbers. I don't like this, but I accept it; all of my edits were made under various free licenses, so at a minimum anyone has a right to index them and come up with some number. I don't like (read: really, really hate) attempts to produce some form of meaningless and counterproductive "ranking" out of this information, and that's the reason I never wanted to be listed at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits; I opted out of that long before I would ever have been listed in it, and at the time that was considered to be the canonical opt-out list. I have not heard differently since. Listing my edit count by itself is not so bad; listing it in a big sortable table where the press of a button can rank others as being supposedly less than me is personally offensive, even if allowed by the terms I have used to contribute to Wikipedia. More to the point, omitting me from the list will not injure me or Wikipedia in the slightest; it will only mean that I don't get a permission bit granted automatically. I would genuinely prefer not to be listed - not even in the page history. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride will be providing an opt-out method. –xeno^talk 04:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Now done at Wikipedia:Database reports/Potential reviewer candidates/Exceptions. The list is paginated and users are listed in alphabetical order, so any ranking effect is mitigated. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this has already been mentioned elsewhere, but can when this goes live, can we configure some sandboxes to use it as part of the 2000 pages? Otherwise, we're going to get testing and playing around with the articles where it is implemented and people making edits just for the sake of seeing the feature work. --B (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've asked if we could have testing pages in Wikipedia namespace. Admins can only activate it in mainspace, but it would be problematic to have testing pages in mainspace for bots, and they would be indexed. Cenarium (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The configuration is by namespace so we'd need to technically allow admins to use pending changes in Wikipedia namespace. But it should only be used for the testing pages. Any objections ? Cenarium (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No objection here. We need a testing ground. –xeno^talk 16:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've requested this. Cenarium (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Granting reviewer userright

Administrators can look through WP:DBR/PRC to find candidates who might qualify to receive the userright and use {{subst:reviewer-notice}} ~~~~ to let the user know they've been granted the userright. –xeno^talk 13:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Amalthea (talk · contribs), fount of awesomeness, wrote this at my request:

// simple script to enable the reviewer bit and leave the user a note
 
MakeReviewerConfig = {
    groupReason : "User can be trusted with reviewer",
    sectionHeader : "Reviewer granted",
    sectionBody : "{{subst\:reviewer-notice}} ~~\~~"
};
 
importScript("User:Amalthea/MakeReviewer.js");

Config can be changed or omitted, etc. If user doesn't have right, it grants it, and in either case, it leaves the message. –xeno^talk 16:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Community ban proposal - User:Zsfgseg

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.

The consensus is very clear. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Zsfgseg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

see also: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zsfgseg

This user was initially blocked for vandalizing AN/I. Since that block he has repeatedly evaded his block, wanting a second chance (which is always denied because (a) his registered socks share the same name, and (b) he goes right back to the same behavior that got him blocked). Even more recently, he's been resorting to pestering me on IRC, seeking an unblock (usually after one of his socks gets caught), but today he followed up an IRC PM with this post to my talk page.

It is clear to me that he flat-out does not get it, and his repeated communication with me is starting to border on harassment. I am seeking a community ban against him for these reasons. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Ban There's no excuse for that behavior and it's obvious he's just here to screw around, play games and act a fool. I think he DOES get it: this person has no desire to edit but gets his jollies by playing this game. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support per above and his attempt to remove this discussion[24] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • IP is now blocked. TFOWR 21:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Just formally ban him already; he's virtually de facto banned, anyways, as no admin in their right mind would even consider unblocking. –MuZemike 21:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Considered this yesterday, decided to sleep on it, no change of heart. Removing this discussion (per AnmaFinotera, above) suggests an ongoing wish to be destructive. Second chance comes after demonstrating an ability and desire to be constructive. TFOWR 10:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support; better to make this formal for the sake of clarity, if not anything else - the behavior is not acceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Another user has been blocked for attempting to remove this discussion. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Ban completly unacceptable behavior, reinforced by this last bout of socking. Dreadstar ☥ 20:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban. Although per MuZemike, he's basically de facto banned. But, repeated socking, inappropriate behavior, and that I haven't seen any constructive edits from any of the accounts or IPs are good enough reasons for me. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note – I have blocked 71.249.0.0/17 for 24 hours his continued disruption and block evasion here and on WP:ANI. –MuZemike 20:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

...and again for 55. –MuZemike 01:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, obviously. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 20:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban – Clearly a lier who purposely wants another chance, just because the user wants to continue to vandalize. By the way, what do you mean with "community ban"? Heymid (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment. A community ban is a type of ban when you have been practically ostracized here. Like others said here, community-banned people have no chance being accepted again as normal WP editors, not after all the damage they have done. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban - from the IP evasion I've seen just today I'm happy for this to go ahead, and per the other supports above. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban - this kind of disruption warrants nothing other than this kind of remedy. Volunteer time cannot be wasted by behaviour like this and so it needs to simply be prevented--Cailil ^talk 23:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus seems clear to me, I have tagged the account and added to the List of banned users. Kindzmarauli (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If no one's willing to unblock him, it's unnecessary to go through this rigamarole.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)

Apologies for pimping this every chance I get, but for editors dealing with clean-up, this is necessary: per WP:3RR reverting an indef'd editor can result in a block for a good-faith editor. A community ban changes that. There is value in a community ban over an indef-block-with-no-admin-prepared-to-unblock. TFOWR 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban He's just screwing around, Wikipedia is not his play-place. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 04:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban per all of the above. The IP Address blanking this section is evidently the same person, still willing to evade their ban and try to stop this process.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly his recent hijinx have verified the absolute necessity. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support. User is one of the most disruptive, attention-starved individuals I've encountered on this site - the username variations are proof of that since they're all variations on the same dull theme - and I've encountered my fair share. Further support for a possible rangeblock. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support per his history of vandalizeing TTTSNB's talk page as well as my own past experiences with him. His childish acts need to stop and a ban will alow for quicker action on any of his socks.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 01:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support - and if it is possible to construct a tight-enough rangeblock, I would recommend that too. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Admin to close and restart an AFD

Resolved

 – BLP issue, taken to WP:BLPN.

BLP issue, taken to WP:BLPN.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson (2nd nomination) Can an admin please close this AFD, and restart a new one with an NPOV nom statement? Unfortunately for some reason, the nominator of this AFD chose to take the opportunity of the nom statement, and use that text space to poison the well against any future discussion, by using vitriol to attack a living person. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I don't personally think the nomination is an attack page. The nom is clearly that the individual is too ordinary to be notable, and has not done enough to gain the significant coverage required. OK, the language is loose, but it's not accusing the subject of anything except ordinariness. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Several editors have already criticized both the tone and bad faith nature of the nomination: [25] [26] [27] [28]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Disclosure: I was alerted to this by Cirt's note on my talk page—I haven't just randomly come to AN. The issue for me is that I think the AfD nomination may not be entirely independent of threads on the Wikipedia Review such as this and this (in the latter of which, a poster called "A Horse with No Name", who is known on Wikipedia as User:Ecoleetage with an alternative former administrator account as User:Pastor Theo, lists this particular article). Basically Cirt has his own personal groupies out there who'd like to make him miserable, and I'm joining the dots between that thread and this nomination. I did !vote "delete" in the AfD, but I've revised that to "close without result" as a potentially bad faith nomination, and I'm of the opinion that an uninvolved administrator should consider whether to close the AfD as an abuse of process. It's not so urgent to remove this content that we need to disregard the background.—S Marshall T/C 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Seeing as that post came from December 2009, I'm not quite sure how the canvassing allegation could work. T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC) You're not seeing a semi-organised campaign there? I could be wrong, I've been wrong before.—S Marshall T/C 18:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP issue, taken to WP:BLPN. -- Cirt (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Blanking your own talk page

Is it allowed to blank your own talk page? I reverted such an edit from an IP-adress and the IP-adress asked me on my talk page if it is not OK to blank your own talk page. Heymid (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

They can more or less blank their talk page as they please (other than stuff like declined unblock requests, the list is way, way short). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, Gale has it right, see WP:BLANKING. Didn't look like the user violated that in this case. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)IPs can't remove WHOIS notices (idnetifying where the IP is registered) and you;re not allowed to remove declined unblock requests while you're blocked. Other than that, you can blank away by my understanding of WP:TPG. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

IPs can remove WHOIS templates; see WP:BLANKING. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If I read that correctly they're not supposed to, however you don't get a free pass to edit war about it.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not the most helpful thing I can think of, but TP blanking by an IP is very much allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The last few discussions I can remember would agree with you on that point, but the wording at WP:BLANKING suggests otherwise. For IP editors, templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address. are listed as something that can't be removed. And looking back at the history, it appears that it's not something that was recently added. --Onorem♠Dil 20:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It was added during the recent rewrite I'd imagine. Whois templates don't indicate the shared nature of an IP address, so they are not shared IP templates. However the most important point is that user talk page wars are teh lamest, and I'm don't afraid of blocking people for it (and I'm not talking about the IPs). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

TP blanking by any user is not a happiness but it's way allowed, everything's still in the history. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying this set of exceptions at WP:BLANKING is invalid? If so I'd recommend editing it.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, they're ok, but unless it's a shared school IP with earlier blocks for v or something akin, pls drop it. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? It appeared like an educational discussion explaining that for the most part IP's get to blank, although there are very limited exceptions. I'm unsure what provoked the hostility?--Cube lurker (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound that way, I only meant, pls drop any worries about that IP. You could carry on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:User pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is actually pretty effective: Start a topic, and a few minutes later, the discussion has started (basically in no-time). Heymid (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Half an hour later the drama starts, just wait for the warnings on your talk page, the subsequent block, unblock, wheel-warring, emergency desysopings etc. ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's nothing for an admin to do here and this page isn't at all meant for discussions about tweaking policy, admins don't set policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Need a redirect on a locked page.

Resolved

Need to re-direct page Black_Hole_Shreders to #REDIRECT [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole_Shredders]].

Many thanks, Gregory House M.D. (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't do that because Black Hole Shredders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) does not exist.  Sandstein  21:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

just realised that- original page shows up on google but not on wikipedia. Maybe I should not rush head first into these things! thanks anyway! Gregory House M.D. (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Flagged revision testing request

Resolved

Flagged revisions are coming in a few hours. I request permission to test it or, at least, no opposition.

Rather than put in vandalism, like "--- is an idiot", I propose to add good edits with a warning that this is a drill.

For example, I could edit "Argentina initially declared neutrality during World War II but eventually broke relations with Germany and Japan in late 1944 - flagged revision test, treat edit as vandalism". This information is correct but there is a note to treat it as vandalism so that if it accidently appears, Wikipedia will not be harmed.

I know there is a testing site. However, testing sites sometimes do not completely mimic real life. That is why there are recalled products even after introduction. I anticipate that only a few testing entries will be needed. To make the test realistic, admins may issue warnings such as "stop, you may be blocked" as long as they add that it is a test warning.

Thank you for your consideration. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes will go live in the WP: namespace, which will be perfect for testing purposes...? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Projectspace is enabled for testing as said. You can always add comments if you need an "invisible" test (which won't show up to a reader) such as: "Argentina initially declared neutrality <!-- TEST EDIT, PLEASE IGNORE--> during World War II". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes

Hello all! Just a nice reminder to all admins to please not implement pending changes protection unless it is listed on the queue for the first week of the trial. After that, you are welcome to apply it to an article that would be a good candidate for the trial. Best, Icestorm815 • Talk 23:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused: I tried to apply it to Solanco High School, a Day 3 article, when unprotection failed, but I'm not sure it's actually showing up as pending. Can someone more-familiar with the feature tell me what's up? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked the page and it seems that you enabled it just fine. (See here) Icestorm815 • Talk 00:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to raise this matter, but I think the Pending changes menu should be moved from its current location in the top-right corner. It's in the location of the featured star, good article symbol, audio link, and protection padlock. I'm sure I could edit this myself somehow (well... maybe not), but it'd be great if someone could nudge it over some. -- tariqabjotu 00:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Flagged-revisions menulet rendering bug, which raises the same issue. That's probably the place to follow up on this. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to those closing ban discussions - Log 'em too!

Please log community bans at Wikipedia:List of banned users if you close ban discussions with a ban.

Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Useful due weight template: "Emphasis"

Resolved

Quick note that I've just created {{emphasis}} for a situation that's common but no section template really seems to address. The issue is where one matter has gained some notice and web mentions, but as a result the section on it has become way too excessive for the article.

Hope it's useful! Edit at will! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Undue|section}} does something similar:

Gary King (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be good to just make the new template call {{Undue|section}}. They state basically the same thing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Emphasis should redirect to Undue instead, therefore duplicating its functionality. That would allow both templates to be used for articles and sections. Undue is already widely in use; Emphasis is not. It can just be converted into an alias of Undue, so that we don't have two templates with similar messages. Gary King (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have done so. I've also updated the usages to reflect where in the article they are placed. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

BThanks, thought there was a template for this but it wasn't listed on any of the template lists. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Recall petition

Following discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Is it okay to violate BLP policy in the talk space? an admin recall petition for User:Herostratus is open at User talk:Herostratus#Admin recall petition for Herostratus. Fences&Windows 13:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• The petition has now been fully certified. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• Standard recall procedure is to leave this open for seven days to allow certifiers time to change their minds, and then a recall RfA will be opened. Fences&Windows 15:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Has Herostratus indicated willingness to take part in that procedure?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see [29]. –xeno^talk 15:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, fine then. I'd mistakenly thought that was placed there by the first signer but missed the actual diffs.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for removal of my reviewer rights

Could any admin remove my reviewer rights please? I was only requesting it to see what the pending changes looked like. I do have to say the new pending changes idea was a good and neat idea though, but I just didn't get enough interest out of it. Minimac (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Icestorm815 • Talk 20:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone got time to cover?

Currently dealing with a user, Rufusbass1 (talk · contribs) who's apparently the subject of a BLP that I deleted a little while ago - Rufus Philpot. Due to work pressure I really haven't had time to log into Wikipedia over the last few days and that's unlikely to change in the immediate future. There's some definite BLP and copyright issues involved, and I'd appreciate it if somebody with a little time on their hands could deal with the issue - I just haven't got the time to give it my attention, and it probably deserves someone who does - the current discussion is in the bottom few sections of my talk page. Thanks in advance. ~ mazca ^talk 21:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple of admins have now looked at this, and the user has been advised. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

Admin Jayron32 has previously coordinated the Dramaout 5 day festival. That is a festival where editors try to write articles and avoid drama for 5 days. This July, Jayron32 is busy but suggested that I may coordinate it. He suggested ANI as one of the places to put a notice.

Task 1 (Easiest to do: just sign your name): Feel free to sign up to participate in the dramaout here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd It will take place for 5 days starting July 5, 2010.

Task 2:I requests volunteers to help out. Help this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd which needs a little copy editing. Many volunteers can copy edit.

Task 3: A sample template has been made but is in raw form, not on a template page. One or two volunteers can create a template, maybe like this.

This user will participate in the 2010 Great Wikipedia Dramaout, a dedicated effort to exclusively article write for five days.

Task 4: Several volunteers to notify past participants (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/2nd) of this new dramaout. To reduce the load, I request 8 volunteers to contact 10 people each. Volunteer 1 will notify person 1-9 on the list. Volunteer 2 will notify 10-19 on the list.

Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Volunteer signup

1. task 4. Will notify persons 1-9 and 10-19 and 20-29. Every up to 49 has been contacted. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
2. task 2, will do in the next 2 days. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrative abuse, Legal threat, Win money, Free Sex

1. This ANI thread is not gettting much participation. Maybe it should be retitled "Administrative Abuse, Free Sex, Legal threats, Win Money" to attract attention and get responses! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

   I try to avoid the no drama festival. Too much drama. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I get for following Jayron's instructions! p Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SNOW - justification for collapsing discussion?

I relisted two AfDs as there were not enough contributors to form a consensus:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of independent wrestling promotions in the United States
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional wrestling promotions in Mexico

Most of the discussion was between 71.184.39.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Justa Punk (talk · contribs).

The IP added a response to comments on both AfDs, and AinslieL (talk · contribs) removed them (saying that the comments should be after the "relist" notices) and collapsed much of the discussions, citing WP:SNOW.

I reinstated the comment (and explained that it makes sense for it to be with the comment it was responding to) and removed the collapsing, as I feel that the discussion should be visible in its entirety.

A discussion has ensued on my talk page (see here) and I thought I would seek the thoughts here!

Should the discussion be collapsed, or left as is? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not and admin, but no the discussion should not be collapsed. I've never even seen that done in an AfD except for disruptive comments. There is no reason at all to remove or hide the existing discussion, as they are still a part of the AfD as a whole. Relisting is just a status update. AinslieL seems to misunderstand what it means, since he called for "close and relist" on both. I really don't get what Snow has to do with anything in either AfD...though both need some indent fixing to make them more readable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: 71.184.39.119, Justa Punk and AinslieL have been notified of this thread-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Note: MPJ-DK has also been notified, as their contributions were within the collapsed section on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional wrestling promotions in Mexico-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Save for lengthy digressions with no tangible relationship to the AfD whatsoever, disruptive comments, or where the author themselves collapsed the comment, I don't think collapsing is a good idea. T. Canens (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• I have attempted to explain to the editor on their talk page why their action was incorrect. Fences&Windows 17:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• An interesting action by Ainslie. I sort of understand why he did it even though he had a go at me when I think it was only the IP that was at fault. I was trying to diffuse him but he just refused to listen, so I reject the accusation being levelled at me by Ainslie on the grounds of provocation. I do believe that the IP was intentionally trying to destroy the discussion so it could be described as disruptive. From that point of view alone the action was understandable but whether or not it was legal under WP rules is another matter. I guess that's the key issue here. !! Justa Punk !! 23:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but all "the ip" did was to respond to your various allegations of Conflict of Interest, advertising and other arguments you brought out for deletion, arguing for why he did not think they were applicable. He responded to your claims, to say that he was intentionally trying to destroy the conversation is definitely not demonstrating "good faith". If there was an issue that went beyond a lively discussion then it's in the accusations of unfounded "Conflict of interest" and your current negative attitude towards someone who's only "crime" is disagreeing with you.  MPJ -DK  18:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • He argued them like a domineering politician, MPJ. His crime is opinion pushing, and possible COI. I speculated that to explain his long winded rebuttals, as I couldn't think of another explanation for it. How can you possibly have a proper debate with someone like that, and I suspect he knew it as well. Hence my comment about disruption. Anyway, now that we've finally got other people coming in to the USA article (I haven't checked the Mexican one yet - and Australia and New Zealand have both been deleted already) it looks like I'm being proven right in my original claims if consensus means anything - yeah I know in an AfD that's not a requirement but still. !! Justa Punk !! 08:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
      • He argues like someone who created the article and wants to keep it - Conflict of Interest would mean he has some sort of outside interest in Mexican wrestling promotions, something you have no basis for saying. How can you not have a debate with someone who has long rebuttals? So you'd prefer the debate to be "yes", "no", "pooey"? You made a series of claims ranging from COI and advert and so on with him explaining why it's not a Conflict of interest nor advertising. By your logic anyone who tries to present an argument against you is trying to disrupt the procedure. I'm sorry but that smacks of arrogance.  MPJ -DK  17:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Why does he want to keep it? No good reason. That smacks of the very arrogance that you are accusing me of. If you don't want to see what's in front of you that's not my problem. Accusing me of something I'm not guilty of (I speculated only) is equally arrogant and disruptive. This conversation is over as it is obvious there will never be an agreement between us. WP:IPAT. !! Justa Punk !! 00:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewers Logo Concern

discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Reviewing#the_logo
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
right|100px I received Reviewers access recently and while adding the userbox to my userpage, I noticed something that some US editors will notice....the Reviewers logo looks just like the CBS logo. Take a look. The "eye" in the Reviewers logo is slightly smaller, but it is just like the CBS logo. The Reviewers logo was created by Polish user Derski, so he probably wasn't aware of the CBS logo. Also, the Reviewers logo has a "This media file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion" message and a "This file is a copyright violation..." message. With those, I feel that we should get a couple good logo makers and create a new Reviewers logo that isn't close to the CBS logo for obvious copyright reasons. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Agreed....and preferably one that is a little less creepy (that eye is....) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, that is way too close. In addition, the Foundation has sometimes been known to object to modifications of the globe logo as well. Mind you, my views of the whole "pending changes" matter are well enough known, so I'll just offer my suggested logo without further comment. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I second Anma's "creepy" comment; it's like the Information Awareness Office logo. Why not just a little globe with a checkmark superimposed? No need to add the eye of Mordor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Except that's the symbol for the Autoreviewed flag, a different matter. Courcelles (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Another brilliant idea, shot to hell. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC) How about a globe superimposed with a ? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I like it. Might find a thumbs up that can "blend in" to the "globe", but I like it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Just a clarification to what Gavia immer brought up, I am only meaning change/remove the "golden eye" part, not the "globe" part. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Maybe this image? File:EgyptianEyeGold3D.png Obviously it has to be cleaned up a bit, the rusty look didn't quite turn out. Maybe we should continue this discussion elsewhere, as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinxorin (talk • contribs) 03:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Even better! Who likes what? Should we have a !vote? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I've commented on this where perhaps this thread should carry on (and on the img talk page). I don't think this image is at all fit for a reviewer icon on an opening editing project. Not only does it look too much like the American CBS logo (I don't say that from any trademark or CR worry), but I think any eye graphic would be far too big brotherish and otherwise unsettling. Besides, I think the thing is ugly (and eye graphics are very hard to render in an appealing way). Why not a green (or come to think of it, more neutral blue) checkmark arrow or something like that over the globe logo? Gwen Gale (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry Gwen, was unaware that there was a previous thread on this. Either way, I think blue or green arrow would work just fine. I know I have said that for the other ideas, but they are good ones. We could use any of these arrows and they are allowed under "GNU Lesser General Public License"....whatever that is. So, if we could get a good image marker, I think we could use Gwen's arrow idea and have this thing up and running within the hour. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I'm thinking blue, since green could stir up misleading notions of "editorial approval" rather than "acceptance," blue also matches the colour seen in the article edit history. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Excellent, all the ones I listed above all blue, so you can choose from them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC) IMO the eye graphic in itself may well have captured the doubtful ambience created by the whole PC experiment but I agree that it would be best to remove it given its substantial creepiness factor. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 08:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Black veil brides

The article Black veil brides was speedily deleted ten times over the last two years and has now reappeared authored by a new user, RollADice, as Black veil brides (band). I've nom'ed it for AfD and requested salt, but I'm not a sysop and can't go back to identify the creators of the previously deleted articles. Considering the persistence with which this keeps coming back, I wonder if one or more of the prior creators were not blocked and the new user here is a puppet to avoid that block. If anyone thinks that might be worth checking, please do. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You, uh, you've removed a speedy tag ;-) I'm looking at the article now; it's unreferenced, but might be worth keeping if we could persuade the author to work on it. I've not yet looked for any sources, though, and have limited familiarity with the LA music scene, so it could equally be speedy-able. TFOWR 16:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedied as an A7, salted according to the recipe at Black veil brides. TFOWR 16:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I closed the AFD for you. Yay, I've been productive today. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! TFOWR 16:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The article previously resided in the user space of Mcrfobrockr (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked as a sockpuppet. RollADice may be a sock of his/hers. decltype (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a keep in the AfD (my keep). Joe Chill (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I took the view that the speedy tag had been placed before the article had been sent to AfD, and that the speedy had not been declined. Given that this article has been recreated and deleted numerous times before (most recently on 10 May), and that Black veil brides is salted, I was erring on the side of caution. However, I must admit that I didn't pay close enough attention to the AfD, and in particular didn't consider the links you gave. I had done a quick google, and hadn't seen anything that would qualify for WP:NBAND. If there's consensus here I'll cheerfully restore and unprotect. TFOWR 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's alright. I'm not sure of their reliability anymore. I still don't like my comments being skipped over like nothing. Joe Chill (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Point taken - sorry. Incidentally, the talk page is still there: I figured keep it as a venue for discussions with the original author if they return? Obviously I'll clean up as/when needed. TFOWR 16:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

...and the talk page is now deleted as well. TFOWR 11:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it OK to userfy a blatant copyvio? I don't think so.

An editor is requesting I restore or userfy Farouq_Abdul-Aziz. This was deleted as a blatant copyvio. He has repeatedly been warned in his user page about these issues. He has communicated with me politely in my Talk page starting here. Considering it is a word-for-word website copyvio, where he can get the original text from if he so wants, and that he claims he wrote the piece; we have COI and OR issues. I am inclined not to do it. Before informing him so, I'd like an opinion to make sure I am on the right side of the issue and following policy. Advice appreciated. - Alexf^(talk) 10:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. Userfication is done so a user can work on an article and make it suitable for article space; you can't do that if you start off with a copyvio. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Floquenbeam. I've given the editor some words of advice, and suggested that he creates the article in a subpage, with a warning not to recreate a copyvio. If a decent article can be written that complies with relevant policies, it can be moved to mainspace. Mjroots (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur, and this is the advice I gave the user on my talk page. It appears to me that we are all telling him the same thing, but he isn't actually listening. While I do believe that he is the original author of the text that he is trying to copyvio, we can't take his word on it. Syrthiss (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Proposal to softblock Toolserver IP addresses

Resolved

 – Closed with consensus to block by me earlier today. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Would an administrator familiar with the bot policy mind looking over the above discussion? It appears to me that it's been open long enough to form a consensus, and furthermore that a clear consensus has been formed, but it needs looking at for a formal conclusion. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieving this from the archive. Would anyone care to take a look at it? — Gavia immer (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Researchers

Hi everyone. I have noticed that several new usergroups have popped up recently and am somewhat confused as to what to do with them. One such example is the researcher, whereof there is currently one, who was appointed by a user themselves with ostensibly no userrights, despite not even admins being able to give this right to people.

Hence, what is the policy for this? How do people apply for it? When should it be granted? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Research. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Catrope is, I believe, a dev. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• On that note, what's this "editor" right that I've seen a few times- for example, here where an editor who shouldn't have access to Special:UserRights adds it for themselves? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• No idea. There are six editors, all of whom seem to have acquired the position on June 16, and all of whom seem to have made a very large number of edits recently. Given the timing, perhaps it has something to do with pending changes, though since the common trait among those five users is the edit count, it could be something entirely unrelated that just happened to be added to MediaWiki at the same time. I suspect also that they didn't add the userright themselves, but were given it by the software, and that some of them may not even know it's there. —Soap— 00:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs indicates that this (or something of the same name) is indeed related to pending changes. Algebraist 00:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that article deals with the "reviewer" right which is called "editor" on some projects, including in the MW software at Wikinews, where they operate full-blown flagged revs. Curious that among those six editors is an administrator. Does anyone have nay idea what it does? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't do anything here, because it has no rights associated. It is part of FlaggedRevs though, and it's added via autopromotion. It's my understanding that autopromotion has since been disabled on this wiki, so I don't expect to see anyone else added to the group. Reach Out to the Truth 01:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Chuthooo

I've indeffed Chuthooo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for racist vandalism. Suggest that no request for unblocking is granted anytime soon. Clearly not here to improve Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty disgusting actually. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

CSD backlog

Resolved

 – Poof! Begone! TNXMan 14:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Can admins deal with the CSD backlog please? There's stuff in there I tagged yesterday :) Aiken ♫ 13:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it, but it's still pretty backlogged. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Userpage misuse?

Zlykinskyja is storing a preferred version of the article Murder of Meredith Kercher on his/her userpage, here. Perhaps a word from an admin is needed.   pablo_hablo. 19:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• I deleted it as it is a copyvio (no attribution). Predictably, I was attacked for my non-compliance in this editor's attempt to use Wikipedia as an Amanda-Knox-is-innocent blog. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Since I don't think I'm on her bad side yet, I left a good faith appeal to her to stop readding the material. Hope that helps. Dayewalker (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. It is unfortunate that the editor sees anyone who has pointed out her editing problems before as some part of a conspiracy, but it's one of those things I suppose. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Point missed. Not familiar enough with the situation to do much about it myself, but this looks to be leaning towards further disruption... Tony Fox (arf!) 22:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• No harm, no foul. We allow this kind of thing frequently; see {{secondchance}}, where we encourage blocked reforming vandals to do it. Many editors will copy code to their sandbox, work on it, and then copy it back to the article when done. Since they're blocked for a month, this is the only place they can work on the page. All they really need is some kind of clear attribution (a permalink to the copied material is ok), and if we {{NOINDEX}} the page, and everyone can manage to not watch the page of a blocked editor for a month, it won't harm anyone. Now, I suspect they are really wasting their time, as it seems unlikely when the block expires they're going to be successful in getting their version adopted, but that is not our problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, agreed - I posted another idea to her talkpage (even though I was attacked again in the meanwhile, but I'll live). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No need to NOINDEX user talk as they are not indexed by default. –xeno^talk 14:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Took a quick look at the user's Talk page. Why is there an "extended content" collapsed section containing a full article from mainspace (i.e. article on Meredith Kercher)? -- Alexf^(talk) 10:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Isn't it copyvio then? Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    • No - it is attributed both in the page text in the edit history since this edit. See WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. –xeno^talk 15:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Would some one Close this thread as a third party

Resolved

 – AFD closed as keep Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I withdrew the nomination as the article has improved dramatically since nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Eichel Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked editor manages to edit!

Resolved

 – Carry on, nothing interesting to look at... OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This is probably not the right place to post this, but I need some expert help to explain hwo this happened.

I found this notice on my Talk page from Extra999 that B9 hummingbird hovering (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) left this edit on her/his page. However, B9 hummingbird hovering is still banned, & the last edit in B9HH's log is from 4 June 2010. And I've checked for the usual alphanumeric tricks (e.g., substituting Greek Beta for "B"), & AFAICS they are the same user names.

Anyone have an explanation for what happened? (I'm betting that the answer is something simple.) Or can point me to a developer with whom I can work with to fix a bug in the code that some average user managed to find & exploit? (No, I don't buy for a minute the possibility B9HH somehow exploited his Buddhist enlightenment to make the edit.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Timestamp on that edit: "Revision as of 13:03, 1 June 2010". Timestamp on B9's latest block, "17:00, 2 June 2010"; 27 hours later. Courcelles (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, and blocked users can edit their own talk pages (i.e. to make unblock requests), unless that is specifically disabled when blocking the user. Courcelles (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Damn. I kept staring at that date & for some reason kept reading it as "10 June 2010". I knew it was something simple. Thanks for the sanity check. -- llywrch (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Private Case

I would be gratefull if someone could have a look at this for me, Private Case and Private Case (Library Collection) seem to be articles about 2 different things, the former about an architect and industrial designer the later which is tagged for speedy seems to be about a collection of pornographic books and created by User:Privatecase. The issue is that they have entered some of the same references into Private Case which they did not create as they have into Private Case (Library Collection) and as the two pages are about different things I doubt the references are appropriate for both articles. I am kind of at a loss what to do here and could do with some advice. --Wintonian (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering if they are getting the articles mixed up as this edit [30] seems to show them copying content from there article into Private Case. --Wintonian (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Privatecase (talk · contribs) has been attempting to take over the article Private Case by creating a copy at Private Case (Library Collection) and then gutting and replacing the text of Private Case with that of his/her own design firm. Check out the history of the article before today. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Are they doing it deliberately though? I mean wouldn’t most users just blank the page and add their own content in if they are doing it deliberately? --Wintonian (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, puppet account blocked (both indefinitely), copyvio article deleted (by me, I didn't do the blocking although I would have if I'd been faster - socking, company name, etc). Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh thanks I guess that sorts that - to much good faith from me prehaps?

Sorry, Dougweller, I would let them to you :-) One was sock. I should normally block user:Privatecase for short time, but blocked indef because of 4 obvious reasons mentioned above, which I just finished summing up at their talk. Materialscientist (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else getting email from this editor? Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Not me. Materialscientist (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Help needed (Dramaout 5 July to 9 July)

Admin Jayron32 has previously coordinated the Dramaout 5 day festival. That is a festival where editors try to write articles and avoid drama for 5 days. This July, Jayron32 is busy but suggested that I may coordinate it. He suggested ANI as one of the places to put a notice.

Task 1 (Easiest to do: just sign your name): Feel free to sign up to participate in the dramaout here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd It will take place for 5 days starting July 5, 2010.

Task 2: I requests volunteers to help out. Help this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd which needs a little copy editing. Many volunteers can copy edit.

Task 3: A sample template has been made but is in raw form, not on a template page. One or two volunteers can create a template, maybe like this.

This user will participate in the 2010 Great Wikipedia Dramaout, a dedicated effort to exclusively article write for five days.

Task 4: Several volunteers to notify past participants (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/2nd) of this new dramaout. To reduce the load, I request 8 volunteers to contact 10 people each. Volunteer 1 will notify person 1-9 on the list. Volunteer 2 will notify 10-19 on the list.

Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Volunteer signup

1. task 4. Everyone up to 49 has been contacted. Request volunteers for users 50-59, 60-69, etc.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
2. task 2, will do in the next 2 days. Mostly done. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page comments after block

I wish someone had informed me but nevertheless, could someone uninvolved in this mess review the comments at User talk:Victor9876? Talk pages shouldn't be used for continued sniping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Jehochman ^Talk 11:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

On denying requests for reviewer permission

Comments are invited at Wikipedia talk:Reviewing#On denying requests for reviewer permission. –xeno^talk 15:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

AIV backlog, weekly message

Resolved

 – Backlog appears to be clear now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Lots of AIV issues need addressing right now... like usual. Shadowjams (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Zsfgseg

Resolved

 – And I hope it's not considered feeding the trolls to say this thread was hilarious, especially Courcelles' swift response. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I escaped from a community ban! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.21.15 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• No you didn't. Blocked for a week. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

71.247.0.0/16 blocked 55 hours (FYI, [31] shows no constructive edits within that range within that length of time). –MuZemike 22:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement needing closure

This enforcement was opened on June 6th. Since it has been opened for a long time now, can some admin please wrap it up: [32] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was goin' on down to the local AE,

When I could see some beats drama-ing up the beat,

I got mah hamma' and went to get some meat,

When I showed up the beat was beat.

(wow, that was a huge fail. The purpose of my post was to get you to spell "wrap" correctly. :)) (X! · talk)  · @062  ·  00:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I used this dictionary: [33] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The enforcement was archived without closure: [34] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Removing autoconfirmed

I've made a proposal here which would affect administrators. It would benefit from more admin perusal. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't particularly well-received, so I closed it. Fences&Windows 16:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing copyvio links in edit histories?

An anon IP edited a page to include a clearly warez link to the software described on the page. I promptly reverted the change, but another user asked me whether it would be better to outright remove that change from the edit history since it is still visible. I know we've removed personal attacks from edit histories, but should we also do this for such copyvios? --MASEM (t) 14:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Confused. Spamlinks =/= copyvios. We don't normally remove copyvios from edit history. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? I know someone who might beg to differ... –xeno^talk 14:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a spam link. We're talking links to illegally-available commercial software. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I probably would. These fit well under WP:RD1, and there's plenty of precendent for deleting them, even before REVDEL existed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, remove as contributory copyright infringement. –xeno^talk 14:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done it when links to YouTube copyvios were in the edit summaries.—Kww(talk) 14:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. The only thing that might complicate it would be if the link had been present during major overhaul of the article, which could complicate attribution or set the article back (not undoable even then, but complicates things). There's a bit of inconsistency in the handling of copyvios in article histories. Some of us remove them, some of us don't. I myself try to remove them from the history when they are extensive and especially if there seems a high risk of inadvertent restoration. In this case, the risk of damage to the copyright holder seems a bit high. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Although I have not yet done any more than WP:RD2, I believe that warez are indeed a candidate, and so are many copyvios as Moonriddengirl said. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

We have always expunged actual copyright violations (eg, someone copies/pastes text from a website) from the history. I can see it both ways with warez sites (though not actually any infringing text). I'm probably in the middle - not likely to do it myself, nor likely to mind if someone else does it. Of course, that's said without seeing the article in question. A lot of warez sites have viruses in which case certainly we would remove those revisions. So it would depend on whether it's a link to someone's blog (not worth removing unless they are spamming it all over creation), a "not-as-disreputable" site like Pirate Bay (probably not worth removing), or one of the many warez aggregators out there (likely comes with free malware, kill with fire). --B (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we haven't, though perhaps we should. Wikipedia:Copyright violations encourages contributors to simply remove or revert copyvios. I could locate pretty easily dozens of articles on Wikipedia with copyright infringement in history; some of them, left by admins who declined G12s and alternatively stubbified the articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Well, different pages say differently. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins, for instance suggests under "If there are clean versions in history or salvageable content on the page" that there are three possible actions, one of which is a history purge. Usually, the situation I am dealing with is in sports articles when the article has a year's worth of history and six months into that, someone copy/pasted his official bio from the team's website into it. I usually just history purge from that point forward so that someone, not realizing the reason, won't revert back to the copyvio text. If the current version of the article isn't derived from the copyvio text, I can't think of a reason that I would sua sponte do a history purge. --B (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the practice I follow for that very reason, but mileage varies widely on this issue. We could use with some standardization, I'd think. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crash (1984 TV series) (2nd nomination)

Resolved

Further to a request on my talk page, please could an uninvolved administrator review my close, and reclose if necessary?—S Marshall T/C 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've undone the contested close. It should be closed by an admin who analyses the strength of the policy based arguments. Verbal chat 17:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I've closed it ... differently. Hopefully this will suit all parties. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • That works too.  :) Mind having a look at the other 21 unclosed debates from that day?—S Marshall T/C 18:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • And in fact the 10 unclosed debates from the day before; WP:OLD. I've tried to help but I've reached the stage where a non-admin closing anything else would create more drama than it's worth.—S Marshall T/C 18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
      • All closed. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI backlog

There is a huge backlog at SPI. If someone has a moment, would they please have a look at clearing up some of these? Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Motion regarding Eastern European mailing list

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

Remedy 10 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Radeksz topic banned") is rescinded.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Now Commons

Hello! I am the administrator on the Serbian Wikipedia. Because I work with images on my home project, I've noticed that you have lots of pictures with template Now Commons. Images that are transferred to Wikimedia Commons should be checked and deleted in this project. You currently have thousands of such images. I would help in this, but I do not have the ability to delete images on this project. I hope that you will handle this. Best regards! mickiτ 20:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Micki. Although I am not an administrator, I will respond to this because it doesn't seem anyone else has found this. From what I understand on this project, there is a backlog of images because not enough people have been able to go about deleting the duplicates. There has been a recent effort to remove the duplicates so I guess it will be a matter of time, maybe a year until it is all cleaned up under the best of circumstances. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a huge backlog...that not many care about because it's not really causing any harm. T. Canens (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it does not cause any harm, but it's always better to prevent than cure:) The number of such images is growing slowly. Anyway, if you think it does not matter, then fine. mickiτ 19:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please also see WT:IM - an editor has recently moved thousands of images within a few days. Admins are still working on the backlog. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

NowCommons template has been changed so it is possible to add a reviewer. That means that other users than admins can help check. If you are not prepared to give Commons admins (and other xx admins) rights to delete images they have checked then they can review the transfers to verify that image can be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have not seen the earlier discussion. Thank you for the link, and an additional explanation. mickiτ 20:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In short: Reviewed images ends up in Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons and if an admin trusts the reviewer it should be very easy to delete the images. Only risk is that a vandal adds a fake review but to check the admin can either check that image excists on Commons and that bot move template is removed or check the file history to see if review is really added by the claimed reviewer. So feel free to start the deletion :-)

If this turns out to be a succes we should add a script so it is easy to mark files as reviewed. --MGA73 (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Community ban on Swamilive

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

Resolved

 – there is a clear consensus for a community ban

Since the basis of a de facto ban (based on on the basis of this thread and this thread) has been contested, I am proposing a formal community ban on Swamilive. This user is a long time and persistent vandal as well as serial sockpuppeteer using many accounts as well as IPs to repeatedly vandalize Wikipedia. This has been going on for more than a year apparently.

Courtesy to David Biddulph and Pdfpdf who created the following list of more recent activities:

Rear admiral

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rear_admiral&action=historysubmit&diff=364231941&oldid=362963092
  • User talk:216.26.223.38
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.26.223.38

Brigadier General

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brigadier_General&diff=next&oldid=361211801
  • 00:06, 11 May 2010 User talk:216.26.211.12
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.26.211.12
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brigadier_General&diff=next&oldid=363140748
  • 11:48, 26 May 2010 User talk:216.26.213.69
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.26.213.69
• etc.

List of sock puppets

• User:Swamilive
• User talk:216.26.202.187
• User talk:216.26.211.12
• User talk:216.26.213.69
• User talk:216.26.222.47
• User talk:216.26.223.38
• User talk:216.211.93.108

You may also want to look at the following, whose behaviour has been similar to the most recent edit from this IP:

• 216.26.202.110
• 216.26.213.34
• 216.26.214.39
• 216.26.219.104
• 216.26.223.175
• 216.211.45.190
• 216.211.56.184
• 216.211.72.66
• 216.211.73.24
• 216.211.95.252
• 216.211.97.11
• 216.211.102.216
• 216.211.117.165

This was just to name a few.

There are also several ANI threads about his behavior:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive168#Yet another Swamilive sockpuppet
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#User:Swamilive - Sockpuppeteer and harasser wrapped up and ready to go
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive480#User:Swamilive sockpuppet activity
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#User:Swamilive sockpuppet rampage
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive519#Winnipeg Folk Festival vandal
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive611#User:Swamilive
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive612#Unblock of 24.109.207.40

Recent sockpuppetry can be seen also with these accounts Jarrison Games (talk · contribs) and The Jamesbreadth (talk · contribs) which were just blocked today. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. De facto banned; a de jure community ban will allow editors to revert with confidence. TFOWR 09:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support, there's nothing but disruption from this editor. Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Dot the tea's, cross your eyes, and pull one's socks up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support nothing to add to what the above have said -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support per all the above. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support per TFOWR, so that it will be easier to revert his edits without much fuss. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - only disruption for a lengthy period. Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Concerns about Elockid's actions in regard to this

I wish to preface this by stating that I am neither condoning nor defending Swamilive's actions, and I have no objection to a ban being placed on their account. I am quite familiar with Swamilive's <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Swamilive history>. My comments here relate solely to concerns about a violation of policy on the part of an admin.

Prior to starting this thread, Elockid placed a {{banned}} template on Swamilive's userpage with the edit summary of "banned. nobody in their right mind would unblock you now". Quick summary of discussion which followed in User talk:Swamilive#Banned?:

• Swamilive asked why they were banned and received a response which stated in part "a ban is completely justified. Oh, the ban is on this account, the ban is placed on you"
• I asked Elockid to provide a link to the ban discussion
• Elockid responded by stating that Swamilive was "basically de facto banned"
• I asked for Elockid to remove the template since Swamilive was not banned per WP:BAN
• After the second request, Elockid did remove the template, but continues to insist that they did nothing wrong

WP:BAN lays out the types of bans that may be enacted. It explicitly states "individual users, including admins, may not directly impose bans". I have suggested to Elockid that they may be misunderstanding what "de facto" bans mean, but they have only countered by saying that Swamilive has been banned since 2008 based on the off-hand comment of an admin whose most recent action is requesting a ban on themselves. I attempted to resolve this on the talk page without bringing it to a noticeboard, but without any hint of success.

I am concerned that Elockid is not only ignoring policy but is also taking a vindictive approach to "vandal fighting" which is ultimately counterproductive. I note that concerns about this were raised in their RFA. I am not suggesting that Elockid be desysoped, but perhaps they can be steered toward observing policy and following the advice of WP:RBI. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As much as we would love RBI to work, it doesn't work with repeated long-term vandals. Really, It's quite common for long-term vandals. RBI has no affect on him. I don't see it ending anytime soon. Since you're so concerned about de facto bans, I'd suggest you look into other de facto bans that haven't been formally banned such as Xtinadbest, Scibaby, Wikipéire or Nangparbat among many others. The last three being some of the largest serial sockpuppeteers in Wikipedia. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Elockid, I'm not here to talk about the issue in general, I'm here to discuss your actions in this particular case. You seem to be ducking the issue rather than responding to my assertion that your action was in violation of policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I sense another flamewar (see the Gwen Gale section above) over an admin doing the right thing. Horse = Dead. That is all. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that Swamilive has been community banned and Neutralhomer's predictive abilities have been shown to be faulty, can we discuss the issue? Or can someone suggest a forum where this will get properly addressed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss because you're wrong. First of all, a de facto ban is a ban and is not a ban imposed by anyone individually. I'm merely stating the obvious. The part about the banning policy which states that no individual may impose a ban is true and I would be violating policy if I actually did impose a ban myself. If I individually posted a ban, I wouldn't have bothered to actually look at previous threads on him and actually say that I am banning him, not using stating de facto bans. However, like I said previously, I was stating the obvious because he has been considered banned for a while and a de facto is not a ban imposed by a specific user. Also, note the very first comment/first support in the thread above. It's very evident that the community has been already fed up with his persistent, long-term, disruptive behavior prior to this proposal. See also the last ban about de facto bans. Also, where in the ANI threads or any of the ANI threads out there shows that the community wants him back? No one was and no one is still willing to unblock him and there has already been considerable review of his actions in which people are exhausted with this actions.

You also didn't know what a de facto ban was and I'm still under the impression that you don't fully understand. Note that when I stated de facto ban, you came to the conclusion that I was going against policy. This already shows that you didn't know what I was talking about or that you are not entirely familiar with policies or you had little to no knowledge of what they were to begin with. Because of this there is a much higher likelihood that you're the one who has the misunderstanding. Based on your comments, the following that the relevant banned users that I mentioned above are also incorrectly banned and thus those peoples' actions are also in question. Note these users are users are actually people who have much more experience (one is a current ArbCom member) about bans than yourself. Are you implying that they're wrong also? Because those are basically in the same situation. The fact is that he was already considered banned and that I was not imposing imposing a ban myself. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a fairly rambling couple of paragraphs but I'll do my best to respond to the questions you asked or implied. I've explained my understanding of the term "de facto" in this context, but you have your own interpretation. Even assuming that interpretation is correct, where is this in WP:BAN? How does one editor (admin or otherwise) declaring someone to be "de facto" banned differ from one editor declaring someone to be banned, especially since you contend that a "de facto" ban is a ban?

I'm not in any way, shape, or form defending Swamilive here or asking for them to be unbanned. I have no idea why you linked to the ban discussion of another user. Obviously it wasn't difficult to get Swamilive banned by the community, so it mystifies me why you didn't go that route in the first place rather than unilaterally declaring them to be banned. If other users have been similarly "banned" without regard for the policy, then, yes, those "bans" are wrong regardless of who made them.

I know that discussions of admins subverting, abusing, or flouting policy can be uncomfortable topics, but note that no admin has seen fit to support your case here, despite my invitation to do so. If I am wrong, you'd think it would be easy to find admins who can show me where I have erred in my argument. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The same can be said about what you're saying. You haven't gained any support from any "legitimate" user who are actually allowed to edit. I say "legitimate" because the only people who have been supporting your view are either blocked and/or banned sockpuppeteers. It's only natural for them to go this route. No legitimate user has commented me going against policy and in fact, Neutralhomer has already taken the liberty to explain the current situation. Furthermore, this comment by Pdfpdf, a legitimate user suggests that they are in support of how I am dealing with Swamilive.

FYI, just to show you that rangeblocks don't always work, here are a couple socks that got through the rangeblock: Anthony J. Postwar (talk · contribs) and The Enchanting Wizard of Rhythm (talk · contribs). Elockid ^(Talk) 17:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you bringing up rangeblocks now instead of answering the questions I posed above? "Even assuming that interpretation is correct, where is this in WP:BAN? How does one editor (admin or otherwise) declaring someone to be "de facto" banned differ from one editor declaring someone to be banned, especially since you contend that a "de facto" ban is a ban?" FYI, those weren't Swamilive sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm bringing up rangeblocks because you said that rangeblocks will stop him. But it didn't. 3 of the 4 socks I've seen editing after the rangeblock has been block by jpgordon, who has more insight than you or I to whether or not the accounts that the blocked are Swamilive or not. He just didn't tag the first 3 socks as suspected socks as Swamilive, but as confirmed socks of Swamilive. It's also evident that The Enchanting Wizard of Rhythm is a continuation of Anthony J. Postwar which he tagged as a confirmed sock. So I wouldn't be so quick to say that they are socks or not.

Also, In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the user. Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Elockid ^(Talk) 18:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion about the effectiveness of range blocks versus bans to stop prolific vandals seems like a non-starter to me since the former prevents certain IPs from editing whereas the latter is nothing more than a label, but I'm perfectly happy to debate you on the subject, just not here. This discussion is about your actions in one specific instance. As for your quotation from WP:BAN, where is the discussion in which consensus of uninvolved editors was reached after due consideration? I asked you almost this same question in my first posting on Swamilive's talk page. If there is such a discussion (and please don't offer an unblock request as a community discussion), why didn't you provide me a link at that time? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What I was interpreting from your question was that where is the formal ban discussion prior. As the quotation suggests, it's not a "formal ban". That's what it seemed you've been asking for the whole time. Check the very first links that I posted on the ban proposal. One of the threads I showed you was from Jeske Couriano. He was already considered banned then. I really don't know why you made the comment that he wanted himself banned because that's irrelevant. This is further supported per, this thread Swamilive's indefinite block was considered and it was agreed that he should remained blocked. The only person that AGF and was considering to unblock ended up retracting their statement after some light was shed. It's quite clear that no one in their right mind wanted to unblock them and now. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

An editor is not banned because Jeske Couriano or any other individual admin says they are banned. Including you, which is why we're having this discussion. Let me quote that part of the policy once again so it sinks in: "...individual users, including admins, may not directly impose bans". Note the words that I highlighted in my last post here. Read over the discussion you link to above - it's hardly a consensus of uninvolved users giving due consideration. I'm going wait for someone else to weigh in because you seem to invent new reasons why you're not in violation of policy with every response you give and it's getting tedious. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. You've had 4 days to get support and we are approaching finishing our 5th. Guess what? No one, with exception to blocked sockpuppeteers, still has supported what you're saying. One of them is just using it as a reason to try and edit. At least there are two other users, both established and long standing who seem to either suggest that you're wrong or that are an agreement of how I am dealing with things. I really recommend following Neutralhomer's advice of WP:STICK. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't really expecting any support here. I meant that you could find some admin to support your case, perhaps one of those who has placed similar "bans". Neutralhomer goes out of his way to disagree with me and really isn't an editor you should rely on for interpretation of policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

[35] is a similar case. It doesn't really matter though; someone evading a block for years and someone formally banned are both going to treated the exact same. NW (Talk) 11:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that the same concerns I'm raising here were raised in that discussion by very experienced users (one of whom is a former admin themselves, I believe). There seems little point in having unwritten rules followed by some which seem to go against the written policy, other than to subvert policy when it is convenient. As Elockid has demonstrated here, it is not difficult to get a long-term vandal banned by community consensus. Why not start with the ban discussion rather than the {{banned}} template? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins are not the only people who place "similar ban" tags. I don't know then why you insist that I need admin support. This is a community discussion, so comments from non-admins are perfectly acceptable especially if they are long-standing and established editors. Why shouldn't we rely on Neutralhomer anyways? He's a long standing and established editor like all of us. Secondly, your first comment does suggest you were looking for support. In other words, have other editors steer me in the right direction. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixing a topic change (with mixed up history)

Newbie admin question: While patrolling the dashboard I came across this CSD tag. Technically it fails the G7 tag due to multiple authors... however the bigger problem it uncovered is that this article appears to have morphed into a completely different topic. At one point it was about an album, but was then redirected to the artists talk page. The problem arises when an IP turns the redirect into an article about a new topic. I can think of a few ways to clean this up, but none are pretty (e.g. hist merge to break off the old album history from this new mammal stub). Any suggestions? Thanks.  7  22:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Delete article 2) Restore previous revisions up to the new article being created 3) Move [without redirect] on top of Ulisses (album) 4) Restore deleted revisions of Ulisses (album) 5) Restore new revisions of new topic Ulisses. 6) Revert to latest good versions. –xeno^talk 13:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You do the hokey cokey and you turn around..... Curiosly, this is the second time in a few days that precisely this problem has come up, although prior to that I'd never personally seen it happen. Fortunately the other article is still in userspace - and should stay there for notability reasons. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank for the tips xeno - I think that worked.  7  14:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Should we add tips on how to sort out this situation somewhere? WP:HISTMERGE? WP:SPLIT? Both? Fences&Windows 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I gave it a shot at WP:HISTSPLIT on the hist merge page. Feel free to modify.  7  01:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Fences&Windows 23:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Yeah, there is a backlog over there so any help would be appreciated. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC - Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#Australian place name convention

Not sure if this is the best place for this request. There has been a bit of a marathon discussion on a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#Australian place name convention and I would appreciate the involvement of a non-involved administrator/editor to assess the resulting consensus, if any. Regards, Mattinbgn\^talk 07:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Overdue speedy

Hi, this image has been tagged with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} for well over a fortnight now, somehow got overlooked, could someone speedy it please? :) ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 09:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

An administrator declined the speedy 11 days ago, and you re-added it. Take it to FFD, please. Courcelles (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The uploader has marked the image as "replaceable" so the removal of the speedy, justified as "image not replaceable", was clearly incorrect... ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 09:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Except that appears to be more of a tagging issue than the truth- every other Doctor Who serial has a screenshot, tagged as non-replaceable, because the BBC doesn't freely release such things. Anyways, it's at FFD now. Courcelles (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Unable to proceed" syntax error on template

Resolved

 – I added more checks to the code of MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. Ruslik_Zero 10:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a huge deal but something isn't right. For example (Non-admins only; admins should log out to see what I mean) when you try to move a fully protected page example the bottom right isn't showing up properly when it's discussing an edit request. Thanks  – Tommy [message] 19:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Any idea which template is responsible here? Hopefully that's a template, not part of the wikimedia software; though I suspect the latter would have been noticed sooner. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be as small as a missing [  – Tommy [message] 19:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a missing [, but I tried this myself by attempting to move Template:! and it seems that some of the wikitext is appearing and some is being parsed correctly; without being able to see the wikicode of the page, as a special page, it's difficult to tell. Hopefully an admin here will know which template is displayed here and then we can figure out what's wrong with the template. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Youre right. I dk. The discuss this page at the top right is also wrong.  – Tommy [message] 19:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The message is in MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. It appears that {{TALKPAGENAME}} does not work correctly. Ruslik_Zero 19:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats no surprise....thats because its trying to use Special talk:MovePage/User:Tommy2010 since its being parsed on a Special page. FunPika 20:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope I get the same errors when I try to move Female ejaculation  – Tommy [message] 20:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes Tommy, but in that case it's referring to Special talk:MovePage/Female ejaculation, so it's still being used on a special page. This needs to be changed to give it an alternative if {{TALKPAGENAME}} is blank. Obviously MediaWiki content is admin-only or I'd do it myself. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume the problem is that this page is also used for other actions, which aren't on special pages. Probably the original coder forgot to take into account that it'd be used on Special Pages in this situation. No biggie, fairly easily fixed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television)

{{rfctag}}

What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Community ban proposal on ANI for User:Pickbothmanlol

This should have been noted here earlier, bot for the record and for comments before it gets near closing, there's a proposal and community ban discussion going on ANI at the moment for long time problem sockpuppeteer Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pickbothmanlol ban proposal. Also see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol/Archive for reference on the sockpuppeting.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection level on Eminem

I don't really understand how the new approved changes process works, but ever since Eminem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)'s protection level was changed, every edit to the article has been vandalism. Can we change the protection back to semi-protection so that real editors don't have to keep reverting the vandalism on this article? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. In the future, WP:RFPP would be the best forum for this type of discussion. John Reaves 03:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It was brought up there. I wanted to ask here about the different levels of protection, since I don't understand how they work. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The system seems to be working then, Unprotected > PC1 > Semi > PC2 >Full. PC1 was tried and found not to be appropriate, so the level of protection has been raised to Semi. No big problem really and requests should be made at RFPP if it is found that PC1 isn't the appropriate level of protection. Mjroots (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Except the protection has been removed, and the vandalism level is back to what it was. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Kind of. It is as far as you and me (and us) are concerned, in that we see the vandalism (and have to deal with it too, such is our lot...) But for casual readers, the vandalism is invisible: they simply see the last good revision.

So... pending changes protection is good (for the reader), but not as good as semi-protection (for most editors).

I've just declined semi-protection for an article with pending changes protection, while simultaneously another admin semi-d the same article. In hindsight I'm seeing semi-protection as a better option for this article than pending changes protection, but it does mean blocking legitimate edits. It looks to me offhand that Eminem does has a few legitimate edits being accepted by reviewers, so I'd still prefer pending changes protection to semi. I suspect the editors there dealing with the vandalism may disagree with me, however...!

TFOWR 17:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist and I will semi it later if the lunacy continues. However, i'd be only too happy if another admin beat me to it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What happened here is that semi-protection was removed in order to test PC1, thereby setting PC up for failure, because this is an article that's vandalized a lot, which is why long-term semi-protection was added in the first place. It's all very well to say that "only" logged-in readers can see the vandalism, but that's tens of thousands of people, more readers than most newspapers have. I don't understand why we're choosing high-profile semi-protected vandalism targets—even Adolf Hitler was reduced to PC1 yesterday—to produce results that everyone could have predicted. Would it not make more sense to use PC1 on articles with some problems that don't quite rise to the level of needing semi-protection? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well you can say that this is an experiment. What happens on Adolf Hitler's page was a bet, and a failed one too. So at least we can now safely say that PC1 is not appropriate for that page, rather than having no data at all about what could of happened. Could of been predicted? probably, but it is important in an experiment that you back up the results you get from actual data, rather than speculation. 山本一郎 (会話) 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no point in an experiment that involves me banging you hard on the knee with a hammer to see whether it causes you pain. :) When the idea of PC was introduced, I believe everyone thought it would provide extra protection—protection for articles that didn't necessarily need semi-protection but which were nevertheless vulnerable, such as BLPs. But we're seeing it used here to downgrade protection, including on BLPs, then when vandalism and BLP violations get through, we say "don't worry, casual readers can't see it." But we have huge numbers of non-casual readers who do see it—as I said earlier, our non-casual readership exceeds the readership of most, if not all, newspapers . So it's still a lot of vandalism and potential libel being shown to a lot of readers because we removed the protection. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately, I think the criteria for applying PCP is up for the community to decide. If the community comes to a consensus that the scope of PCP should be expanded beyond the articles covered by the current protection policy, I say go ahead with it and change the current protection policy so that the scope of PCP increases. As for the visibility of drafts, I believe it's something you have to talk to the developers about. I'm all for having the reviewed edit displayed as the default revision unless you change your preference, but that's me. 山本一郎 (会話) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the community, but I don't recall the community deciding to test PCP on articles that already needed long-term semi-protection. My memory of all the discussions about flagged revisions is that they'd provide extra protection, not less, and that was what the community wanted. I'm not saying I agree with that—my position has always been that we should semi-protect BLPs and leave the rest as it is—but that was clearly what the community seemed to want. But somewhere along the way that got changed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Slim. I brought this up at WT:Reviewing, as it happens. Downgrading protection for Bible, Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler was no, by any stretch of the imagination, a good idea. All this has done is create extra work for editors who, instead of improving the article, have to revert whatever drive by crap someone feels like adding. PC is good for some articles, but what was going to happen to these articles and many others was very easily predictable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget 4chan article too, it's another case of a failed PC where I had to put it back to semi. In any case, as far as I know, there will be another poll at the end of the trial where the community will provide feedbacks, and hopefully then, we can decide actual scope of PCP. There's always a WP:RFC if that doesn't help. Also, what's predictable to you, may not be so easily predictable for everyone else. Applying PC on some of these pages like 4chan and Adolf Hitler is to convince everyone, not just me, that PC just simply don't work for some articles, and I say it is imperative that we have something to show to everyone as a record at least, because there's probably at least someone who thinks that PC should completely replace semi-protection when its time to poll how we are going to use PCP. I am however, not going to disagree with you that putting these articles further under PC1 will only waste everyone elses time. 山本一郎 (会話) 19:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Another issue is the wheel-warring it's causing. Eminem was under long-term semi-protection because it's a frequent target. You replaced it with PC1. The vandalism started up again. John Reaves restored semi-protection. Then The ed17 removed semi-protection again and restored PC1. The vandalism now continues: it appears that every edit since then has been vandalism or a revert. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think with the level of vandalism it receives, Eminem should be put back to semi.

There's been plenty of discussions on different FlaggedRevs implementation; the proposal which has been adopted stated that articles should meet the burden for semi protection (SP), but it had a provision that articles subject to too high levels of vandalism should be put back to semi. The application of protection is subject to considerable discretion. Let's say that PC adds a more flexible level of protection, which can be used in cases where SP is justified in terms of policy, but where using SP would be unnecessarily restrictive. There are several needs to balance: to allow constructive editing, to protect the encyclopedia from harm, to avoid wasting resources unnecessarily, etc; they should be considered on a case by case basis. Cenarium (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose what I'm wondering is who has made these decisions, because they seem to have taken the community by surprise. Admins are having their protection decisions repeatedly undone with reference to some consensus somewhere else. Articles that need semi-protection are being exposed, including BLPs and FAs. I've been told elsewhere that we need talk-page consensus to remove full protection and replace it with PC2—but since when have we needed talk-page consensus for protection decisions? The whole thing seems very labour-intensive for little or no gain. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's better to have a rough consensus for level 2 because it's a bit controversial still (but of course not to remove full protection), there's no agreed policy on its use yet, but that's just about a handful of cases. The proposal was approved in this poll. Beyond that, the decisions are made by the community as needed. The articles are not exposed, PCP can provide an adequate level of protection, as can be seen for plenty of articles (I'll try to make a survey). And articles are regularly unprotected to test if protection is still needed, this is common practice, so I don't see the big deal here. Cenarium (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me where consensus was formed to use articles already under long-term semi-protection for the test? That seems to be the source of the problem—the downgrading of protection. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A problem in only a few cases, though. The discussions are at WP:PCQ and talk page. Just to make the point clear, PC will allow to better protect BLPs, since most admins are reluctant to apply SP on articles which meet the burden for SP but not in a substantial manner, however they would be more willing to apply the less restrictive PCP. It's a question of discretion and judgment. Cenarium (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

flagged revisions new page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_possible_inappropriate_reviews

Wikipedia has a flagged revision trial. It is difficult to gauge the success of the test. This may help. If you see a review that might be inappropriate, either approved when it shouldn't have or unapproved when it should, mention it on that page. This will help us see what can be improved. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Diffs/logs cannot be categorized, thanks for playing. 86.41.79.133 (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Category deleted acoordingly (as empty, and one that wuldstay empty forever). A noticeboard, project page, ... is better suited for this. Fram (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

RFA - Administrator recall for User:Herostratus

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2

Prior related threads:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive214#Recall_petition
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard thread

RFA subpage, administrator recall, now taking place, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Discussion has since been closed early as being the wrong forum... -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Please also note the discussion taking place here regarding my adding the notice at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall (diff) and Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process (diff). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    • This close was inappropriate, and has been reverted as such. RFAs should not be closed on dubious grounds. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

      I find it very worrying and offensive that someone, not to mention an administrator, would attempt to unilaterally close down a community discussion based on such weak justification as "wrong forum". As far as I'm concerned, "wrong forum" should NEVER be used as a reasoning for shutting down an in-progress community discussion (especially one that so many people have already contributed to) unless it was started by a vandal, abusive sock or POV pushing SPA. I just may draft an essay about appropriate and inappropriate use of "wrong forum" to help guide us in the future. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

      I find it very worrying and offensive that a non-crat (and not even an admin) unilaterally reverted a crat closure. Nobody elected Ncmvocalist a crat, while Nihonjoe is a duly promoted crat. Closing RfAs is one of the main functions of crats. If a crat closure is to be reverted, it must be done by another crat, after a crat chat. Nsk92 (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

      I don't, to be honest. I'd have preferred it if there had been some public discussion first, but Nihonjoe's close appears to be contested by the community (I also believe the close was unwise), while Ncmvocalist's re-open seems to have met with broad support. I think it would have been wise to have left the re-opening to a 'crat, but the end result is the same. Unless there's some new super-secret 'crat reason for preventing WP:RECALL RfAs? TFOWR 12:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

      We need to get our priorities straight here. Nsk92 appears to have a very flawed understanding as to what WP:IAR means, much like Nihonjoe, otherwise that user wouldn't be advancing arguments of this nature. Bureaucrats are not promoted (or for that matter, permitted) to rob users of their rights (which are afforded by community policy), or, to misrepresent the letter and spirit of other policies and procedures to reflect personal interpretations that are not supported by a community consensus. This is regardless of if bureaucrats do so individually or as a group, in public or in secret, or in any other fashion. Nihonjoe inappropriately ignored all rules to unilaterally impose his personal versions (or wildly inaccurate interpretations) of policy/process on the community [36] [37] [38]. I restored policy that allows admins to voluntarily choose the terms of any recall process that they wish. As Nihonjoe's close was grossly and fundamentally problematic (and others expressed concerns to this effect), I also boldly reverted the inappropriate close thinking that Wikipedia is not an unnecessary bureaucracy where process wonkery rules all. I was especially mindful and considerate of the fact Herostratus, the subject of this RFA, explicitly did not want fellow administrators to needlessly interfere in the process - unlike Nihonjoe, I am not an administrator, which was in accordance with Herostratus' criteria also. Nevertheless, I fully explained the reasons for reverting the close here, and I stand by my rationale and actions in this matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

      Didn't we used to call that WP:IAR? Closing during an entire process because of a personal interpretation as to what process to use (acting as if the current policies are in fact set in stone as opposed to being merely prescriptive) is really questionable judgment from an administrator, let along a bureaucrat. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

      ...someone, not to mention an administrator, would... I think you mean "bureaucrat" ;-) I'm assuming the closing 'crat simply hadn't encountered WP:RECALL. I agree that their close was inappropriate, and I agree with the re-opening by Ncmvocalist. Unless Nihonjoe has made a habit of doing this, however, I'd suggest there's nothing further to do here...? TFOWR 11:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is pure crap. Closing a discussion as wrong venue? It's policy wankery at it's finest. Kudos ro NCMvocalist. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So Nihonjoe's close is based on an ordering problem and nothing more? If Herostratus resigned the bit first, then stood, it would have been OK, but taking him at his word that he would resign if he failed wasn't OK? Seems like a bit of process wonkery to me. What if he'd just up and out of the blue asked for a reconfirmation RfA? (without the benefit of a prior recall petition)... that happens from time to time too. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Very good points here, as noted in this comment, by Lar (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is merely an ordering problem. I believe it was suggested to Herostratus that he first resign, and he explicitly declined. The hurdle for confirmation in such a case is well-understood, but the hurdle for this situation is not well-understood, and probably not the same, so it is unclear how one defines whether this request passes or fails. It appears that the person deciding whether the result is passage or failure is Herostratus, which is decidedly not a simple ordering issue. Deskana has opined that there is no 'crat action to be taken, as it is not a 'crat function to remove the bit, so this is not mere wonkery. This is stark evidence that the recall process is badly formed.--SPhilbrickT 14:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

These matters are probably best discussed at Wikipedia:BN#Herostratus' "recall" RfA and/or Wikipedia:BN#Reconfirmation RFAs. –xeno^talk 14:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

AN3 backlog

AN3 has some reports getting ~3hrs stale if any admin has a moment? :) ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

3 hours for AN3 is like...nothing. T. Canens (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then anyone can legitimately say, "Its stale so dont block me plz kthx," and that's presumably not what we want? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 20:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment.

Not that kind of RfC :P. Anyways, I was wondering, if an IP is blocked and makes a blatantly unserious, joke or threatening {{unblock}} request, is it okay to revert it or should I just let an admin handle it? Thanks,  – Tommy [message] 19:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's usually better to leave it for an admin, particularly as they may have to take further action anyway. Additionally, what constitutes an unserious unblock request can often be a matter of opinion that some admin might not agree with. Unless it's particularly gross vandalism, I'd really recommend not getting into an edit war over it. There's no harm done if waiting for the reply to a silly unblock request keeps a vandal occupied for a few hours. They might have even learned something by the time it's answered. That is usually worth more than getting them all excited with a faceful of rollbacks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Thank you zzuuzz.  – Tommy [message] 20:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Block review of User:TiffanyTran

I humbly request a review of my block placed on TiffanyTran (talk · contribs), whom I blocked as a sock puppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taztouzi/Archive after discovering edits made at Mister World 2010 that were similar to the other blocked socks. I have already been contacted via email by the blocked user about the block, another administrator has reviewed and declined the on-wiki unblock request, and the filer of the SPI case has requested a second look, as he has suspicions that I may have erred here. A second look is appreciated. Regards, –MuZemike 21:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Block looks reasonable to me. The only question I have is whether the false information being placed by Taztouzi propagated out to a forum, TiffanyTrans inserted the information based on the forum, and now TiffanyTran is coming up as a false positive. I think the best course of action would be for a checkuser to look at this and see how likely the connection is. If it's unlikely on an IP basis, I don't think the behavioural evidence is strong enough to override that conclusion.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Susfele (the original complainant) has doubts that this person is a sock [39] and Kww does not think that there is sufficient behavioral evidence. MuZemike believes this person should be blocked. A compromise is that this user is unblocked and mentored. I have no opinion except that it is no fun to be blocked. I was wrongly blocked before and the blocking administrator even admitted it. The wrong block put such a sour taste for Wikipedia that I stopped editing regularly. Spevw (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said the behavioural evidence wasn't strong enough to overcome a checkuser result of "unlikely", but no checkuser has been run. That's why I think one should be run.—Kww(talk) 03:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the block as a sockpuppet was incorrect. TiffanyTran has been editing in this area since January 2008, blocking them as a sockpuppet on the basis of making a slightly similar edit to a blocked user wasn't a good idea, though I see how it was done in the heat of the moment. I'm unblocking and I'll leave a note about using sources and seeking a mentor. Fences&Windows 15:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I don't think we need to run a checkuser on TiffanyTran. Fences&Windows 15:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive malfunction on this page?

The thread 'Unreliable source alert: "Encyclopedia Mythica" (pantheon.org)' was deleted from this page by MiszaBot II here but has never turned up in the relevant archive, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive214.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It, somewhat ironically, hit the spam blacklist, so the bot wasn't able to write the thread in. Fixed. T. Canens (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Who needs Skynet when you already have an archiving bot with an ironic sense of humour. Many thanks. –Syncategoremata (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any kind of reporting built into MiszaBot II (and other similar bots) to alert that items were NOT copied/archived? Any idea how many articles are "auto-deleted" in this fashion? 66.102.205.40 (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Two questions...

1. If a thread can't be archived due to the spam blacklist, then how was it able to be posted here in the first place?

2. Why can't the bot be written so that it attempts to archive a thread first and if that fails then leave it here, perhaps with message that it couldn't be archived? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It was posted here first, and as a result of said posting the relevant url was added to the spam blacklist, as a result of which the posting was not able to be archived correctly... T. Canens (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forgive and forget

I currently feel myself very harmlessly threatened by other editors on Wikipedia. How do I apply the Wikipedia:Forgive and forget essay to everyone? /HeyMid (contributions) 18:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you started by telling us if you've previously edited using any other Wikipedia accounts.... we can probably take it from there. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Heymid = Account number one. Nothing more after that. /HeyMid (contributions) 19:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You forgive them and forget about it? You note here that others have accused you of trolling. Posts like this do not help you disabuse them of this notion. Fences&Windows 22:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My bad history at Swedish Wikipedia, has prevented me from taking any further steps from English Wikipedia, which I find it unacceptible. At this point, I almost feel like creating a new account to avoid those people (although I wouldn't be allowed to do so). Maybe I should take a one month break from Wikipedia? Does that help? /HeyMid (contributions) 08:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit by Tournesol is clearly a case of Assuming good faith. /HeyMid (contributions) 08:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What would help is if you would stop escalating conflicts from svwp on the English Wikipedia. Your behavior on User talk:Tournesol and User talk:BjörnBergman is unacceptable. Please focus on contributing constructively instead. If a one month break would help you step away from these issues, then it may be something you should consider. Regards, decltype (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

High quality images copywritten as "Low quality"

• I do not exactly know where to bring this issue, but there are some images that needs to be lowered down when it comes to quality especially if they are not properly sourced. Here are some: File:Endlessloveposter.jpg, File:PilyangKerubin.JPG, File:Diva2010.jpg, File:TakeMeOutPhilippines.jpg, File:TrudisLiit.JPG, File:MarsRavelosBasahangGinto.JPG, File:ClaudineDramaAnthologyShow.JPG. They also seem to be images for unnotable articles.--TwelveOz (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

They should at least be tagged with {{Non-free reduce}} and I see there's a backlog of 47 in that category already. I'll make a start on it. Rodhullandemu 20:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

what size should they be reduced to? I may be able to whip up a quick script to do all the reductions if I get a target value. --Ludwigs2 05:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This page has some general rules of thumb on that. Jafeluv (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys!--TwelveOz (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

fox news brings on the pedophile dramahz

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/25/exclusive-pedophiles-find-home-on-wikipedia/

Sheesh. FYI. I found it linked from slashdot.

75.57.243.88 (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevance? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well besides the GirlChat and BoyChat links which should probably be removed, the slandering by Fox News is rather normal here. What do others think? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I never take Fox News seriously about anything - there's no point to it. They are always going to run stories like this because stories like this have the dual advantage that they satisfies their viewerships' craving for scandal and perversion while allowing them (Fox and viewers alike) to maintain the moral high-ground. There is nothing to be done and nothing to be said that will convince them to do otherwise, because this approach is a highly successful (and profitable) form of entertainment. Take what's useful from it (e.g., remove those links if they are still there) and forget about it. --Ludwigs2 15:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

the Fox News article doesn't seem to report the links - if anyone knows what they are, I suggest we start a proposal over at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_additions to have those chat links (and any other external pedophilia links) blacklisted. I'll open a discussion there, if you know the links in question swing over and add them. --Ludwigs2 16:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a utility or something that can show where and how many times a site is externally linked to? [40] this kind of search doesn't seem to really help--Crossmr (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

See Special:LinkSearch. The particular link in question appears 12 times on Wikipedia, but zero times within our articles. ThemFromSpace 16:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you make that work? I keep getting 'no results found'. --Ludwigs2 16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Search for *.boychat.org in the box. ThemFromSpace 16:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)enter a search like: *.annabelleigh.net someone should sick the foundation's lawyer on Fox news.. it's basically misrepresentation as defamation. All of the links appear in old talk archives or from project page discussions.--Crossmr (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I just broke it down on the numbers here and there is nothing concerning. Yes they got the numbers right but they fail to mention that the "articles" aren't even articles at all, just talk and user page archives. Stupid Fox and their fearmongering. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is this slander of which you speak? Other than misunderstanding titles of administrators and stewards, what major errors did they make? I found it very helpful to have an outside view of what may be happening here—I think we do a pretty good job of being vigilant, but the article suggests that continued vigilance is necessary.--SPhilbrickT 22:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The article reads like a very deliberate attempt to smear the reputation of Wikipedia and the WMF, which makes it defamation (technically libel, not slander). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would not recommend getting in a pissing contest with Fox. Most of the things spoken of in the article happened years ago. We have (I think) improved the situation considerably over the last years. Xavier Van Erk is quoted here, take that as you will. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for something specific, not just vague charges. I can't imagine any decent lawyer (read: Mike Godwin), would find anything worth challenging. Are there pedophiles on WP? Of course, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Is their POV welcome? No, and that was clearly pointed out.--SPhilbrickT 14:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually take some solace in that article: it demonstrates that there is still employment to be had in this difficult economic climate for writers and lawyers who specialise in dancing on the edge of the truth without once falling over. :D Notwithstanding the truly obscene bias and hyperbole, can anyone point out a sentence in that article that is factually incorrect? Taken together, as they are to the casual reader, it's 'clear' that Wikipedia is a cesspit of pro-pedophilia content supported by sympathisers at every level... if you have the kind of mental state that allows you to read Fox News without a spade full of salt, that is. Taken individually, as they would be in a court, nothing crosses the line into outright falsehood. They have quite literally made a mountain out of a molehill. Happy‑melon 22:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Literally? You mean figuratively ;P. The thing I find most funny about this article is that this Nigam chap seems to categorise Wikipedia as a social networking site :D. Although it annoys me that he thinks we don't take steps to clean up Wikipedia, of course, that wasn't actually Fox who said that... - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, is there anyway to use the special link search tool to only search article space?--Crossmr (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There is, but it's disabled on Wikimedia Foundation wikis for performance reasons. Graham87 03:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, that's too bad. Being able to filter for Article space would be very valuable for this tool to weed out bad refs and the sort, apparently newer talk on it, but still old [41]--Crossmr (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm- Ugh, I like foxnews- but why does it attack one of my favorite sites on the internet?! --Rockstonetalk to me! 01:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I love one of the comments to the article "We should get rid of all these pot-smoking hippie freaks who set up Wikipedia in the first place? Dictionaries should be sold door-to-door, just like they used to be.An online dictionary that anyone can contribute to is ripe for disseminating sick propaganda." I guess we are a dictionary now... --nn123645 (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We should get rid of those new fangled printing presses, everyone knows books should be written out in long hand by near sighted monks and only disseminated to those wealthy enough to afford them. How dare they make information cheap ehough to be available to everyone. Next thing you know people will start thinking for themselves and stop listening to us....LOL. Heiro 05:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) @ Rockstone: Fox news has two (interrelated) problems that lead it to do things like this.

1. it really is an entertainment medium more than a news medium. Fox News has the same relationship to real information that The Daily Show does - they report for effect and to please their viewership, not with any old-school sense of journalistic integrity.
2. It refuses to admit its own bias. That leaves it having to be serious about things where its natural inclinations would be to lampoon them, which creates a lot of dissonance.

If John Stewart or Stephen Colbert had run this same story, we'd all be in stitches right now, because either one of them would have harpooned the project on this kind of thing in a way we'd just have to love. Because Fox News has to pretend it's 'serious' about it, what ought to be super-funny falls flat as humor and fails the journalism litmus test too. It's too bad, really: I think I could get into Glenn Beck if he were doing stand-up comedy, but trying to take him seriously gives me the willies. --Ludwigs2 05:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That's true. It originated as an entertainment medium. As for it's bias- it does lean slightly to the right- but CNN and MSNBC lean slightly to the left. People need to formulate their own opinions- and not take what any station has to say. Also, I prefer O'riley to Beck- Beck seems to like scaring his audience. --Rockstonetalk to me! 02:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog

Category:Incomplete file renaming requests needs some input. It's time to be bold and reduce the backlog. Rodhullandemu 01:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Need AfD close

Resolved

 – AFD in question closed by Tim Song --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I was closing a couple AfDs and ran across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crash (1984 TV series) (2nd nomination). Some iffy sources were found, there should be more, but many keeps hinge on 'there should be sources.' If anyone wants to close it that would be appreciated. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Closed by Tim Song. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I slapped a {{closing}} on it well before the actual close and even before the post here. Oh well. T. Canens (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RM Backlog

The requested moves backlog has grown rather large recently. It would be helpful if some administrators with knowledge in this area could go through it.TheFreeloader (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lifting of restrictions on Diego Grez (formerly MisterWiki)

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

---

Diego Grez (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive608#MisterWiki unblock discussion

In April, I conditionally unblocked Diego Grez (talk · contribs) with a fairly tight set of restrictions [42] which included working alongside mentor (and now-administrator) HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) and restricting him to his userspace. Since then, he has prepared a number of improvements to our articles in his sandboxes including a fairly extensive expansion and improvement of Pichilemu. In general, he has shown marked improvement over the behaviours that lead to original blocking and seems to have made a clean break from his past as "MisterWiki". Further evidence of his potential to be a net positive can be found in his contributions at Wikinews.

In order to benefit the ongoing development of Diego Grez as an editor, I suggest the restrictions on him be reduced to the following:

Diego Grez (talk · contribs) is restricted to a single account (excepting the employ of an approved bot), shall abide by all policies and guidelines, and continue to work with mentor HJ Mitchell.

Thoughts? –xeno^talk 15:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have notified Diego Grez of this discussion and granted him permission to edit this section of WP:AN to answer any questions. –xeno^talk 15:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I am perfectly happy to continue mentoring DG. My conversations and work with him thus far, as well as on Wikinews, where I maintain a small level of activity, give me confidence that he will be a net benefit to the project if his restrictions are loosened. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• (ec Xeno) I think this is reasonable. DG has done some great work both here and on WikiNews. I support removing userspace restrictions since he hasn't caused major trouble since the unblock. He has earned some trust back in my opinion. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 15:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Sounds good to me, so I'll also support. Pilif12p :  Yo  15:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - due to past problems there's definitely still a case for keeping a close eye on him, but certainly his behaviour since his restricted unblock has shown a vast improvement. It's probably time for him to be given the freedom to demonstrate he's properly reformed, and hence the userspace restriction probably does indeed need to go to move forward. All looks very positive to me - and providing it continues, this is a definite success for the concept of mentoring. ~ mazca ^talk 15:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: (not an admin) You may want to consider specifying the 1RR. It is my experience limiting reverts in this manner further encourages talk page discussion of issues. N419BH
• Comment: I have no opinion on the change of restrictions, but I do think rather than unconditionally expiring the mentorship requirement that it either be reviewed at the expiration date mentioned or left to HJ Mitchell to decide at that date...in my observations this works better just in case there is still improvement that can be had with keeping a mentor beyond the expiration time (note that this isn't a reflection on Diego Grez, just something that I would apply to any situation of such mentorship). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  Fair point. I've removed that from the proposal for simplicity's sake. It's a bit of a non-issue tbh, it's not like HJ Mitchell is some kind of oppressive force on Grez ;> –xeno^talk 15:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support removal of restrictions. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support the skeptics were wrong it appears. He has improved and this is a fine example that mentoring does indeed work.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge}
• Support I'm very active on Wikinews. Since I enforced the ban on Diego here he has been highly constructive over there, and has proven easy to work with - he holds no grudge against me and the two of us get along pretty well. In particular, his first-hand reporting of the earthquakes in Chile (WN encourages OR where verifiable) has been exceptional. Diego's work over here also clearly demonstrates positive intent and constructive actions. Diego can be allowed back out of his shell. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Seems reasonable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I should add that I do remember the problems this editor had as MisterWiki, and that I opposed his last request to re-instatement, before mentoring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I have only read the comments here so I have no opinion on the matter having not looked into what the original ban was about, but looking at the comments here as an uninvolved editor, I think this is probably a WP:SNOWBALL. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to hurry this discussion along. While the outcome might seem predetermined, the community should have a chance to notice and discuss this proposal. It doesn't need the week of an AfD, but I'm against snow closing less than 6 hours in. --Onorem♠Dil 19:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Fair enough; the user has presumably been on probation, as it were, for some time; a couple more days won't hurt. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Echoing Blood Red Sandman's comment, he's become a productive editor at Wikimedia Commons as well and his main intents are to demonstrate positive actions. If this was the result of mentoring, I would like to thank HJ Mitchell for giving him a chance, as he has definitely improved. --ZooFari 19:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Meh - Loosen the restrictions, but keep a close eye on contributions. Suggest the user preemptively discusses their edits with their mentor. Time wasted might be less now, but I'm still expecting time to be wasted. --Onorem♠Dil 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Good edits on Wikinews, where I edit from time to time and lurk even more, but also some unnecessary drama-mongering for which he has been warned on his WN talk page (permalink) e.g. this and [43]. Similar behaviour here would not be helpful, and he would best advised to stay out of WP discussions that don't concern him without discussing with his mentor whether he can usefully add anything. Bencherlite^Talk 19:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't justify or excuse those remarks, I should point out, for those unaware of WN politics, that they were made at a time when a lot of emotions were running high on WN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we all were very heated on Wikinews at these times, but everything calmed down :-) --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Diego, I'd advise you to not post here unless HJ says it's ok. You're still technically under restrictions and some hard headed admin may block you for posting here (even though I think that it;s totaly ok for you to post on an AN thread about you).--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 20:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I indicated to him he could post here to answer any questions/concerns. –xeno^talk 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know White, but as far as I see, I can reply comments though. Anyway, I'm going off for an hour or so. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 20:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK then I did not read that. Sorry for the misunderstanding I just wanted to make sure that you don't get into "trouble" on the verge of being allowed to edit freely :)--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 20:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So then there is no justification or excuse for them an indicate a lack of change. His behaviour where he isn't being constantly watched has issues.--Crossmr (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Diego is young, and the young do dumb stuff. He seems to have learned; now let's try taking the stabiliser wheels off and see if he can ride straight - with the proviso that he's still not allowed to go further than the end of the street yet. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment (Not had time to evaluate this yet, but one immediate q springs to mind) - That 'amended conditions' is a bit odd, because everyone is restricted to a single account (with exceptions blah) and is expected to abide by policies and guidelines - so, really, all it's saying is they need to keep working with HJ? Could this be clarified a bit - is this a proposal to a) remove all restrictions, and thus they're expected to behave like everyone else (of course, any history can be taken into account when considering a new block) or b) are they being unblocked subject to certain conditions?  Chzz  ►  20:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about the "restriction" to one account as well, but I took it to mean that the bulk of WP:SOCK#LEGIT would not apply to this user. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Giftiger wunsch has it. –xeno^talk 20:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So, will there still be conditions on their user page? Or just the (current) condition 2?  Chzz  ►  21:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary to display the restrictions on his userpage anymore. –xeno^talk 21:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support The user has abided by the restrictions and made good contributions both here and elsewhere (which, in my book, also counts). Lift the restrictions and get the guy to work. Jafeluv (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• comment oppose it is easy to behave when everyone is watching you and you're not really allowed to do anything. The scenario in no way gives me any confidence that what happened before wouldn't happen again. At the very least it should be understood that he's on a short leash and that any slip up means he's gone, do not pass go, do not collect $200, no more chances.--Crossmr (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  Just saw the comments on wikinews. "Heated emotions" has never been an acceptable excuse in my book for making inappropriate comments. In fact there are no acceptable excuses. If someone is using that as a defense, then it tells me they are not in control of their actions. Making the excuse for someone is doing nothing more than enabling them. All that tells them is that if you're really really worked up it's okay to mouth off.--Crossmr (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. He seems to have grown and to now want to be a productive member of this community (the article about Pichilemu is very good indeed), but I concur with Crossmr that his behaviour on WN is unreassuring and unjustifiable, that's why I'd like to see a civility parole thrown in... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, I know. But I reiterate we all were very heated on Wikinews, with a drama that took off 2 admins. I'm very sorry, and I have talked to one of these people on IRC after that incident. Hope this responds your doubts :-) --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 23:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  This just sounds like you're making more excuses instead of taking ownership of your behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  No sir, I didn't mean that. I meant "this won't happen anymore", and HJ Mitchell explains better the situation below. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 23:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, we're not talking about a total lifting of restrictions, just a loosening- he'll still be under my mentorship and he'll still be on a short lead. It's not "okay, Diego, off you go". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

it really sounds like it is. There is no real restriction on his behaviour and being mentored by you doesn't entail any restrictions on it's own.--Crossmr (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright then how about:

WhiteShadows' suggestion

Diego Grez (talk · contribs) is restricted to a single account (excepting the employ of an approved bot), shall abide by all policies and guidelines, and continue to work with mentor HJ Mitchell. Diego Grez is also to abide by 1RR and may not remove any good faith comment(s) from his talk page exept when archiving. He is to also contact his mentor for permission to edit in the project space and should not insert himself into discussions in other namespaces that do not directly concern him. Vioaltion of these restrictions may result in the re-imposition of an indefinite block. He is encouraged to spend hid time on Wikipedia creating and improving articles.

Feel free to tweak it up guys ;)--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like him to be able to edit in the mainspace without running every edit past me, but I think running project space edits past me would be a good idea. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I still oppose on principal, every time someone says "But it was really heated.." it's enabling his behaviour and trying to excuse it away. Frankly HJ Mitchell's response above is another non-starter. Claiming that the restrictions aren't being lifted only "loosened" when there was no intention of really restricting him to anything that a normal user wouldn't have to do (other than not be alllowed legit socks) is far more than a "loosening". His mentorship had no binding restrictions on it, so there was barely anything being applied to him. This kind of a statement is misleading and in my mind does more to hamper the discussion than move it forward.--Crossmr (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Support ORIGINAL proposal, oppose White Shadow's proposal. The WikiNews incident gave me pause, but I am overlooking it in lights of the various other good he's done. Others have done far less to get completely unblocked. (X! · talk)  · @050  ·  00:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the whole point was to simplify things. If Diego is uncivil or participates in edit wars, he is subject to blocking like any other user. Let's not forget his mentor was adminned in between the original restrictions and now. However, I don't foresee Diego being a problem in the first instance. –xeno^talk 00:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you want to bring that up, if I'd known about that, I would have opposed it. His actions at the unbanning were questionable to begin with. There was already a well discussed consensus not to unblock until he came up with this very convoluted plan and attempted to generate a new one immediately after. He showed little ability then to properly handle it and his answers here give me zero reason to show any renewed trust in either of them. Excuse making and enabling are not what wikipedia is about.--Crossmr (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

While you're entitled to your opinion, and I won't badger you for it, if you could down the rhetoric and make your comments a little less personally directed, it would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If you could actually address the issue that'd be super fantastic. Above you claimed that the restrictions were being "loosened" not lifted. Can you objectively say that his new "restrictions" could accurately be described as loosened compared to what they were before? I don't think so. White Shadows might have been "loosened" but yours were outright lifted. The only real restriction on him was that he wasn't allowed legit socks. That is hardly a serious restriction compared to what he had before. It is hardly a "loosening". Him being under mentorship with no restrictions on that mentorship isn't a restriction. It's just something he's doing, but not restricted by. There were no penalties attached to his rejection of your mentorship or what that would apparently entail. When faced with evidence of his continued inappropriate behaviour over at wikienews which is being used as evidence to get him back in here, you basically just brush it aside, excuse it and enable him. He then does the same, repeating the "it was heated" which is nothing more than an excuse, and shows no ownership of his behaviour which shows he hasn't matured at all. When you can actually address those issues we might have something to talk about. Until then, my oppose stands. and since we're here to discuss an editor and your mentorship of him, the comments will be on both you, him, and his edits. That's what we're here to discuss isn't it? His behavour, your mentorship, and his resulting edits?--Crossmr (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The point I was making above was that you can express an opinion without attacking myself or Diego. As to "loosened" vs "lifted", assuming the consensus here is in favour of it, most of his restrictions will be lifted, but he will be subject to some form of "civility parole", the details of which can be worked out as the discussion progresses, as well as a 1RR restriction. Such restrictions will be a condition of my continued mentorship at least for the medium term. As for the "penalty" issue you raise, while we're supposed to be in the business of preventing damage to the project and the encyclopaedia rather than punishing those who cause disruption, the "penalty" of his failing to adhere to the conditions would be a reinstatement of the indefinite block. To the comments he made on Wikinews, they were not excusable- you know that, I know that and, more importantly, Diego knows that. He has been spoken to on Wikinews and he and I have spoken via email. He will also be under a civility restriction should the consensus here turn out in favour of a loosening of the restrictions, so such issues are unlikely to arise here (and if they do, the block can be reinstated). I would also ask that you and others look as closely at his other 3900 edits to Wikinews (including 2 featured articles and sufficient community trust for him to be granted reviewer and "accredited reporter" status) as those brought up above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've attacked no one. The worst I've done is said that your excusing him is enabling him and that his blaming a "heated" situation is not taking ownership of his problem and not mature. If that's an attack to you. Wow. Neither the civility restriction nor 1RR were present on this page when you said "loosened", and then failed to explain it any further instead deciding to ignore the issue. This is why I have a problem. he was removed from here for a lack of maturity, and nothing I've seen shows that he's actually any closer to being more mature. it is why I proposed a 10 year ban in the first place. A few months was insufficient for him. His behaviour there, and his responses here, even under a watchful eye, give it away.--Crossmr (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinking here... I will very weakly support. It's not hard to follow editing restrictions of working in mainspace, and easy to stay out of drama when doing so. The wikinews comments are... less than ideal, and give me pause. In the end I'll assume good faith, although following restrictions, in my mind, doesn't show a whole lot. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Too many if, buts and maybe's (with a nod to White Shadow for their attempt at a concrete proposal); please give me a shout if/when there is a 'yay/nay' suggestion here, or a request for comments, otherwise it is unclear what we are proposing.  Chzz  ►  02:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have collapsed White Shadow's proposal made in good faith. The original proposal should be discussed here, if it should prove unsuccessful, alternatives may be discussed. We should keep in mind that it is now over 6 months since Diego was originally blocked, so this is your basic standard offer.–xeno^talk 02:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just trying to adress Crossmr's oppose and get the ball rolling. I still totaly support the original proposal.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 03:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

While I still see the excuse making and enabling going on nothinig will make me change my oppose. The fact that HJ mitchell would come back to the thread and not even address the way he's worded things really speaks volumes to me.--Crossmr (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support He's shown improvement. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support as the standard offer, also noting HJ Mitchell (as mentor) has already told DG he'll keep him under 1rr and civility restrictions for now and DG has agreed. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  To which neither reply he made showed any maturity nor real acceptance: [44], [45]. For someone asking to be let back in, he doesn't seem to want it very bad.--Crossmr (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This may be somewhat linguistic. DG seems to speak English somewhat as a second language and I glean many hints he's picked up lots of online teen idiom on the Internet. He may not be wholly aware of how nettlesome he sounds, I've heard many otherwise smart speakers of English as a second language utterly thwart themselves by trying to use slang and flippy idioms, not understanding there's some stuff in English one mostly needs to learn on a schoolyard, as a kid, since even the slightest mistake in aim can lead to a big misunderstanding (never mind how hard it is to do online even for native English speakers). Likewise as I've heard Aussies in France try to shift their cheery Oz trash talk into French, wherein some slang is utter filth anyway, more so than in English... la tranche! Only sayin'. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How does "I am really tired of the restrictions I got for being so stupid;" come down to an english usage? That's plane immaturity. He's the one asking to be let in.--Crossmr (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

ouch - spellchecker is not always your friend... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Yup, but still doesn't explain his continued immaturity which is what got him sent packing.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I see fluent English as a second language written by a teen. I read that as, "I was dumb, I know it and the restrictions I'm under for having been so dumb are a big drag, so I'm hoping to get out from under all this sooner rather than later, since I do want to help out." Gwen Gale (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you certainly give a lot of lee-way to the word "No". His fluency does not seem to be a significant issue here. The statement was pretty clear. If you think there is that much ambiguity in what he's writing then I'd question whether or not the english wikipedia is the best place for him at all.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with any presumed language abilities. He's trying to dictate terms. If he wants to come back, fine, but his only option is to accept the terms you guys set for him, not negotiate around. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think y'all understand what he's saying, because he doesn't write English like you and also because there are zero inflection or other body language hints to go by. This is all spot on English as a second language, written by a teen who also, quite unhappily for everyone, mistakenly thought his vandalism once upon a time was a harmless and funny Internet prank which showed his keen but benign wit LOL, or at least, something in the suburbs of that. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've spent over 2 years now living in a non-english speaking country and 3 years teaching ESL. I "get" ESL just fine. Try not to make assumptions about what other people get. In any language, no means no, and he said no. Whatever his reason was, he rejected it.--Crossmr (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"No" in any language does not mean "no." However, he didn't say "no," he said "not" (in agreement to 1rr), but he's going to be under 1rr. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support They seem to be willing to work toward being a good contributor, and I have confidence in the mentor and the conditions attached to a return to mainspace editing. In the final analysis, the reblock option is always available. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Gwen Gale, LessHeard vanU and others: mentoring is working, let's keep it going and deal with problems if they arise. TFOWR 12:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: I hate to be the party pooper here, but the comment that Crossmr notes above of Diego being "really tired of the restrictions I got for being so stupid" shows that he just doesn't get it. How many timeslices have we wasted because of the admitted stupidity? Sure, his editing has improved. Sure, his activity has improved, but it appears that it's not because he wanted to, it was a mere forced requirement in order to continue ever editing at Wikipedia again. That comment alone shows that given his druthers, he would still be wasting our time at ANI, WQA and whatever other text/bandwidth with his games. Nope, fully not convinced at all that he has done any of this because he felt it was the right thing to do, but only because it was what he was forced to do. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he misused the idiom "tired of," not being aware that idiom is very often wielded in anger (as in "I'm tired of this, you muffinhead!"). This is not to say there aren't any worries, but HJM will be keeping him under 1rr, for starters and any backsliding into vandalism will be dealth with swiftly. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• On the contrary, it seems to me that he does get it: he was being stupid, he knows he was being stupid, he has admitted he was being stupid and going forward, he is committing to avoid further stupidity. –xeno^talk 13:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  I do think you're reading way too much into a misuse of an idiomatic english expression. You're right that he really didn't like being restricted, but he didn't like being blocked entirely even more, and so he has worked with the restriction as requested. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  "y'all"^{[hi, Gwen :)]} are concerned about this phrase. I find his "I'd like to negotiate my restrictions" (not ad verbatim-quote) in the next sentence much more interesting (see my comment above) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I read that as, "I'd like to talk about my restrictions." Negotiate has a big Latin cognate in Spanish and although somewhat akin, that cognate's meanings and uses are not quite the same as in English. This is a trap "second language" speakers often fall into. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, I was concerned about that too. Taken together, and all of the posts on his talkpage, and here, he clearly has taken no responsibility. He has been forced to act a certain way, and does not feel that he should have had to. As much as I admire HJ Mitchell and xeno, although behaviour may have changed, he still feels unfairly treated, rather than accepting that what he has done is incorrect. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  @Seb please do not use "quotation" marks when you are, in-fact, paraphrasing (loosely, at that). @Bwilkins: It appears he wishes to contribute constructively without tight handcuffs (indeed the userspace restriction has not resulted in any of his draft changes making it into mainspace). I'm not sure why you feel that he is not accepting what he has done is incorrect or that he feels he is being unfairly treated: he seems to realize, and admit, that he alone is responsible for the current restrictions. –xeno^talk 13:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  (true) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for the annote. –xeno^talk 13:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

DG writes, "It is like to be convicted!" Big syntax mistake there, this is English as a second language, written in the syntax of a Romance language and some leeway must be given to how it's read and understood. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

True that, but nevertheless, he was "convicted" of being a bloody waste of time, and indeed of many of this types of behaviours. Again, a statement saying he feels he did nothing wrong. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a minor syntax problem, and doesn't remotely excuse the ambiguity you're trying to claim exists in the statement. His behaviour on wikienews tells us when he's not under a watchful thumb he will act up. Even under a watchful thumb he's slipping. Left here under none, nothing tells me that he won't continue with what he was doing before.--Crossmr (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any ambiguity in what he's writing, Crossmr. I'm not drawing the same meaning or tone as you, is all and I've already given my thoughts as to why this is happening. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

...and that's appreciated Gwen. I'm not going to say any more - I simply can't WP:AGF on this when they still question things the way they are. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Likelihood's at least half and half DG will wind up blocked again. A reblock's going to be very easy if it comes to that. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not like he has received or is receiving any form of amnesty: his block log has not had the slate cleaned. –xeno^talk 14:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may note, other users (example) have made clean returns after far more contentious issues that went all the way to ArbCom. We are here to build an enclycopedia. Frankly, Diego has shown maturity by going through the official channels. I trust HJ to provide input, advice, corrections, and a block should he slip up. N419BH 14:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the meaning of what I tried to say changes on Spanish. When I say "¡Es como estar preso!", I mean that it is very... can't find the word... but, for sure I'm going to stay out of controversies. My wishes are to help people (I'm regular at #wikipedia-en-help) and to create lots and lots of articles about Chile, that's my goal and I hope you get it. The past problems were all my fault, but I think enough water has passed under the bridge and I'm here to give as much as I can. I could have created more articles than I did, but it feels strange. Please accept this second chance, Crossmr and Bwilkings. I respect your opinion, but please I reiterate give me this second chance. Thanks Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 17:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Limbo (colloquialism), maybe. –xeno^talk 17:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• This is the next logical step; keeping him in limbo any longer serves no purpose. If problems return, we block; if not, we don't. Since consensus seems quite clear above, and a full day has passed, I'd encourage Xeno to go ahead and modify the restrictions and put this thread to bed. DG should be aware that this is not a clean slate; he's used up eight of his nine lives. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • As I closed the last thread, and initiated this one, I'd prefer leaving this one to someone fresh to make the call. –xeno^talk 16:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
    • OK< let's just call it a generic motion to close. I suggest the next admin who reads all the way to the bottom here close the thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, just as the loudest discussion about opposes starts we want to close it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I had forgotten that there were people who enjoy this kind of discussion. Carry on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also point out Diego's contributions at MediaWiki.org, where he is a sysop. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 17:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Examine... another AfD Close

Resolved

 – AfD re-closed (no consensus) by Black Kite. TFOWR 09:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ResPublica as Keep, with four fairly well thought out keeps to two deletes. I just got a message saying it should have been at best no consensus, and as I don't have a whole lot of experience with AfDs, I'll ask somebody here to review my closing. Go ahead and do whatever you see fit with it, although I'm still fairly sure I'd close as keep. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

User that asked was nom, just thinking about it... the nom should count as a delete !vote. I'm headed to get some sleep, can somebody else please review? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I re-closed it as No Consensus. Discarding the last comment, which doesn't give any rationale at all, and including the nom, you have 3 !votes either way. Also, No Consensus is useful here because as even the Keep voters mentioned, this is a very new group - it might disappear without trace next month. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your close looks ok to me; I think I would have closed it keep as well. The nominator (or whoever else) is welcome to take it to WP:DRV if they disagree, but I don't see much basis for overturning the decision. As for the rationale you express above: the four to two or four to three bean-counting should be much less important than the fact that the keeps were well-thought-out. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Except that one of the keeps gave no rationale whatsoever, another one was along the lines of "it's got a lot of Google hits", and a third one was quite well rebutted. On that basis, I don't think there's any way that this was a keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Would youu consider re-listing this for another week ? Codf1977 (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would achieve much- the discussion had pretty much gone stale long before it was closed- there had been no edits for days with the exception of one drive-by keep without a rationale. Give it a couple of months, by then hopefully notability or lack thereof will be clearer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Codf1977 (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

block review of admin fastily's indef block of Threeafterthree; redux

Resolved

 – Prevention vs Punishment. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

I wonder if I could trouble an uninvolved admin to look at this thread? I believe that since all the evidence was finally out (June 22), the vast majority of editors were in favor of an extended block, and the clear majority (and consensus) indicated a block of three months was in order. (Note: I had thought that I had seen it closed no further action, which I believe would have been against clear consensus, but can't see that reference now). Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Second the Motion - This is the first time I have ever contested an admin decision in this way, but something about the concluding closure does not feel at all right. The linked ANI thread includes numerous diffs that make a clear case, and in my view establish a long-term pattern of abusive editing by Threeafterthree that a number of commentators endorse as worthy of a substantial block; the admin decision does not reflect consensus, at least as I see it. Thanks. Jusdafax 15:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes -- this is also the first time I've ever contested an AN/I close.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support motion: The discussion was closed stating that there was narrow interest in an extended block; I believe that about 4-5 different editors had expressed an interest in extending the block. I change my mind, I disagree with zzuuzz' reason for closing, but not the actual closure, as he was well within his discretion to close the consensus discussion as an admin. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. I would have to double-check, but I count at least seven editors who sought a longer block (not even counting SlimVirgin's comment, which highlights additional disturbing background, though it does not advocate for any specific length of block).--Epeefleche (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question: Has the disruption continued post-unblock? –xeno^talk 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  While trying to maintain WP:AGF, I believe the correct answer given his history and even his recent comments is "not yet". I would suggest revisiting this if/when the user's behaviour becomes an issue again. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Post-unblock, reflecting his disregard for wikipedia's rules, and the community's reaction to his continued breach of the rules, Three wrote that the breaches he is accused of: "are so minor, it's laughable".--Epeefleche (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• And that comment (“laughable”) was made when he was still under the magnifying glass; at time when most other editors with a modicum of contrition would flying low and making tea-time comments with their little pinky held out. Given his consistent, historical pattern, the community desires an extended block to protect itself. Greg L (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Is that it -- you want him blocked for expressing an opinion? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• We routinely consider evidence that an editor continues to not be contrite, and "fails to get it", in determining the length of blocks. This post-block behavior reflects precisely such an attitude.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from closing admin. Here's my closure, here's the archived discussion, and here's some more commentary. I welcome more conclusion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure As I stated in my final comments in the original ANI thread I believe that extending/reinstituting a lengthy block at this time would be punative and not preventative. I am in agreement with Zzuuzz's cited remarks from his talk page upon first being asked to reconsider.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Cube lurker and zzuuzz, no further block unless there are further problems. I don't think there was broad consensus for a 3 month block in the original thread, and felt that zzuuzz's close at the time was correct and ended the matter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The thread began with one good faith misstatement, and with another editor suggesting that Three was a non-disruptive editor--while failing to mention his own warning to Three and the warnings of six other editors to Three in the month prior to Three's latest disruption. When that was sorted out and everything put on the table for review (June 22), nine editors commented w/block duration suggestions. Two thought time served sounded good (that included the nom, who failed to reveal the seven warnings, including his). Seven thought a longer block was in order. Of those seven, one said 1-3 months, five said 3 months, and one said indef. So 7 of the 9 indicated they thought a longer block was in order. In addition, Slim indicated some additional disturbing facts, without !voting for a term. That's a broad consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Do not endorse reason given for closure Added to my statement GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC), but no reason to reopen: perhaps a little awkwardly phrased there. I don't feel that the closure represented the growing consensus at the time, with several users supporting an extended block (for preventative reasons, I hasten to add), but it's been a few days and there has been no further disruption as of yet, so I feel that the situation has now changed and I cannot support the extended block any longer, as it would no longer be preventative: the user hasn't made any more disruptive edits. Given that this is the sixth (or is it seventh?) block for the same offence, and the comments demonstrated by Epeefleche and Greg L that the user still wasn't taking the offence seriously after the last block, I would suggest that the longer block be considered if the user's disruptive behaviour returns in future (and I'm not saying it will). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  By the way, I have nothing personal against zzuuzz; from what I've seen of their contributions elsewhere they are a reasonable admin, but I don't think it was a fair statement to suggest on closing that there was only "narrow" support for an extended block. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, that was narrow support for an extended block without further problematic actions by the editor. That's really the key here, no further problems no block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  I think there was actually a reasonable amount of support in the discussion for extending the block without waiting to see if the disruption continued, as the block was originally reduced from indefinite anyway; but I have withdrawn my support for this block in light of the fact that the user has not continued his disruption. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. @Z. I don't think that's quite right. Here is what the seven said, in pertinent part:

1.Three Month Block for Threeafterthree. I agree that Three's block should be at least one month (giving him credit for the three days served). However, I think it should be three months, given:

1. His extensive history of prior blocks (including for the same activity as here). As further partial background, see this 2006 AN/I which followed his 1-month block and considered giving Three a permanent block, this August 2007 AN/I by RyanFriesling, this December 2007 RfC on Three, this October 2008 AN/I that led to a 55-hour block, this November 2008 3RR report by the Magnificent Cleaner-keeper that led to a one-week block by Tiptoety, this December 2008 AN/I complaint by Wikidemon, this January 2009 3RR report by Jimintheatl/warning for edit warring, and this February 2009 AN/I by Hans Adler (complaining inter alia about Three "censoring other editors' comments").
2. His longest prior block was already one month.
3. The fact that in the month prior to his latest infraction, Three was (as reflected above) warned directly no fewer than seven times, by seven different editors (including Off2riorob), not to remove others' comments from talk pages.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] And yet that is precisely what Three did here, yet again, the same day as his most recent warnings.[55]
4. Three's assertion that he is the founder of Wikipedia may lead some editors to not report him for his disruptive activity. [update: I appreciate Giftiger just now removing that assertion, w/the edit summary "Hoax, misleading for editors.." There have been prior efforts by three other editors to address Three's assertion, including Damiens.rf here and another editor here. Each time they have been reverted by Three as here and here and here, however.]
5. His effort to attack me for reporting him [I appreciate Fences responding to that effort by writing to Three: "Not to create drama": don't be disingenuous. I'd leave Epeefleche alone if I were you, I see nothing wrong with that statement of his", and Off2 also writing to Three: "Your should avoid that user 100 percent."]
6. His continued lack of remorse and failure to "get it", as reflected by him writing this: "95% (I'am obviously not perfect like most folks on this project) of my contributions are contructive and I take offense that that is somehow not the case.".
7. The fact that just yesterday, Three wrote (emphasis added): ""I follow the ANI board, but more for laughs than getting involved, and the amount of total BS/nonsense there is beyond mind boggling. I feel like the 5% on my edits which are contensous are so minor, its laughable"). His failure to "get it", in the face of repeated blocks, repeated recent warnings, and this discussion, could scarcely be more evident. All of this suggests that a 3-month ban would be appropriate. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

2.Block of one to three months. I think 72 hours is too short. Anything between one month and three months seems more appropriate to me, given his long history of unacceptable behavior. --Brendan19 (talk)

3.SlimVirgin’s 21:49, 22 June 2010 post mirrors what was on my mind. Given his track history—and while a 72 hour block certainly seems *pretty*—Wikipedia will just get more of the same soon enough after the block expires. A three-month-long block will properly protect the community from what is flat-out, intentional disruption. Greg L (talk)

4.3 Month - boy, this is really long to read through. I agree with a number of editors here. Dave Dial, oh, I could list many others. So as not to add to the length of this page, let me just say I agree with those seeking the 3 month block, unless the guy convinces people he won't be driving them crazy anymore. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk)

5..Block for three months: this discussion is quite disorganised so I thought I'd make my views clear here. Though I still stand by my original request to speedily overturn the block, which Fences actioned and replaced with a 72-hour block, in light of the newer evidence here, I now feel that a 72-hour block will not be sufficient to discourage the sort of behaviour exhibited by this user which resulted in previous blocks, and I am particularly concerned about his claims on his user page that he is the founder of wikipedia. I think a block for three months will give the user more time to consider why his actions have caused these repeated blocks to be levied against him, as well as protecting wikipedia from the continued disruption being caused. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] and Support 3-month block: I agree that despite what initially appeared to be admission of wrong-doing, I agree with Epeefleche and Jusfadax above, Threeafterthree's comments give me the impression that he is simply playing the system, this being his sixth block, it seems he has learnt that blocks go away if he says he's learnt his lesson. His comments do appear to have immediately returned to being confrontational, and I note also that though he said he won't reinstate the claims that he is the founder of wikipedia, he never did reply when I asked him why he chose to make that claim to begin with. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]

6.Leave as an indefinite block To repeat for those who keep forgetting the definition, an indefinite block is simply a block with no set period. It can be lifted in 3 minutes, three months, or never. However, unless things change before then & another Admin believes the right thing to do is lift the block, we should revisit this in three months. Taking this approach reduces the Wikidrama while sending the same message a three-month block would. -- llywrch

7.Support 3 month block - OK, I admit to a growing sense of futility here. I strongly believe Wikipedia is broken if we let problem users treat Wikipedia like a game to see how much they can get away with, which is my sense from revisiting this case after a few days away. Let's send those with a lengthy block record to the virtual woodshed when they persist in unacceptable activity. Three, come back in the fall and then see if you can stay out of trouble. Learn to walk away. It really isn't that hard. Jusdafax

--Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have left out half the discussion. Given that it was at ANI over nearly a week it's really a poor showing, combined with some poor arguments for a new block. We deleted votes for banning a long time ago. However my final comment on the matter is this - if there's an admin here who thinks they should make a 3 month unconditional block on an unblocked editor when they've caused no problems since the last block, let's be hearing from you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Close this review: As I've mentioned zzuuzz, I don't think a block should be revisited at this point, and though I disagree re: the comment that there was "narrow" call for a longer block, I believe you were well within your discretion to close the discussion in favour of leaving the already-expired 3-day block, and I don't think a review is necessary. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What I have noted with concern is the evidence of Epeefleche's apparent off-wiki solicitation regarding this block. User:GreekParadise left this post saying "got your message about Threeafterthree". There is no on-wiki message from Epeefleche to GreekParadise, who hadn't even edited since August 2009. This raises the question about who else was canvassed (and how, of course) and lends support to Zzuuzz's view about campaigning going on. The campaigning seems continuing, unfortunately. Overall, however, I agree with most others here that in view of Threeafterthree's apology, promise to do better, and his apparently improved editing and interaction since the 3 day block, another block would be purely punitive. If there are further problems from the editor, then the situation can be looked at again. --Slp1 (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I was the admin who reblocked Threeafterthree for three days rather than the original indef block. I can't see the justification for a longer block, he's not done anything problematic since the block expired to my knowledge and the previous blocks were quite a while ago now. Blocking is meant to be protective, not punitive. If he makes further problematic edits, discuss them with him, and if he persists, then we could consider further sanctions. Fences&Windows 22:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question: what is it that Threeafterthree is currently doing that justifies a block? TFOWR 09:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question: nothing, but Three would have to be crazy to after [56]... right? Obviously if current activity is the sole criteria now, rather than a review of the decision, then we should close and move on. Jusdafax 10:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

A very strange google search result

Idiots, racism, and nothing we can do about it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, something can be done about this. I've emailed Google and asked them to fix it. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

---

So word's been getting around that if you type "I can read Wikipedia" in google, you'll get a certain Wikipedia page (6 letter word, starts with N) as the first hit ; if you go "I feel lucky", that page will come up. Why, I dunno. But being what it does, its gaining some urban-legand-y type ridicule.

And its clearly a factor of searching the web [57] as if you limit the results to just Wikipedia.org, that result doesn't even come up [58]. (These results are likely only going to be true for US-based readers , maybe UK /Canada readers).

Is this harmful? Err, its hard to say, most likely equivalent to a harmless prank, but it is a bit of concern to understand how this works, and to be careful that if we can prevent this on WP's side we should do so for such things. I looked over the target page in source but not finding anything obvious to why it drives up that search result, so it's likely Google's Page Rank that does it. Anything we can do on our side? --MASEM (t) 21:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

'Tis your run-of-the-mill Google bomb. As far as I know, there is nothing we can do. –xeno^talk 21:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup. It's such an unlikely search term that it's not worth worrying about. If anyone does care then they could link to the main page from external sites with the link text reading "I can read Wikipedia", which would negate this Google Bomb if enough people did it. Fences&Windows 21:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've actually redirected both I can read Wikipedia and I can read wikipedia to Main Page as an IAR attempt to counter this with our own Google juice. If it doesn't work, I have no problem with these being deleted - but let's see if they do work, first. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

One of them was a double-redirect, so I fixed that one. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Gavia. I hope it works. —Soap— 23:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just ran a search on Google and Yahoo; the phrase didn't produce anything on Yahoo except pages talking about reading an Internet encyclopedia, while Google continues to produce a link to nigger as the first result. I specified en.wikipedia.org as the site to search and looked through the first fifty results, getting articles as different as durian and Suicide of Megan Meier; however, neither of the newly created redirects nor the Main Page came up. Hopefully it will improve within a day or two. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a way to manually force Google's webcrawler to reindex a page that has changed... I wish I could remember where it was. Looking. EDIT: Ok, I found it and submitted a request... we'll see if it actually works. In other news, searching for "failure" doesn't bring up George W. Bush anymore. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I never knew that there was such a page; thanks for the work, Burpelson! No change yet, although I did find this amusing article; apparently someone's just discovered that it's possible to read Wikipedia on computers. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I can read Wikipedia on my BlackBerry without downloading any malware spyware adware trojans helpful applets. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's called the "removal tool". It's not very reliable though. My request was denied because according to their bot the phrase "I can read Wikipedia" is still live on that page. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like it may have started here 19 days ago. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I considered adding a line to the Google bomb page and linking to this web post (which is also trending) I Can Read Wikipedia - Yet Another Prank by Racist Trend-Trolls but perhaps that would just give them more publicity which is presumably what they want. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, we've already given them enough gratification with this thread. It should be removed, or wrapped up per WP:DFTT. –xeno^talk 19:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for editing help

Could volunteers please work on I Can Read! by expanding it and introducing links to it, as appropriate? This page would then supplant nigger when people run the Google search "i can read wikipedia", hopefully. Jehochman ^Talk 18:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Community banning proposal of Brucejenner

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.

Community ban enacted by overwhelming consensus. Courcelles (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Brucejenner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been socking for almost a year. I've counted the over 100 suspected socks of his (It was just a quick count, so i may be off by a few). With all of his socks he attacks users, I think that enough is enough. I realize that this is a really short explanation of a banning proposal, but I can't think of much else to put. Other editors can feel free to add more stuff to it. Pilif12p :  Yo  23:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban as it will allow editors to avoid 3RR when reverting his edits. This one has clearly worn out his welcome and has no intention of contributing helpfuly. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above and the fact that he does constantly sock to avoid the rules here, as I have seen this first hand. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, no reason to penalise editors who help to keep him from causing trouble. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, his steady socking produces plenty of BLP violations, and no constructive edits. Time to end this. Dayewalker (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban to prevent further damage to enyclopedia - Constantly sockpupperty, disruption, constant violation of BLP policy. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 02:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support, not the Disney bandit yet, but getting there. Formal community ban and block all socks on sight per WP:DUCK. N419BH 02:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above. DrKiernan (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support having reviewed the SPIs, yep. Chzz  ►  06:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I just had a look through the immense collection of sockpuppets; this really needs to be stopped. The problem is how would this be effectively enforced though, given that the numerous socks are already being called out as ducks and blocked, and this hasn't discouraged the user in the slightest? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  I note that the answer is simply that a community ban will allow editors to revert socks failing the WP:DUCK test without worrying about the 3RR; sounds good to me. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: 96 and counting: it would be good if we could avoid the century. A community ban would put the "R" back into RBI. TFOWR 09:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support I agree that all of this editor's socks should be blocked on sight. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban. Dude needs a hobby. GJC 15:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support – basically de facto banned anyways, as no administrator in their right mind would think about unblocking. FYI latest sock Clowncreep (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 17:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: there's enough WP:SNOW here to make Santa feel at home... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: And now Studleopard (talk · contribs). If someone is community banned and still socking, what's the best place to report obvious socks? Dayewalker (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside from pinging any admin, in particular those who are knowledgeable in Brucejenner (which is my personal preference), I would as an alternative directly report to WP:AIV; the edits are basically vandalism anyways. No need to go through the redtape SPI crap with this one if you know what you're doing. –MuZemike 06:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

• Support -- I wish I was informed about this before it closed. I filed the first sock case on this user. Either way, putting this here anyway.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - user should be unbanned, asked to provide proof that he is not Bruce Jenner, asked to change his user name, then banned under the new user name. This current ban tarnishes the name of Olympic medalist, Bruce Jenner. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Er ... that's three different kinds of ridiculous. First, that's a heck of a lot of work for little benefit. Second, what makes you think he'd be willing to cooperate? Third, if we could never ban anyone who has a common user name with one of our encyclopedia subjects for fear of tarnishing the subject's reputation, well, gee... Wait! I know! We should provide an automatic bot job to change the user name of all banned users to Bin Laden!--GRuban (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Binladen is a very respected family name who is in the construction business in Saudi Arabia. Also note that Wikipedia has a policy against having names like Brucejenner. See WP:REALNAME which says "Do not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that well-known person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution. (sic) If you have been blocked for using your real name, please don't take offense; we're trying to prevent somebody from impersonating you! You are welcome to use your real name, but in some cases, you will need to prove you are who you say you are." Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Give up already. That would cause more disruption than good. You aren't going to get your way.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I know I will not get my way. My way is where everyone in Wikipedia is cooperative and there are no bad users, like Brucejenner, not to be confused with Olympic medalist, Bruce Jenner. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Guys, the point is moot. The discussion is closed and archived. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Forced username change

The above ban on BruceJenner raises an issue of tarnishing the reputation of Olympic medalist, Bruce Jenner. There should be an exception and the user's name involuntarily changed if he is not willing to change it. Consider changing it to "BJenner Username involuntarily changed 0-1 July 2010". Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying "Brucejenner" is banned is very hurtful toward Olympic medalist Bruce Jenner. What would people do if we suddenly had User:OsamabinLaden, User:QueenElizabethII, User:LadyGaga? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:REALNAME indirectly gives one suggestion: Do not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that well-known person or you make it clear that you are not. I'd suggest all we need to do is state on BruceJenner's userpage and/or talkpage that they are not the Bruce Jenner. TFOWR 19:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Let's do that now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Added a notice to the userpage indicating that there is no known connection between the user and Bruce Jenner. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Suomi may now want to revisit the other forums they have mentioned this on (BN, Xeno's talk page) and tell them not to worry, it's been resolved. – B.hotep •talk• 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

REVDEL check

I just made use of WP:REVDEL on the featured article as I felt the vandalism was egregious enough to qualify under C3 (purely disruptive) and possibly C2 (Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive) also. As it's my first time using the tool, I would appreciate an overview by those more experienced. Particularly, is it correct to leave the intermediate reversions of the problematic edits as is, or should they be revdel'd also? Additionally, is this the sort of thing that should be revdel'd? Thanks --Kateshortforbob _talk 13:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that's a good call. Deleting the content perhaps wasn't absolutely necessary but it's not clearly outside the criteria. The edit summary is certainly a clear case of RD2. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, good enough. I would have deleted the content. That way it's not as easy for someone to undo and reintroduce the exact same edits which are C2, in my opinion. Either way, well done. Welcome to REVDEL Club! :) – B.hotep •talk• 13:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, do I get a badge? Thanks for the reviews. Hopefully I won't need to use it too often. --Kateshortforbob _talk 20:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Juan L. Bacigalupo

Juan L. Bacigalupo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On Palaeoarchaeology (diff); spam after final warning promoting a book the user wrote in 2007 and creating and edit warring on a walled garden of articles Palaeoarchaeology, Lady of Maali, Lady of Mali, and Supermegalith (one of which was converted to a redirect); actions evidently indicate a promotion-only account; failure to coherently discuss concerns about the user's editing; using that account and using or influencing the users of various Peruvian IP Addresses matching 186.160/14, 190.43.160/19, and 190.81.128/17 as follows:

IP Addresses in 186.160/14:

• 186.160.53.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 186.160.54.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 186.160.55.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 186.160.56.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 186.160.57.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 186.160.57.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 186.160.59.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 186.160.63.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 186.160.72.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP Addresses in 190.43.160/19:

• 190.43.190.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP Addresses in 190.81.128/17:

• 190.81.173.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I reported this user here per this suggestion and because it was not actionable at WP:AIV.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Current phishing attempts

There is an ongoing mass spam/phishing attempt which uses fake Wikipedia system emails. This results in many help requests at WP:OTRS and elsewhere. Because of this, I've drafted the information page WP:PHISHING. I've also added a notice about this to Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Contact us. Anybody who contacts us about this can be directed to the information page.

I'm posting this here for review because this has some public impact. If you edit the information page, please keep in mind that it should be easily understandable by non-native English speakers and by the generally clueless.  Sandstein  20:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlogged again

If someone could take a look at that page it would be appreciated. Thanks! N419BH 21:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlogged again, hasn't been touched by an admin in an hour...N419BH 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Selective deletion again

• I am an admin. Sometimes I history-merge pages: e.g. X to Y, as "delete Y, move X to Y, undelete Y". Often first I must delete from X some of its late edits made after the cut-and-paste event; these unwanted edits are usually redirects. To do this, I must delete all of X, and then undelete all X's edits except the few unwanted edits. This wastes my time and Wikipedia's server's time. Thus for a long time I have been waiting for a selective delete for edits of a non-deleted page.

  There has always been a selective undelete on the edits of a deleted file, and that works OK.

  A few weeks ago, what looked like a selective delete on the edits of a non-deleted page, appeared. That seemed to be what I wanted; but the same day a warning about this new system, which seemed to be largely to the effect of "HERE BE DRAGONS, DO NOT USE!!!", was circulated; so I am back to "delete all edits, then undelete most edits". So, please:-

  1. Does this new selective delete have bugs or pitfalls? The warning seemed to mention bugs.
  2. Does this new selective delete simply transfer edits from that page name's undeleted edits list to that page name's deleted edits list, like the selective undeletion but opposite? Or what?

  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Mario, your princess is in another castle. I'm not sure if the feature has been tested yet, but it looks like we need to ask for it to be enabled here. –xeno^talk 16:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't revision deletion very different to article deletion? Revision deletion is like oversighting, it zaps it so only oversighters can access the edit. Definitely needs to be used with caution. Fences&Windows 18:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with rev delete or oversight. 151.203.182.246 (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. When admins hide an edit using revision deletion, other admins can see it; when oversighters use revision deletion, they have the option of hiding the edit from admins. The problem with using it for history merges is that it leaves smudges in the edit history. Graham87 01:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using it for history merges is that it is impossible to use it for history merges. Prodego ^talk 07:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well said. I will add that the selective deletion is not actually deletion at all. Ruslik_Zero 10:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• I created User:Anthony Appleyard/testing with 8 edits. Then I tried to use the "selective deletion" to delete the four middle edits of its history. The result was a long alarming-looking warning which clearly said that this is not an ordinary deleter that transfers edits to that page name's deleted-edits list. So I backed out and did not authorise the deletes. As far as I know, I do not have the oversight privilege. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision deletion is oversight "lite". See WP:RevDel. It has no usefulness for performing histmerges. You are looking for RevisionMove; which has yet to be tested. –xeno^talk 17:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What he is probably looking for is actually just something that deletes individual revisions. I had almost exactly the same experience as Anthony, and I was also very disappointed that "revision delete" fails to live up to the intended task of actually deleting revisions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - Revision Redact is probably more accurate. –xeno^talk 23:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I get the impression that this current "selective deletion" ability is an oversighting tool that should have been given only to oversighters. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Nwiki is bwiki

Nwiki is bwiki (talk · contribs) appears to be an account made for vandalism. The only edit of the account is

• 07:09, 2 July 2010 (diff | hist) Nm BEST KOREA ‎ (←Redirected page to North Korea)

which was specifically deleted by RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_23#BEST_KOREA The user account "N is b" appears to mean "North is Best"

76.66.195.196 (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• G4'ed and salt applied. Courcelles (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Turning over a new leaf

Resolved

 – IP/sock/original account holder offered the standard offer. We'll see. N419BH 01:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Regardless of what you think, I want to turn a new leaf. I am the banned user Pickbothmanlol and I was given two chances to edit with the community only to continue acting disruptive, continue my acts of sockpuppetry, and abuse those two chances to redeem myself. Today on July 1st of 2010, I ask for one final chance of redemption from the community despite the strong possibility this will be reverted. I tried to pick the easy way out by socking because my need to make contributions kept dragging myself back into this bottomless hole. I have one sock, Sammy the Seeker, in a investigation, and that is my last. I am done. I simply can't escape my past, and I must learn to live with it. Please let me redeem myself, I beg of the community to. 65.81.133.136 (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Admins, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sammy the Seeker and The Order (AW) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doesn't look like he wants to reform to me. Yworo (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Only way that will happen is if you go to your main account, which is User:Pickbothmanlol, use the {{unblock}} template and ask for an unblock. Whether an admin agrees with it or not is up to them, but you want to redeem yourself, that is the place to do it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I am globally locked out of the account. This is the only place I can do such a thing. 65.81.133.136 (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC) An admin will have to unblock your talk page there, you will need to wait for that. But the active SPI that Yworo showed troubles me. If you are actively socking, that probably doesn't bode well for an unblock. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC) You don't seem to understand, meta.wikimedia.org globally locked my main ages ago. I can't login with my main to make the request and I don't know if I can make the request as an IP address on my talk page. 65.81.133.136 (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) :Given the lamentable history of Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs), I am not convinced. Leopards changing spots, and all that. Recent socking outlined above doesn't sway my opinion in his favour. I would propose at least a three month absence from editing here, then a WP:SECONDCHANCE, which would be supported by mentorship on one, and only one, named account, and zero sockpuppetry. That is a minimum as far as I am concerned. Rodhullandemu 01:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I would agree with Rodhullandemu's proposal. That seems to be the way most have to come back to Wikipedia. Take that three six month break and then come back and request that unblock, probably by email from your main account. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)x3 The same offer applies to Pickbothmanlol as exists for every long-term socker and vandal. It has been given to you before. It is called the Wikipedia:Standard offer. Its simple. Do no socking and make no accounts and do nothing at all at Wikipedia for six months. THEN come back and make a request to be unbanned. You stand zero chance of being unbanned before that six months is up. You stand a very good chance of being unbanned if you wait out the full six months. You have been making trouble as recently as last week; this is not enough time to prove to us you intend to reform. So, quit socking, and abandon Wikipedia for six months. Then we can discuss things. --Jayron32 01:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC) [redacted]. Bye. Sammy the Seeker (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Account blocked as compromised, since password has been revealed. This guy hits us over the head with the olive branch we offer, so I see no reason to pander to his selfish whims any further. Rodhullandemu 01:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Indeed. By the way, I have asked for that edit to be oversighted, but it seems moot now with the block. Mark this as resolved? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Marking as resolved. We'll see if he'll be "bye" for 6 months or not. N419BH 01:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I'm confused... according to the edit history, the post above, supposedly by the PBML sock "Sammy the Seeker", was actually placed by Neutralhomer [59]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) You're an optimist, but for the sake of form, if he isn't already banned, I propose a formal ban on the basis of (a) multiple sockpuppetry and (b) block evasion (c) persistent failure to assimilate the most basic behavioural precepts here, and (d) naked failure to accept reasonable rehabilitative proposals. I'm not into witch-hunts, but there have to be some limits, and this guy seems to have transgressed all of them. Rodhullandemu 01:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC) PBML is already community banned as of a few days ago, but I'm still worried about what I posted a couple spots above. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Burpelson, I think the reason for the (and I could be wrong) is that the edit has been oversighted and the next available edit was mine redacting the edit, so it looks like I added it (for the record, I most certainly did not). I am not sure why that happened, must be a glitch in the software, it happens. But the admins can see the edit. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Oh ok. It kind of freaked me out for a minute! Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC) No worries, I was just a freaked out until I remembered I nom'd it for oversight. Much apologizes for the confusion and the glitch. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I think oversight might need a strikethrough line like RevDel. My history page shows you making the edit too :). N419BH 02:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC) You guys wanna know who PBML is? I happened to notice this discussion [60] and I think it's about the lamest, funniest, most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Indeed, definitely need a strikethrough. This is the diff (with the oversight explanation) I provided to Oversight, just for the record. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Never and oversight is fine; it means 'delete' and delete just means hide Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC) (EditConflict) Yeah, us non-sysops get an error message for that link. I trust you though, honest :). As for that link about who PBML is, removed per WP:DENY. N419BH 02:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I'm an oversighter and I also get an error message for that link. Weirder than weird %-> - Alison ❤ 02:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I haven't the slightest clue what to tell you on that one. If an admin/oversight gets an error message, it must be a glitch. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC) The left-rev is gone, what do you expect the diff to render as? Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure if I'd call this resolved; looks like we've already got a new sock - it recreated the previously-deleted article (which I've deleted again as a G4) and incubator page created by the above editor. SPI has already been filed. Just an FYI. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback needed!

Resolved

Can anyone rollback Caps lock? -72.91.241.104 (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like User:First Light got this. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No need to strike it out, 72.91.241.104; it's marked as resolved so others can see it's been  Done. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Can anything be done to stop a IP sock

SkagitRiverQueen was banned by the community. She is also attacking editors and stirring up trouble that I think in part has caused two editors to retire their accounts. I hope something can be done to stop all the disruptions with edits like scroll down to FYI section at the end of the talkpage, these. I deleted that last one that was on my talk page. She is editing a lot and making things difficult. She is not hiding the fact that these edits she makes are her. Please, if something can be done about her socking and her attacks please do it. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Place them here and they'll be blocked assuming there is proper evidence (looks like there is). I'd tell you to report them at WP:AIV but it appears to be backlogged....again. N419BH 21:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If SkagitRiverQueen is actively socking the ban should be extended to indefinite or at least reset. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The block is at indef per ANI last week. Teh custodians are tasked with the drudge work WP:RBI entails. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, her userpage still shows "1 year", but it's full protected. Could someone update it please? Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

See the second box; it says indef. Sock accounts get blocked as they're sighted and checked; IPs should be dinged for a few days, as they're dynamic. We're not gonna, like, block all Verizon IPs ;) Jack Merridew 01:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, Jack. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarifications, this is the SPI case about the socking with a patial list of socks used. Here is a partial list of of socks she has used. She was indefinitely banned at the AN/i discussion. She is now very emboldened to stir things up. Her original account got locked because she was abusing it. Is there anyway to block the IP's ranges she is using? If you look at the categories of socks she does seem to use a certain group of IP's, or do we just have to keep reverting her when we see her. Her edits are very easy to identify. Thanks for any help, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the rangeblock calculator, simply blocking the range of 7s she has used would block up to 268,435,456 people, I'm afraid. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I appreciate the concern that it's not the most preferrable use of community time, but at this particular point, I don't think a great deal can be done other than reverting. With any luck, the remedy of time will help. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I was afraid of that. This can be closed now. Thanks for the help and the information. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Pseudoscience

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

The words "such as Time Cube" are struck from principle #15 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Obvious pseudoscience"). Finding of fact #9 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Pseudoscience") is amended to read "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics."

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

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

Remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf ("re JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ) is changed to read "JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months starts from the day this motion passes.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration Motion regarding Eastern European mailing list

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

Remedy 17 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Biruitorul topic banned") is lifted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests Backlog

This backlog has reached 22 items. β^_command 21:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Down to just a few now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER

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.

Per Moonriddengirl, Wikipedia:Spoiler says, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served, and consider raising changes at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. No admin attention required. Closing now so that we don't find out who the gunman was. Whatever that means... TFOWR 13:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

---

I was just reading the Nora Zehetner article, and it states:

From late 2009 to mid-2010, she portrayed the recurring role of Dr. Reed Adamson in the popular television series Grey's Anatomy until her character was killed by a gunman in the hospital."

I understand that Wikipedia does not indiscriminate, but does that really improve the article? Spoilers are fine when they improve the article, but we shouldn't add them just "because we can". I don't think the death of a character adds anything to the article of an actress. I just first want to ask your opinion on this to see if there is any hope for me appealing to the Village Pump to be able to edit the policy. Feedback ^☎ 03:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Not the right place for this, but a character's death is absolutely appropriate for a character article, though not necessarily for an actress article. You probably want the Content Noticeboard rather than here. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:BRD. Specifically, boldly remove the statement with a descriptive edit summary. If no one reverts it, no big deal. If someone does revert you, carry on a civil discussion on the article talk page and explain your position. --Jayron32 03:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did it, but I still think this is a site-wide problem and I think policy should be edited. Feedback ^☎ 03:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:CREEP. No, it shouldn't. It is impossible to write adequate policy to anticipate every little way that someone could fuckup an article. If you see a problem, fix it. End of story. --Jayron32 04:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wha..? Now there's no point me watching Grey's Anatomy! :-( Carcharoth (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't watch the show, Carcharoth, but sympathy. I hate it when that happens. :/ To the topic, Wikipedia:Spoiler says, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." Arguably, there's not much encyclopedic purpose to giving details on a character's exodus in an article that gives no other details about the character. Too, the guideline currently suggests that spoilers will be contained under "section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers". So the guideline may already cover this situation. But if you want to change Wikipedia:Spoiler, you might take it up at the talk page. Adding something like, "Spoilers should not be used gratuitously" or "placed indiscriminately" or some such to precede the full sentence quoted above might not be controversial. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually watch the show either, but I find it funny that the spoiler is probably being read unintentionally by more people because it has been posted here at AN. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

zOMG ... there's a TV show called "Grey's Anatomy"??? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to say I watched the episode in question weeks ago, so this thread hasn't spoiled anything for me. Anyone want to know who the gunman was? ;) As a side-note, this doesn't require administrator attention so should this be closed? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Community ban proposals (redux)

Apologies for the length of this, but it's not a small topic...

We recently ( end of May 2010 - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive213#General discussion - community ban discussion durations ) had a general discussion on community ban discussions. We have seen a relatively large number of community ban discussions in the roughly four weeks since that ended. There is still some ongoing friction regarding process for doing community ban discussions.

For reference, the relevant policy is: Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community bans and restrictions

I see at least three issues which are open at this time:

1. Ban discussions which run for less than the strongly recommended 24 hr minimum time, and much less than the few days we considered useful to allow for maximum input across the community as a whole.
2. Ban discussions are generally happening on the Incidents page (ANI) versus the preferred main noticeboard.
3. There are concerns about the quality level of evidence being used by ban proposers having gone down.

Please note that in starting this I don't disagree with any particular community ban issued in the last month. This discussion is only being set up to try and reinforce policy and process expectations and make sure that we unambiguously use due care and diligence going forwards.

Discussion duration Regarding the minimum time issue - I would like to propose that the best practice duration be set to 48 hrs with a "bare minimum" of 24, and to note explicitly that WP:SNOW should not be used to close prematurely.

Specifically, I'd change the WP:BAN section that currently reads:

Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly.

...to something like:

Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 48 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. Due to concerns about involved or interested parties not logging in during the ban discussion time period, a bare minimum of 24 hours should be allowed before a discussion can be considered validly approved and closed, and WP:SNOW, the Snowball clause should not be used to close discussions early with a result to ban a user, though administrators may use their judgement and relevant policy regarding disruptive or abusive discussions. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator closes the discussion, notifies the subject accordingly, and logs the sanction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community.

There may be better alternative concepts or wording.

AN versus ANI As I see it, we can either strengthen the requirement that ban discussions happen on AN unless they flow out of another thread on ANI, or make an explicit requirement that discussions be noted for information purposes on the other board. I'm neutral between those two ideas at this time. There may be better alternatives.

Quality of ban proposal evidence I hate to create excess policy, but I am concerned that the ban proposals are tending towards going too fast and with too little effort to justify them.

There are a number of possible ideas. I have thought of a few, which might help either independently or together...

We could require that ban proposals be filed by an administrator, and that a non-administrator who wishes to have one filed has to make a request for ban proposal on AN or ANI along with a general pointer to the evidence.

We could require something like RFC certification, where one user or admin creates a case proposal and one or two or three others then have to certify the ban proposal before it moves to active and !voteable-on.

We could set standards for evidence, such as requiring direct links to any of the following that are available and relevant:

• prior ANI/AN discussions regarding the user
• arbcom cases
• SPI / CU investigations, categories of identified sockpuppets, long term abuse cases
• Specific lists of pages or categories where abuse has occurred
• diffs of specific abusive behavior
• (perhaps more).

General discussion I've identified some concerns and policy directions which might help solve them. I request and invite alternate ideas, discussions about the underlying concerns, comments on the volume of ban proposals, anything related.

Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a consensus here to have banning discussions relocated from WP:CSN to WP:ANI. After the discussion being closed, a user posted on the archived conversation (something that shouldn't be done) stated it should be at WP:AN instead of WP:ANI, however, because it was posted after consensus was achieved, I find it irrelevant (probably should even be reverted). Feedback ^☎ 04:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you George. You clearly understood my position when I wrote at User talk:Jimbo Wales. And I actually thought the concern was going to end up discarded, but I see that there are others who care about the conscientiousness Wikipedia should have with being just, fair and organized. I agree with every single clause you created to be added to policy however I still think 48 hours is too little (although I am conscious that very few will agree with me). Also, I think "X USER" who in involved in a current issue with the user should not be able to vote, nor comment except with a "Statement by X USER" section. Other than that, I find it controversial that they be "leading the admins". If the ban is righteous, then there will be no problem in consensus being achieved without the excess comments of X USER. Feedback ^☎ 04:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I've posted this once elsewhere on a talk page, but I think we should consider a separate board for ban requests. As is, the ANI board gets too many issues directed to it and as such is extremely difficult to navigate. As bans are a necessarily long-duration discussion, they should go in a separate location so AN and ANI remain as neat, tidy and ready to handle new issues as possible. It is my experience that older threads on ANI are seemingly ignored as new threads pop up. We could then place the specific instructions for ban proposals at the top of the page and in an editnotice. I also believe the minimum threshold should be 48 hours before WP:SNOW could be invoked. Otherwise, 7 days as in other processes we have here. N419BH 04:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

7 days is the ideal procedure, I don't understand why some people disagree. Your idea can not be implemented. It seems you don't know about the tragedy that was WP:CSN after being split from WP:ANI. The nomination for deletion says all about how horrible it went. Apparently, a separate section just doesn't work. Feedback ^☎ 04:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a little light reading be back in a bit! N419BH 04:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I'm going to invoke WP:TLDR, but I did read the rationale for closing. Could we do something like WP:RFA, where the actual discussion is a separate page? So instead of an entire thread on the main noticeboard, the thread's elsewhere, and there's simply a link on the main noticeboard? Has that been tried before? N419BH 04:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No, and in my opinion, its a BRILLIANT suggestion. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community Sanctions/User:Example. I think it works perfectly. There could be a big template at the top of WP:AN, WP:ANI and [the hypothetical] WP:ANCS that leads to current ban discussions too. This could work. Feedback ^☎ 04:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(responding to Feedback up-thread a bit)

There was pretty significant feedback a month ago that the community feels that a week is longer than necessary to get acceptable input from the community writ large. I recommend reading that thread in depth - there are good reasons for shorter, including that people heap less abuse and insults on potential banees with shorter rather than longer ban discussions.

It's not "settled policy" in the sense of not being worth talking about again, but I do recommend familiarizing yourself with the prior discussion and points before we start it again. It will save everyone's time, Feedback. 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there might be many of us who aren't aware of said discussion. Would you be able to provide a link for our benefit? Feedback ^☎ 05:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I posted it above, but if it wasn't clear: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive213#General discussion - community ban discussion durations Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think one major problem with a formalized ban procedure is twofold:

1. It tends to get overused, especially for already indeffed users. An indeffed user who has several declined unblock requests has been effectively banned. I can't count how much wasted ANI space is taken up with proposals to "ban" well-known serial sock-vandals who have never been formally banned, but who have dozens of indef blocked socks. If no reasonable person could see unblocking someone, they are banned. The language at WP:BAN used to say this, but this was changed at somepoint to "Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community..." This sort of WP:BURO and WP:CREEP has IMHO ruined what was a perfectly good practice. If there had never been a ban discussion for PMBL or Grawp or Willy, they'd still be blocked on sight. So why the formality?!?
2. Formalized procedures which have been tried like CSN have, in practice, turned out to be vastly less useful in practice than in theory. It sounds like a good idea, but it quickly decends into a kangaroo court; either the discussion drags on, and the accused is raked over the coals, or a dedicated group of editors gangs up on a perceived enemy, or not enough time is given to the discussions, or some such. It just doesn't work.

That being said, it would be nice if such discussions were more formalized to some sense; I am troubled by the fact that some ban discussions seem to pass without adequate diffs to help uninvolved people make a decision on how to proceed. Too often, a group of people who are familiar with a situation will arrive at a decision to ban a user amongst themselves, with little independent input. It would be nice if there was better independent input in these discussions; and that can only be possible if people outside the discussion are given enough background and evidence to investigate themselves and arrive at a conclusion. Too many times I have come accross a ban discussion at AN or ANI which I have to ask for diffs or evidence of problems. This should be automatic. That being said, perhaps thats why ARBCOM exists in the first place. Usually, the amount of evidence or diffs required to fully explain a situation amounts to a TLDR wall for uninvolved editors to read through. Most editors who don't know a situation don't want to weed through mounds of evidence before giving their opinion on a ban discussion, which is why many of these have only the heavily involved editors commenting on them. ARBCOM is nice in that it provides a body which is set up to deal with this sort of evidence, whereas the average drop-in-and-read-a-few-threads-at-ANI editor is much less likely to voluntarily donate the time to do so. Just some general thoughts. --Jayron32 05:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have created the "Example" page first mentioned above with my ideas on how a ban discussion would be formatted. I've based it somewhat on the formats used at WP:RFA and WP:SPI. Thoughts? N419BH 05:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Much of what George and others are saying above makes sense. I would even consider the alt-board approach. We do want to avoid the lynch mob approach and we want to avoid a bureaucracy, too. My primary concern is suggestions of running seven days. 24–48 is reasonable, including a 24 minimum, and some cases may warrant another day or so. But a week would be a circus; one running continuously. As someone who has been through a bunch of these, including as the subject, I'll tell you it is stressful. I can see this being abused and good editors targeted who end up leaving before a keep result is in. I believe the increased rate of these things is a good sign, as long as they are handled appropriately. I've been here since 2004^w/gap and know that it was tough to do any such thing back in the day. The place is awash with trolls and socks and we smack most of them swiftly, but we also have many long-term problematic editors and we do need to lower the bar at the exit to reduce the toxicity of this project. Nutshell would be to clean the WP:COMBAN process up, not mess it up. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I like the idea of creating some guidelines to make ban discussions more uniform and to give the chance to chime in to all the people who might have something useful to say. For that, I support Georgewilliamherbert's proposal #1. Namely: all discussions should be allowed to run for at least 48 hours (snow closures only after 24 hours have expired). I'd also like to make it compulsory for everyone to state if they're involved in any sort of conflict with the banee or not.
And I also very much like N419BH's proposal to concentrate all ban discussions on a special noticeboard, using his example template. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The main things that are needed is to have people willing to:

• (a) shut down unnecessary ban discussions for indefinitely blocked users that no-one will unblock (these just waste time);
• (b) object when someone proposes a ban with little to no evidence or background (don't presume that the person proposing the ban knows or will present all the background information - do your own background reading on the matter);
• (c) allow the person whom it is proposed to ban to take part in the ban discussion (admins should have sufficient clue to know what to do if the user continues being disruptive elsewhere during the discussion).

I fully agree that WP:SNOW should not be used for ban discussions, you need to allow time for people in all time zones to contribute. One more proposal I have is that community bans where the banned person was not present during the ban discussion should really be appealed to the community first before going to ArbCom. It is a bit depressing when people appeal to ArbCom saying "I wasn't allowed to participate in the ban discussion" or "I wasn't around and a ban discussion closed before I was aware of it". Those sort of bans should really be returned straight to the community for a new discussion, rather than wasting ArbCom time. And community ban discussions should have high standards of evidence, as otherwise they will just get overturned, wasting everyone's time. Also fully agree that people should declare what their history is with the user, whether they are an independent assessor of the ban proposal, or someone with perspective, background and evidence to present. And admins closing ban discussions should have the integrity to say "no independent opinions were received during the discussion, leaving discussion open for another 2 days". Carcharoth (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, for example, with the case of the last ban discussion, User:Sugar Bear was banned in 16 hours without his opinion and with an almost unanimous support. When the discussion was closed and I voiced my opinion about letting it open, no admin wanted to reopen it. I don't know what you meant about "have the integrity", but I just want to point out that apparently no one had it during that particular situation. And even if "Having the Integrity" isn't something that admins are required to do, "following policy" is, so lets create the policy. Feedback ^☎ 03:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few things that need to be said here in disagreement with the proposals. On a, I don't think we should shut down ban discussions that are "unnecessary" because as much as I respect and admire the work site admins do, there is always at least one admin somewhere who'll be ready to cite an absurd IAR to unblock and then we come back to this situation. A good example can be seen in GoRight's case. On b, people need to get into the habit of investigating issues by themselves rather than expecting everyone else to feed information. Some level of detail is needed, but every single thing will result in the purpose of the ban discussion not being met - instead, it will go stale and aggrieved parties will continue to encounter problems. I think c has resulted in discussions being hijacked, unless they are given a section to provide their defense (or whatever else), and of course they can respond to specific support/oppose/question/comments. Subject who wish to participate in a ban discussion, but aren't able to (due to a block) should post their comments on their talk and those comments would be transcluded. If we need to specify this, so be it. Some appeals are being granted without giving enough consideration to the deeper issues; in order to spot these, some level of independent investigation is needed to avoid letting independent users become the target of harassment or any other form of disruptive campaigning. Finally, an alternative board is a very bad idea.

There are also quite parts that do need a voice of agreement, I think, because it is an unfortunate fact that some things are being done in a very sloppy manner. Ban discussions should not be closed in under 24 hours; I don't mind extending this to 48 hours to make it clear that 24 is a bare minimum. High standards of evidence should be provided, though again, it is incumbant for commenting users to properly investigate for themselves. That is, if a closing admin sees a few opposes that have no indication that they've looked beyond mere stated evidence, those opinions need to be dealt with accordingly. I also agree that level of involvement etc. should be declared by each and every commentator. Finally, I also agree that admins should have the integrity to note when there is a lack of independent opinions etc. Note, the community has also been making an effort to get clueful administrators involved in this process. Mistakes may happen from time to time, but there is only one way to remedy inexperience and taboo. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Will you admit that some ban discussions are unnecessary? An example is the one I commented on here. I've never before seen a ban discussion for a 4-day-old disruptive account. Long-term problem users I agree the ban discussions should be allowed to run (but equally long-term users should be allowed to have their say in the discussions, preferably before they start - imagine how you would feel if you logged on to find a ban discussion on you in progress and you hadn't been given a chance to respond to the notification?). The issue of alleged socking post-ban is tricky - you can get joe jobs (people imitating the banned user), but you can equally get banned users setting up apparent joe jobs on themselves to gain sympathy. I would tend to let SPI sort out socking and keep the SPAs and those long-term users involved in the issues on either side out of it (apart from making the reports). Let the SPI regulars or other independent people sort things out and leave the judgment on who was doing the socking to any future unban discussion. I agree that people should look into matters themselves, and ideally they would then post the diffs that convinced them to help others avoid repeating the same work. Asking the ban proposer to summarise an entire editing history is too much, but those commenting on a ban proposal should see it as part of their obligation to help out by extending/examining the work done with a critical eye, not just a procession of votes agreeing or disagreeing with the proposal. At least one person should say "I looked beyond what the proposer has posted here, and I think the above is a fair summary of the issues here". This begins to approach the RFC-endorsement model, and I do think that where the editor who is being banned is not present, at least one other person should endorse the ban proposal with some substantive text rather than just a signature. "the community has also been making an effort to get clueful administrators involved in this process" - that is great news, and I clearly missed that - would you be able to point me to where that effort took place? Carcharoth (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Those ones seem to very rarely occur - it may be the first of its kind for this year. I don't see why that should require something significant (like changing policy/practice or an extensive amount of discussion). I don't think all things can (let alone should) simply be posted by diffs or explained; users need to use their judgement often, even when spotting socking and other types of disruptive behavior. Some people don't like to repeat what is already said, and that's perfectly understandable - having spent the time/effort looking into something, they should be able to still submit their vote/comment without repeating each and every word said by someone else. Oh, momentarily I cannot point you to where the effort is being made. At the end of the day, we can keep adding more and more layers of requirements to the point that it becomes a timesink where no useful input or outcome becomes forthcoming, or we can address real, clear and ongoing issues, while recognising the fact that most users don't like having to spend great deals of time on this sort of thing. Making lengthy litigation even more lengthy would not be satisfactory. I think everyone has a high level of respect for users who help SPI function, but that still doesn't resolve a particular concern about banned users and to-be-banned users - we need more checkusers available around the clock and we also need a better means of dealing with the ongoing backlogs. Btw, have you and/or ArbCom done/said anything about the checkuser and oversight review this week, or has it become a dusty topic? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll drop off a reminder note, but you might want to do the same on the relevant page on-wiki. Carcharoth (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of scope user page

User:Mojo Magnet seems to be out of scope, can someone check--Musamies (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my inability to keep up with wiki-jargon and please explain what "out of scope" means. CIreland (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like poor use of userspace ("article" reads like a copyvio), taking copyrighted images and claiming to be "own work". All should be deleted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the images are on Commons and are already tagged; not much I can do about that. Still confused about "out of scope", by the way. CIreland (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"Out of scope" is Commons jargon for "not appropriate as part of the project contents". — Gavia immer (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean that it's promotial page, some kinf of advert--Musamies (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe; I read it and when I got to the end I felt like I knew less than when I started. Which probably means it likely was an advert. Anyway, since the magic of Google revealed it was indisputably a copyright violation, I have deleted it. CIreland (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate Conversation in History?

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive611 There are two identical threads Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive611#Wiki Cult Task-force and User:B9 hummingbird hovering Breaking Basic Academic and Wiki Rules

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive611#Wiki Cult Task-force and User:B9 hummingbird hovering Breaking Basic Academic and Wiki Rules

Does anyone know what going on here? A NRM Researcher (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It was archived here, as one of six threads, and here, as one of nine. All of the six threads were duplicated in the second archive, and they're all still there in duplicate. Perhaps MiszaBot was prevented by edit conflict or other problem from removing the archived threads from ANI on its first go? I wonder if this happens a lot? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it happen before; fixed it a few times, too. Poke bot, methinks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Change in procedure at WP:SPI

We've made some slight changes on the formatting of cases at WP:SPI, which I hope makes things simpler and easier for all users, including patrolling admins and those who are requesting CheckUser.

The {{RFCU}} and {{SPIclose}} templates normally used have now been rolled into one single {{SPI case status}} template. This template will dictate the status of the case (i.e. awaiting CU, awaiting clerk approval, etc.) and will always be on the very top of the case page. It takes only one parameter, such as "curequest" (for requesting CU), "endorse", "decline", etc., just as with the {{RFCU}} template.

If anyone is wondering what happened to the "code letters", they have been deprecated (i.e. gone). It's been the consensus amongst the SPI clerks and CheckUsers that they're not readily looked at anymore when assessing CheckUser requests (both clerks and CheckUsers, that is), and they seem to cause much amounts of bureaucratic redtape and headaches amongst users wishing to request CheckUser.

In addition, a new version of the SPCUClerkbot is in the works and is planned to roll out within the month, making it much easier (as it was before) to manage SPI cases.

Administrators should review WP:SPI/AI really quick about the changes. You may also wish to look at Template:SPI case status/doc for full documentation of the template to see how it functions (it's fairly straightforward). Any further suggestions or comments can be made at WT:SPI. –MuZemike 03:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Weird database errors

Not sure this is the right place, but I couldn't find anywhere else to put this. I'm consistently getting database errors when I attempt to visit certain pages, none of which seem to have any relation to one another whatsoever (e.g. Mao Zedong and Charge (heraldry)). What the devil is going on? Lockesdonkey (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically all of the Wikimedia Foundation servers fell over and died due to a problem with the air conditioning in the data center. Various parts of the site are still down or just now coming back up. Because Wikipedia serves cached pages for most views, but not for logged-in editors, you're actually more likely to have problems right now if you're logged in, as opposed to being logged out. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The insulting thing was that the server error pages kept telling me to search Google. As if...! --Ludwigs2 03:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that - not much help to tell people how to locate the specific page that they won't be able to load... — Gavia immer (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a couple servers are still down (but the site is up on the others) and they are working on other stuff (don't speak tech) so that could also be a cause. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems they're saying power failure. N419BH 04:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the cause of the failure (at the moment). Depending on who you ask, it is either the AC went out and things overheated or the power went out. If it is the latter, you would think they would have a backup or the Europe servers would handle everything. Personally, I think someone borked something. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The last failure was caused by AC, so they may be mixing that up with the current power failure. They could be right and it was AC.--mboverload@ 04:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That was so you could use the Google cache of the page to view the content. It was very helpful. Click the "Cached" link to any search result to see it. --mboverload@ 04:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

personal attacks on WMC

Resolved

 – IP blocked for trolling - Kindzmarauli (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Global warming controversy. Mark Nutley is attacking Connolley over the fact that clearly WMC is more reliable than that jerk Pielke. Who better to determine that than WMC and doubters with a COI shouldn't be allowed. Can someone put back Connolley's blog posts? He already determined that he has no COI and he's more reliable. If Atmoz doesn't like WMC, then he has a COI and shouldn't be editing there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.174.222.249 (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the trolling, if I'm reading the talk page right, isn't Connolley essentially arguing that he can put up his own blog because he's determined he's a reliable source? I guess it's moot because they were removed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ignore me. There's an ARBCOM hearing and I'm sure both sides will bring up enough there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected images on the Main Page Part VI

Not to be confused with Cod throwing.

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.

To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

for letting File:GardenStreetBridgeSchuylkillRiverSkylinePhiladelphiaPennsylvania.jpg (todays FP) reach the main page unprotected. β^_command 00:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I thought you were looking at a technical solution for this.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The technical solution is probably a per-page setting to prevent images from displaying unless they are protected. We have ample evidence that anything short of this won't work, at this point. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The trout should be aimed at the process for putting pictures on the main page as it's obviously broken. Might not need a technical solution, could be as simple as someone refusing to put an unprotected picture on the main page. Or if it's an automated process, scrap that for a manual one where someone makes a decision to put the picture on the main page. Or put a step in the process where it doesn't proceed unless it's been verified that the picture is protected. --86.145.163.16 (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it does need a technical solution, because all of the "social pressure" solutions have continued to fail- short of just having big dicks all over the Main Page again, which thankfully hasn't happened yet. Because the big failure hasn't happened recently, it isn't possible to make the right people actually imagine the consequences if it does happen. That means we're setting ourselves up for one big failure and a round of agonizing about how bad it is that we never saw it coming, before the appropriate people start to care again - and then the evidence is that they'll get slack again, in a few years. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OMG! The trout that ate Cincinatti is back!!! Call out the troops! CO2, Dave, CO2! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression X! had a bot running that dealt with these. --Chris 13:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it certainly isn't perfect, and I've had to do a fair bit of cleanup after it (just for information, not tagging). NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there the possibility to run an #if: check for the presence/absence of protection? If it is not protected, then not to display the image, leaves us with a blank, or continue to display previous image, which may be better than a problem. billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for review of administrator's no action of a move request

I recently closed the discussion to move Côte d'Ivoire as no consensus, no action; a person has asked for a review of that decision. Any takers? billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I see a consensus for a move to the English name. Moreover, I agree that government/ISO fiat has aught to do with English language usage, much less naming conventions on en.WP. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see such a consensus at this time, and think that Billinghurst's closure was fine. NW (Talk) 11:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus in either direction. --Deskana (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Could i please get clarification on one point. Should the individual RM for an article take into account wider implications of other articles? I accept the point made by billinghurst about a move having potential implications for other articles relating to this country and a wider debate on dealing with that would be justified. But should that issue play a role in deciding the article name in question? It seemed to be the main argument against in the sum up of the closure. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Recursive effects, along with what some government or UN bureaucrat office has to say about it, have nothing to do with naming policy on en.WP. Likewise, consensus discussions have little or no sway on policy, unless held on the policy talk page or a another project page meant for broad policy discussion. Outside of these, comments which don't support policy carry much less weight as to consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I also see no consensus, and no problem with the close- the status quo remains lacking a consensus to change it. Courcelles (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see a consensus either, Gwen. I've posted there saying that there was no consensus and thus the status quo remains. Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, this is why, there are some closes I don't wade into, why stir up a fuss? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou everyone for responding with feedback on this RM and ty billinghurst for closing it, i was worried we may have had to wait weeks for a closure so i am glad it is all over despite the outcome. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to apply WP:DENY to blocked user User:Jessica Liao

It has recently come to my attention that blocked user Jessica Liao has been posting on Yahoo Answers asking when she will be banned on this site. She has also come to the sockpuppet channel on IRC recently to ask why we were targeting an IP which she was socking on. This brought up the idea that she is thriving on attention brought up here whenever she is brought to the sockpuppet investigation page. I know that we recently have applied WP:DENY to banned user GEORGIEGIBBONS so that his sock's pages, the SPI, and other related categories were deleted. In the past we have also applied this policy to other users if I am correct in my assumption. I feel that if we ignore Jessica, she will eventually go away. I was told by someone to bring this proposal here before anything was acted upon so I am looking upon the input of others before we do anything else here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Posting on AN is the complete opposite of applying WP:DENY, by the way... NW (Talk) 01:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I know that, I was just told that this would be a good place to bring it up since she isn't as bad as GEORGIEGIBBONS and the community might want a say in this matter. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of wasting time with this ringamarole, why not file abuse reports with her ISP? Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Wikipedia:Abuse response. Fences&Windows 16:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This will require someone with checkuser to file since she is using registered accounts that hide her IP address. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Larry Sinclair

I want to know why there is not a single article - indeed, hardly so much as a mention - of Larry Sinclair and the related scandal - or lack thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.5.167 (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The page (at Larry Sinclair) appears to be create-protected so that only administrators can create the page, probably because it was used as an attack page several times before. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

[t is quite absurd! [ B L P Totally redetacted. Use will get a warning on his page for it ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.45.106 (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOAP N419BH 03:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If the subject is that meriting of an article, register and develop a prototype in your user space and put it up for a "Article for Creation". If the subject is notable, content verifyable, and does not establish any particular point of view then the article could be in the mainspace. This comment does not constitute a endorsement of said topic, only trying to help out. Hasteur (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSCANDAL apply. Any attempt to add these allegations to Obama's article would fall under WP:UNDUE, and we don't have an article about Completely unsupported allegations against Barack Obama made by a convicted fraudster.[61] Fences&Windows 23:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As well as the policies noted by Fence and Windows, there is also the ones such as Wikipedia:Original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability which are the basis by which articles may be produced. Since I, as a Brit, have never heard of any of these matters there is a likelihood that there is a lack of good, reliable, third party sources that are reporting these issues - there may be many reasons for this, but I am inclined to think that it is because it is unsustainable drivel propagated by persons who are disinclined to recognise the democratic choice of a nation (likely because the president is black). When credible sources note there may be some validity to the wild accusations formulated by fringe and extremist groups, then there might be the article(s) you desire. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but when I was interviewing some Americans post-election, I honestly was told "we can't shoot him because he'd be a martyr. We'll just trash him bad and he'll give up". Honestly, you're not allowed to have a look of misbelief when they say that ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I seem to again have the minority opinion on this topic: Sinclair is notable enough as the guy with the bizarre story about him & Obama partying which no one believes, yet his name resurfaces just frequently enough to make some wonder what his story is. (I needed to Google him to verify that I remembered him correctly.) No, I am not an Obama-hater; my chief complaint with him is that he isn't leftist enough. I'm just calling it how I see it, & Sinclair would merit an article -- or a redirect to the appropriate section of an article -- if his off-the-law allegations were part of history. However, I'm not going to go against the consensus for a simple reason; not because I'm obsessed with Obama, but because Wikipedia will be around long after Obama has left office & the politics have died down, & we can add the sentence or two -- all which is needed to properly address this -- then. -- llywrch (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Amendment long term AnonIP disruption.

Updating this[62] ongoing long term problem. I am asking here as instructed by the WP:DR page, as this is a condition where "...a user's conduct needs other urgent attention from an administrator, report it to the Administrators' Noticeboard". This matter raises to the level of urgent because of the continued page lock. If I am misunderstanding the best procedure to resolve this long term WP:DE problem coming from this AnonIP, I am requesting advice and help as to what the correct course of action may be, thanks.

The AnonIP continues with WP:DE and WP:NPA, here are three recent examples[63][64][65]. The reason I mention this is that the WP:DE effect is serving to make the dispute resolution process at that article[66] more tedious that it need be. And, as a result, this important article has been in a page protect mode for more than a month. This long term AnonIP's disruption is interfering with the important work of editing an encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr has been engaging in repeated edit wars to push his personal militia based theory of the Second Amendment. His edit wars have gotten the Second Amendment article frozen twice over the past month. His most recent edit war/3rr violation is detailed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Salty_Boatr_-_You_are_already_in_violation_of_3RR but has not been officially filed. The militia based argument has been termed worthy of the mad hatter by the US Supreme Court and Salty just does not get that his pet theory is as dead as a doornail. The US Supreme Court has stated that

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW: Please be advised that Salty has filed this complaint against me without bothering to inform me so that I could respond.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:96.237.120.38. Is there a WP:NoBackstabbing rule? 71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Time out: did the both of you actually edit the archived version of that complaint today? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did, my bad. Please accept my apology. Being as this is an already opened notice about a long term problem lasting almost two years, when I did it I was confused about proper protocol to use the previously opened noticeboard notice, or to open a new notice here for this old problem. That said, I am still requesting advice and help as to what the correct course of action may be, thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 00:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked on Saltys contributions and noticed he had added to his complaint against me. I naturally responded, not aware that I was editing an archive.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

PC David Rathband photos

May I direct experienced copyright eyes to this question? Thanks --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to spam your question here? The point of having multiple noticeboards is not that every issue is cross-posted to every one of them. Your query is no more important than the others on the Media Questions page. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Because I had no idea how highly trafficked that page was, and the article is an ongoing event and I could do with a fairly prompt response. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI a "meta discussion" as to whether this thread belongs here is being discussed at WT:AN. –xeno^talk 14:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh good grief!<rolls eyes> Don't we have better things to be doing? --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA is epic fail. Fences&Windows 15:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Speed of light

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

Amendment 4 to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light ("Brews ohare advocacy restrictions") expired with remedy 4.2 of the same case ("Brews ohare topic banned"), as amended by amendment 3 ("Brews ohare").

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Range block question

Gameboy1947 (talk · contribs), whom I indef blocked for a combination of major copyright violations and systematically misrepresenting sources, has been using dynamic IP addresses to evade their blocks over the last few months and continue their pattern of editing (complete with copyvios). These accounts have mainly been in the 119.152.x range and some, but by no means all, of them are listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gameboy1947. I'd like to range block this editor to stop the IP socking and the rangeblock calculator states that the range to block is 119.152.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) though this could block up to 65536 users (I'm not sure if this is referring to actual accounts or potential IP editors - the IPs all geolocate to Pakistan, which should limit the impact on the English-language Wikipedia). How do I assess the collateral damage which would result from a block on IP editing from this range? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The editor has asked (via an IP sock puppet, of course) that I also note that they've edited on some occasions from the 116.x range. This can be taken as confirmation that all the IPs listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gameboy1947 are indeed Gameboy1947 in case there's any doubt. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Add the CIDR gadget in your preferences, then click on the contribs link for the range. It will show you (almost) every unregistered IP edit ever made from the range. Apart from showing how many account creations would have been prevented, that will give a reasonable indication of the collateral for an anonblock. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. From some spot checks of the other IP editors it looks like there would be too much collateral damage - it looks like we're stuck with whack a mole and semi-protection unless anyone has another suggestions for how to deal with this. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Boutique Hotel Bristol Budapest ****

Resolved

 – indef blocked -- œ^™ 14:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Boutique Hotel Bristol Budapest **** (talk · contribs)

I am an admin from Hungarian Wikipedia. Excuse me, if I am not on the right noticeboard, we have only one. ;-) This user has no edits except making an advertisment on his user page. Already blocked in huwiki. Bináris (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and deleted. Thanks--Jac16888^Talk 14:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD closure requested

Resolved

Could somebody please close the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Ross? It qualifies for a non-admin closure and the nominator basically indicated that he would like to withdraw the nomination[67]. I would have done a non-admin closure myself but since I have !voted in the AfD, I am not supposed to close it according to WP:NACD. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that Spartaz has just closed it. Thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, in a case like that where the nom acknowledges the (otherwise unanimous) outcome, there's really no good need to come here for an uninvolved admin, is there? If no one is going to object, why bother following useless processes? Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nsk, you can also perform a non-admin closure and close it as long as you haven't voted in it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Probable deceased Wikipedian..

I remember a while back there was a set procedure for Wikipedians who passed away, someone indicated to me privately that we probably have such a situation with User:Mike Keith Smith. Anyone want to look this over, and determine if we should do the usual things (whatever they are) with them? (link to contribs),(link to story on death). Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is some debate over whether deceased Wikipedian accounts should be blocked, I don't think there's any consensus on it so it should probably just be left. Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians is for Wikipedians with "at least several hundred edits or are otherwise known for substantial contributions to Wikipedia", I don't know if that is the case here. –xeno^talk 19:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say no... he didn't even have 50 edits, so while he had an account, I would not consider him a wikipedian..---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless if he had 1 edit, it should be looked into and respect paid if the user has passed away. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Had this fellow been an otherwise undistinguished person who made less than 50 edits to Wikipedia, I'd agree with Xeno & Balloonman. However, Mike Keith Smith appears to be a notable individual who either has, or may in the future have, an article about him. I'd block the account, & leave a suggestion at the Signpost about either an article or a mention there. (Notable people who edit Wikipedia are always worth at least a line in the "In other News" section, IMHO.) He doesn't rate an entry to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians -- although I would be surprised if the other three who've commented in this thread don't rate a section there. -- llywrch (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the user's contributions, looks like there is an article about him. Michael Keith Smith. SirFozzie (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Llywrch, a mention in the Signpost would probably be nice, but the Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians seems out of date, so I don't see an entry (at least by me) happening. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

{{Dead wikipedian}} on the userpage might serve well, too. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That template title should probably be renamed to something a little less blunt. "Deceased Wikipedian" maybe. -- œ^™ 23:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.  Done. Someone with a bot might want to go through and change {{Dead wikipedian}} to {{Deceased Wikipedian}} on all the many pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note that the manual of style opposes "polite language" such as "passed away" in favor of the blunt "died." Edison (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• If I may weigh in as one of the primary contributors to the development of the style guidance in this area. The advisement against euphemistic language—like the rest of the guideline—is meant to apply to literary composition in article space. This sort of template is much more in the nature of a personal communication; thus, in terms of tone, "deceased" strikes me as more sensitive and appropriate than "dead".—DCGeist (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• This makes sense; the MOS doesn't really apply to pages such as this that aren't articles or templates that appear in articles. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that I was only suggesting renaming the title of the template, not the text within it. But it's fine, anyhow. -- œ^™ 06:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason his user page has been left as his autobio? Also, the account has been blocked but the template hasn't been put on the page. If the template is put on the user page, it would be an idea to tidy up both the user page and the user talk page, and also the article talk page (in case someone tries to reply to the comment he left there in February 2008, however unlikely that might seem). Also, as he edited his own article, the template about that should be put on the talk page of the article, even though he has died. Also, the article itself could do with some attention, and that is arguably more important than what should happen to the userpage or account. Is there a place to ask if others are willing to tidy the article up? Carcharoth (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• It may seem odd, but the editors who patrol Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard are willing to tackle such articles, if you can explain more clearly to them what the attention required is. Uncle G (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I wasn't aware they dealt with recently deceased people as well. I'll pop over there. The reason I mentioned it above was that the above post I made was more trying to make sure things didn't get forgotten, and listing everything as I thought of it, covering both issues raised above and issues that could be dealt with elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• The template didn't feel right. I've added a note to the user page and made the user talk page a redirect and protected them both. If that resolves this, then someone can mark the thread resolved. If something different needs doing, it can be discussed here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Allow Commons admins to view deleted images on all wikipedias

I'm crossposting this from the Commons ANI: On meta I proposed on allowing commons admins to view deleted images on all wikipedias. Please see this page for reasoning & post any feedback there. --DieBuche (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I just cleared a sizeable backlog there. IT's quietened down now, but more admin eyes would be appreciated. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Leland Yee new editors scared away

So two new editors try to improve Leland Yee's article and what do editors do? Threaten them, report them and then scare them off. Is this really appropriate conduct for an admin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.173.148.164 (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is here. One problem I just discovered is a lot of close paraphrase - I removed 'most notably' from a paragraph and then discovered that it had been copied from the newspaper source (which is clearly a press release). Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

He's referring to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Leland_Yee. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikistalk and harass Ricky81682 much? –MuZemike 02:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed

Could someone please take a look at this on AN/I and do whatever closing out and implementation seems appropriate? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the related RfC here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why it seems to be a problem getting an admin to deal with this. Is there a problem I should know abour? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

See my comments there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple move requests @ Cote d'Ivoire = disruption?

Anyone else agree that this is becoming effing ridiculous? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it Gdansk or Danzig? I agree, starting move discussions every week is not acceptable, and there should be a moratorium on doing so for at least X amount of time. NW (Talk) 13:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Need extra eyes on Colton Harris-Moore

Also known as the "Barefoot Bandit". Sounds like he was finally captured today after a two year manhunt. Not too many details as of yet. Expect a large amount of POV speculation, unsourced BLP additions, and many, many people attempting to add links to his facebook page and facebook fanclub. Extra admin eyes would be helpful. N419BH 14:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Request additional eyes

The article Ebionites, as viewers of these noticeboards will unfortunately very well know, has been referred to them repeatedly. Today, as can be seen at Talk:Ebionites#Misrepresentation of Tabor, I found that, at least according to the library edition I used, none of the pages included in reference citations 61 or 66 actually really support the material they are supposed to. I have previously asked another editor who has worked with the article in the past to review the references, but have not yet gotten a response. In any event, I think the article would benefit from receiving greater interest from the broader community. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional eyes needed

I have just reblocked User:Rivenburg, who was blocked back in 2007 for strongly biased editing of Michel Thomas. Ultimately, his block was reviewed, and was reduced to a ban on editing that specific article (talk page editing permitted). He has recently returned and edited the article using the Rivenburg account; however, a review of the article's history compared with available checkuser data strongly indicates that he has continued editing while logged out for much of the time of his topic ban.

This article needs review by people with some knowledge of the historical period involved, and I will cross-post this to the Polish and Military History wikiprojects; however, in the interim, it would be very helpful if a few folks would add this page to their watchlist and keep an eye out for further biased logged-out edits. Thanks. Risker (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Rivenburg might be editing as an IP, I recommend the page be semi-protected for the interm while things are sorted out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Block review

Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I've blocked Rodhullandemu for 24 hours. It's been suggested that because he's an admin, I should get a second opinion. While I don't think that's really true - why get a second opinion for blocking an admin, and not get one for blocking any other established editor? - I'm always open to feedback, so I'll bring it here.

Quick history:

• Rod and Malleus were part of an argument at Wikipedia:BN#Asking for adminship back.
• Rod told Malleus to stop arguing at BN, and take it somewhere else.
• Rod went to Malleus's talk page, and rather pompously repeated the same. [68]
• It may come as a surprise to some of you that Malleus doesn't like admins coming and being pompous on his talk page.
• For the next few hours, Malleus, Rod, and some kibitzers traded childish insults.
• It's worth noting that Malleus did not post to BN again.
• Rod told Malleus that he was "less important to me than the occasional dogshit on my shoe". [69]
• Malleus told Rod basically the same thing. [70]
• Rod blocked Malleus for 31 hours for personal attacks.
• I blocked Rod for 24 hours for a personal attack.
• Moni3 unblocked Malleus.
• I asked Rod to assure me he wouldn't go back to Malleus' page, and I would do the same. He wouldn't so I didn't unblock. There's an unblock template up there now.

To be clear, I would not have blocked Rod if he hadn't blocked Malleus. Malleus is a big boy, can take care of himself, and was being rude too. But it is completely unacceptable to block someone you're arguing with, especially for "personal attacks" on yourself, especially when you just called him a name on his own talk page. If Rod truly believes that Malleus should have been blocked for "personal attacks", I don't see how he can believe that he isn't guilty of the same. If he doesn't believe that, then I suppose I could change my block rationale to "grossly inapproriate use of admin tools".

On Rod's talk page, Rod is saying I should not have blocked him because he's an admin. On the contrary, I think admins should actually be held to the same, if not a higher, standard. He's also saying he should have been given a warning (really? It's not obvious you don't call someone dogshit, and then block them when they dare to answer back?), and that I've further insulted him by not placing a template on his talk page (??).

I welcome a couple of things:

• Some feedback on the block.
• Some feedback on my opinion in the extreme inappropriateness of the use of admin tools against someone you're arguing with, on their own talk page, right after you call them dogshit.
• Some feedback on whether this misuse of the tools is worth an RFC/U or recall attempt.

Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I unblocked Malleus. I don't have an opinion on the block. I wouldn't have blocked Rodhullandemu, just because I don't like to block other editors. But I do agree with Tony1's suggestion that Rodhullandemu should go through a admin review. First, to come to a user's page and patronize him as an admin is abhorrent. To continue to bait the user, to attempt to silence him for using valid (albeit profane) arguments is simply stupid. It has no basis in any effective administrative duties. It's petty and childish. To block the person with whom you're arguing is astonishingly, breathtakingly abusive. Rodhullandemu does not seem to grasp these cause and effect relationships per the unblock requests and exchanges with Floquenbeam on his talk page. Stunningly, he uses the argument that he writes GAs or something. I don't get that. Does Malleus then have the right to be more abusive or ...gosh, I have no idea... something, because he's written over 20 FAs?? That's just weird. --Moni3 (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Seems like a reasonable block to me. Welcome to the club of those who have blocked an admin, Floquenbeam. Though I imagine you'll soon also be member to those who have had their blocks of an admin overturned before it expires. It's pretty rare that these things stick, valid as they may (or may not) be. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  FWIW, I just declined the unblock request, and he stated that that was unacceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• The argument at Malleus' talkpage was escalating and the blocks certainly put a stop to it. However, it cannot be acceptable for an admin to use their tools in an argument against their opponent. Given Rod's volume of work on the encyclopedia, I can only assume that he lost his cool and didn't think through the ramifications of using his tools in such circumstances. His subsequent comments on his talkpage show he is still missing that point. Since the block is preventative, not punitive, as soon as he regains his composure and realises that he crossed a bright line, he should be unblocked. I don't feel that there's any pattern of tool abuse here to require any further action. --RexxS (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam acted appropriately in this situation. Rod has a long pattern of good work both as an editor and as an administrator. However, current consensus is greatly opposed to blocks by involved administrators. Thus, the act of blocking by Rod was questionable. Hopefully this issue can be resolved without hard feelings by any parties. Rod disengaging totally from the situation, while difficult, is the quickest route to such a non-negative resolution. Lewis Windsor (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good Block You do NOT use your admin tools to win an argument. Let the dust settle and cooler heads prevail. I think we'll see one red-faced admin tomorrow. N419BH 05:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Each of the users who are involved in this have something to worry about.
  • Rod: Rod was involved in the content dispute, engaged in grossly inappropriate commentary, and was responded to with the same kind of commentary. Rod was not in a position where he was permitted to use his tools (as they do not exist for that purpose), but blocked Malleus anyway for attacks that were made within half hour of the block being applied. Basic principle that administrators are expected to refrain from issuing (or modifying) blocks in response to personal attacks directed at themselves (especially where there is a level of involvement in the dispute).
  • Flo: It appears Floquenbeam responded to this block by blocking Rod. The stated reason in the log was personal attacks/harassment (that were made some 2 hours ago), as well as "Rod is going to have a hard time unblocking Malleus; I've blocked him for 24 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)". Blocking an administrator for refusing to unblock someone (or because they blocked someone inappropriately) is not what the blocking tool exists for. If it was to prevent Rod from going to Malleus' talk page, and it would have been applied irrespective of the incidents here, then fine. However, Flo stated this block would not have been applied had Malleus not been blocked. This is problematic.
  • Moni3/Courcelles: Meanwhile, Moni3 unblocked Malleus with the log reason "Oh for Pete's sake". Courcelles was going to unblock Malleus also. This was after both admins could see that Rod was blocked. No unblock request was made and it was unlikely that an assurance would be made that such rhetoric would not continue. It is unlikely that any other editor in those circumstances would have been unblocked in the same fashion, even if the block was inappropriate. Is this a situation where a couple of admins were enforcing their own views about civility blocks? Possibly. It would have been appropriate to unblock Malleus had Rod not been blocked; it would have been appropriate to unblock Malleus if Rod was also unblocked. However, the appropriateness of unblocking any single party (alone) in the circumstances is more than just questionable - it is problematic.
  • Conclusion: The person who has the most to lose (or has a greater chance of losing it) is Rod for multiple issues, but even that has been somewhat pacified by the act of keeping him blocked while unblocking the other party. Frankly, either way, based on what actually has happened here, I think all of you involved in the incident have at least something to worry about either in your use (or attempted use) of tools, your judgement, or in your conduct. These issues are certainly likely to crop up when (or if) it goes to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ncmv, a clarification: I didn't block him for blocking Malleus, I blocked him for a personal attack because he blocked Malleus for one. A subtle but important distinction, IMHO. In other words, I would have been perfectly willing to overlook his violation of WP:NPA if he hadn't blocked Malleus, because both of them were acting foolish. But I was no longer willing to overlook this violation of policy after he blocked Malleus for having the audacity to talk back to an admin when insulted. Also, I don't understand this "two hours ago" comment; he was blocked within 10 minutes of making the comment. And finally, I was perfectly willing to unblock Rod if he would agree to stay away from Malleus' talk page; he was unwilling to agree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If he inappropriately blocked someone for NPA (which he did), the block should have been lifted and you should have opened the dispute regarding his conduct here. Instead, you took matters into your own hands and blocked him (as a tit for tat as if this is a war or something). Your judgement was seriously flawed and had a much more chilling effect than any block on Malleus could ever have. You say you blocked him for NPA, yet you sat on your hands and refused to unblock based on technicalities. If Malleus was unblocked without any unblock request or assurance, be it by Moni3 or anyone else, I don't see how you could reasonably believe that the scales were being balanced by keeping him blocked. I'm not going to merely glare at Rod's poor judgement and ignore the other serious problems here (due to an overreliance on the incomplete picture you provided at the outlook of this review); it shouldn't have taken Wehwalt to approach you to unblock - you should have done it yourself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Cliques abusing their admin powers for their friends? Unpossible. Q ^{T C} 07:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Malleus was acting like a fool. However Rodhullandemu acted like a much bigger fool. I don't particularly have a problem with the block of Rodhullandemu - I see he's now stomped off with a big dramatic retirement announcement. As is always the case with editors who make big dramatic retirement announcements, the project is better off without him. Problem solved, nothing more to do here. Friday (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block: I haven't looked at the specifics of this interaction, but I understand there were personal attacks flying back and forth and Rod should have simply the more mature of the two and taken the issues to AN/I rather than responding with personal attacks of his own and then abusing his admin tools to "win" an argument. The block should remain until Rod has calmed down and recognises that blocking someone for personal attacks against himself, while making personal attacks of his own, is a gross misuse of the admin tools. Since this is an isolated incident I don't feel that this alone will warrant admin recall, but Rod needs to appreciate that a 24-hour block is the least of his worries: the way he treated the tools could cause the community to lose faith in him, and the longer he takes to accept that he was in the wrong and promises to use the tools in a responsible way, the more likely that is. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I hardly see how he is going to accept anything when he's declared that he has retired, presumably as a result of this block (or its handling). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

    Clearly he's not ready to do so at the moment; I suspect he will quickly regret declaring himself "retired" and apologise profusely, promise not to do it again, etc. In which case fine, give Rod a second chance if he promises not to abuse the tools again. If he sticks to his "retirement", then good luck to him; we certainly don't need admins who abuse their tools to fight with other editors and then throw a strop about it when blocked for blatant misuse of the admin tools he promised to use responsibly. I would say give him a few days to cool off and acknowledge his own fault; if he doesn't, perhaps admin recall will be necessary. Just my opinion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

    The point that is being missed in all of this is that the method by which we decide whether administrators should be desysopped or not, based on their tool-use, is well-established - those methods have never included blocking. As for incivility, editors and admins are on equal playing ground...which still leaves the question unanswered - why is one editor being unblocked without any requests while the admin is being still blocked despite making a request earlier? Because "he started it"? Or has he shown a tendency to reblock the editor even after the editor was unblocked? Has the community forgotten the doctrine of good faith or is it trying to signal that he was trying to hurt the project? He had every opportunity to wheel war so that he could become unblocked too; he did not take this bait that was dangled in front of him. Instead, he expected the community to respond to his unblock request by unblocking him, given that Malleus was also unblocked (for that matter, without any on-wiki unblock request or assurance of any sort); the administrators involved failed to meet this expectation. I cannot in good conscience ignore these facts. The serious issues in judgement should have been addressed through normal methods; not childish insult trades and childish block/unblock wars. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

    "Bait that was dangled in front of him"? That's completely ridiculous, and insulting. It does, however, save me some time, as I no longer see any value in discussing this with you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

    • Let's see: Admin compares editor to dogshit on editor's own talk page. Editor responds, effectively saying "no, you're dogshit." Admin blocks editor for "personal attack" (comparing him to dogshit). Admin retires in a huff when blocked for his ridiculous behavior. Seems like it was handled fine by all concerned except the admin.Bali ultimate (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
      • It's unhelpful to overlook the fact that behavior on all sides was ridiculous - responding to incivility with incivility is utterly stupid and childish, regardless of which space it is on-wiki or regardless of excuses like "he started it". Admin Flo blocked admin Rod for personal attacks (which might have been fine), in which case no unblock was warranted by Moni3 or Courcelle. Had Flo not blocked, an unblock would have taken place (which would have been fine) and it is very unlikely that a contributor would have been lost today. Flo has also given every indication that he blocked for tool misuse if the civility block didn't stick - admins should not block other admins on grounds of tool misuse (unless it is an emergency, like account compromised, vandalism, etc). If anything, this seems to have been handled poorly by all concerned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
        • No. It's unhelpful to defend this garbage. If you come to my talk page and call me a dogshit, I'll give you an earful. I'm a big boy, so presumably is malleus. But if you're one of those admin assholes who come to a user's talk page to throw invective, receive invective in turn and then block the peon because, well, you're big and powerful and the non-admin is just dog shit, that's a big problem far, far beyond the incivility crap the game players are constantly going on about. It's a fundamental failing of the way this place is run that this stuff happens all the time. The good news here was the rod-whatever was dumb enough to do the blocking himself. Usually the offended admin rounds up an uninvolved pal by email or in some chatroom so plausible deniability is preserved (so sorry to have to block you. But you used naughty words, and i just was happening by and was left little choice but to stop the disruption you instigated on your own talk page.)Bali ultimate (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse While I personally never had a problem with Rod and always thought him to be a good admin, I have to agree with Friday that in this case Rod simply made a mistake. Not only because of the personal attacks but also because he used his tools in a situation he was involved in. I do think though that Malleus should not have been unblocked, since in this case both sides were equally responsible for what happened. It's sad to see that Rod used this situation to announce his retirement though - he should accept that he was baited by Malleus and overreacted, misusing the tools in the process. We all make mistakes after all - how we handle them and the consequences is the important part. Regards SoWhy 09:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good block, Floquenbeam.'* Rod "advised" MF (he says), and MF didn't do as he was told, so Rod decided that was "disruption". What does "disruption" mean today? Lèse majesté ? Let me quote WP:BLOCK's list of what the actual blockable disruptions are: [71]. Did Malleus do any of that lot? Nope. "Disagreeing with our betters" isn't in there, that I can see. I quote some more from the same source: "Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment " Did Rod do that? Nope again. I'm not much of a blocker, but Rod's block of Malleus was so horribly bad, and misused admin tools so flagrantly, that I think he should stay blocked his full time, and we should ignore his flouncing-off "retired" template. A small case of burnout, perhaps. We've all been there there, and when we are, the community should be protected from our bad actions. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC).
• Good block, blocking someone you're in an argument with for personal attacks no worse than the ones you've made yourself is very, very silly behaviour. Technically, I think both of them warranted a block given the bilateral nature of the argument - but unambiguously it should not have been Rod that did the blocking of Malleus. ~ mazca ^talk 11:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Fair enough block. But I hope Rod comes back to edit again when the block expires. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block and concur that admins should be held to the same standards as any other editors and that it is inappropriate to use admin tools against someone you're arguing with: I think that's what WP:INVOLVED is there to avoid; and I think it could have justified at least an RCF/U, had Rod not retired. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Good block. I think he should be desysoped for his outrageous behavior. "blocking an Admin is a serious step to take, and should not be done unilaterally", give me a break. Sole Soul (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Flo: your version of events seems to have left out who made the first personal attack, which appears to be Malleus when he called Rod an idiot. The many people who watch Malleus' talk page, which includes many admins as well as notable editors highly active in the FA process, chose to ignore the attack and instead let it fester and grow. Indeed, to some extent they have joined in by being jocular about what occurred. These jokers include Moni3, who lifted the block on Malleus. The FA cabal is fun and productive, but it needs to be on its guard against its all too frequent slips into the unfunny and unproductive. DrKiernan (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Not quite right DrKiernan, not unless you believe that calling someone a coward is a term of endearment.[72] Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• • A quick look at my contributions should dispel any notion that I'm part of an FA cabal, Dr. K. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• I appreciate that, but those that are have a habit of closing ranks rather than showing contrition when they make a mistake or behave poorly. That's what I find disappointing. DrKiernan (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• It seems like the right decision was made here. Both sides went over the line from what I can see. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, this sucked.

Flo, in response to the particular question you posed, I believe that the situation reached the point where an urgent intervention was justified and arguably necessary. Within our existing policy and precedent this was fine.

Taking a step back - We have a longstanding history of having admins and longtime editors who reach the point that they're angered by something and escalate themselves into blowing up and leaving. We've had ongoing discussions about this, usually after someone good that we all knew flames out and disappears. I think that everyone acknowledges that figuring out a way to "talk people down off the ledge" would be far preferable to the blowups and departures which have charcterized so many experienced participants departures so far. With an experienced editor who's just being rude to people this is hard enough (and we don't really have any policy, precedent, or established responders who know how to do this reliably). With an admin who's used the admin bit inappropriately it gets much harder to deal with, as the amount of damage done is more severe.

I am going to point this thread out to Marc Riddell and a few others. Anyone else who has ideas about the meta-problem here is welcome to chime in.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Same shit, different day. As usual, the dysfunctional issue here is all the anonymous admins who were nowhere to be seen before this became the usual episode of Wiki Free Speech Groundhog Day, sponsored by Acme Tin Foil Hat Company. All you admins endorsing this block need to go and look and Rod's contribs, and split between yourselves the million and one BLPs Rod seemed to patrol all day every day ceaselessly. I certainly don't want any more crap like Fiddling Changes foisted on the pedia simply because Wikipedia doesn't have enough admins on the job because they can get wound up by the usual suspects so easily. So Malleus got wrongly blocked after yet again trolling the fuck out of a venue he had less than nothing new to contribute to with his Adminz R Evil crap, what's fucking new for fuck's sake? Sort your lives out all of you, or Moni3 is going to be the only actual admin left, to do all your actual proper work for you. And you all know how over-worked she is already, having to intervene on Malleus' behalf all the time. MickMacNee (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• I hate to step in on the Malleus lovefest, but he did call another user an "idiot", which in my book violates WP:NPA. I Don't know why he was unblocked... Oh, yeah, long-time users can get away with saying virtually anything they want to an admin. Ridiculous double-standard.  –Joshua Scott 20:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• What about an unblock review for Moni3's unblock of Malleus? It seems to me that of the three administrative actions (Rodhullandemu's block of Malleus, Floquenbeam's block of Rodhullandemu, Moni3's unblock of Malleus), the unblock of Malleus was the most egregious one. Floquenbeam stated that the block of Rodhullandemu was for incivility and personal attacks. Rodhullandemu is still blocked. Malleus' incivility and personal attacks in this case were very blatant and he was the first one to call Rodhullandemu an idiot. Malleus did not request an unblock and did not make any promises to respect WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in the future. Yet he was unblocked by Moni3 with the brilliant summary "Oh for Pete's sake". Now Moni3 offers the following amazing explanation for his unblock: "Does Malleus then have the right to be more abusive or ...gosh, I have no idea... something, because he's written over 20 FAs??" Did I miss something or did we at some point adopt a policy that Malleus is exempt from WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA?? Moni3 did a similar thing back on March 7, 2010, lifting a block as "ineffective" where malleus was blocked for personal attacks against User:Chillum, which lead directly to Chillum leaving the project for good. It seems to me that if someone deserves to be desysopped here or at least forbidden to ever unblock Malleus if someone blocks him again, it is Moni3, who apparently is determined to protect Mallleus, no matter the circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Some feedback on the block. Good block
• Some feedback on my opinion in the extreme inappropriateness of the use of admin tools against someone you're arguing with, on their own talk page, right after you call them dogshit. Definitely agree.
• Some feedback on whether this misuse of the tools is worth an RFC/U or recall attempt. Only if it continues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment . Rod shouldn't have blocked Malleus (obviously); Flo shouldn't have blocked Rod, and Moni3 shouldn't have unblocked Malleus given that Rod was blocked. Either the both of them stayed blocked or neither. The actual correct thing to have done would have just been to unblock Malleus, told both Rod and Malleus to grow up, and then ask the community if there was a case for an RFCU based on Rod's incorrect use of admin tools. There is a very dubious sense of double standards here; a neutral observer might think that Malleus "gets away with" his incivility because of his (outstanding) article work - so then why doesn't Rod? If you're blocking for NPA (which should've been the only reason to - we don't block for crap decisions on tool use) you treat both parties in the same way. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• I read it as Rod was blocked for blocking an opponent in a dispute. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• With all due etc, you can't have read very hard. I can't see any ambiguity in the wording that "Personal attacks and harassment" was the block reason. – iridescent 22:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• True, I didn't read the log and relied on the post of 03:20, 11 July 2010. "grossly inappropriate use of admin tools" is what I read as what was really meant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a valid block reason; never has been, and never will be, since it's an unnecessary powder keg for fuelling factionalism and divisiveness. Other remedies, such as Talk page negotiation, and WP:RFC exist for that very purpose. Our Founding Fathers may not have anticipated where we may end up, but they at least set up some basic principles, one of which is that Administrators should be free from fear in applying non-negotiable policies. Rodhullandemu 02:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What isn't a valid block reason? Reading the specific thread you're responding to, it's one of three things.

'blocking an opponent in a dispute'

'Personal attacks and harassment'

'grossly inappropriate use of admin tools'

All three seem to be valid reasons to block. What invalid reason were you blocked for? --Onorem♠Dil 03:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong. I still think that Malleus needs to be specifically pointed out for some reason as exempt in WP:CIVIL, but that doesn't change your response. --Onorem♠Dil 03:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Black Kite's comment. Obviously, blocking someone you're arguing with is completely unacceptable and Malleus should have been unblocked. But I don't think Rodhullandemu should have been blocked and instead a discussion started regarding his actions. Sarah 03:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Alarming. The retirement is apparently over (see also Rod's talkpage), and ArbCom has, reasonably, rejected the request for arbitration as insufficiently prepared. I suggest an RFC/U is the appropriate next step. That is, if more users than me are disappointed to see Rod return to the fold with the exact same rigid attitude about the "non-negotiable policy" which "obliged" him to block Malleus? The plentiful good advice and resounding consensus against his block have not affected his defensiveness at all, it seems. That is sort of alarming, because of both his wildly unhealthy Wiki work schedule and his overly majestic attitude towards editors—signs of burnout, both. Unless Rod freely takes a break of a self-selected (but reasonable!) length, it's surely dispute resolution time: WP:RFC/U, then WP:RFAR. This affair should not be let slide and remain only as a living monument to Malleus' conviction that adminship is synonymous with abuse. Bishonen | talk 03:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC).

• Feh. I don't like his attitude much either, but a lot of people don't like my attitude, for instance. What matters is behavior. If he does it again, desysop him. For now, if he wants to rant about how he was right but doesn't take the same actions again, let him.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It happens, I am a believer in if the block is over then you can be proud of the results or the method you got there anyways. The sockpuppet actually was rather conscise about this. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Leave him be. I think he'll figure it out. No need to take drastic measures over a single series of mistakes made in anger. Let him recover for a few days and think about it. Technically, he's right about WP:NPA being a blockable offense, but he may have neglected WP:INVOLVED in the process. Let him figure it out and we'll go from there. A desysopping would be punitive at this point, not preventative. N419BH 04:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh I have no doubt hes "found Jesus" in his short wiki-incarceration. Hopefully it sticks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I also agree with Black Kite and Sarah. I'm particularly concerned that we have an Administrator twice unblocking Malleus, I would strongly suggest that he does not do this again. Why Malleus avoids blocks or gets unblocked for comments others are blocked for eludes me. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Unblocked in 12 minutes or less, both times. That could be seen by some as odd in itself. Just saying... Doc9871 (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Would you be equally concerned if an administrator had twice blocked me? No, I didn't think so. Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    • You answered your own question incorrectly, Malleus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Bad all round No one comes out of this looking very good. Rod's block seems like an open-and-shut case of a bad block by an involved editor. But what does WP:UNINVOLVED say on the subject? In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Of course Rod is going to be the least objective judge of how severe those attacks were, but unfortunately, WP:WHEEL makes it rather difficult for another admin to endorse a block after the fact - and impossible, if a different admin unblocks. Speaking of which, I think that Moni3's unblock was worse than Rod's block, both in terms of involvement (as pointed out above, this isn't the first rapid unblock of Malleus by Moni3) and in comparison to policy (there was no unblock request and no indication that the disruption wouldn't continue). So if you folks with the pitchforks and torches could just move along over there... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • What "disruption" is this you're talking about? I didn't see any disruption, and I certainly didn't see anyone blocked for disruption. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Personal attacks disrupt the collaborative editing environment that we expect here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, (because I happened to have met Rod in the past at the Prisoner article talkpage and I really liked his attitude), Good block because of the undeniable fact that Rod in his utterings and overall behaviour shows sure signs of burnout. That would, in itself, not matter at all. But acting up as an admin and using the powerful admin tools while burned out, is a recipe for tragedy and disaster, not to mention massive disruption. Let him cool off and regain his composure and for sure, no more 12 hour stints at Wikipedia during the recovery process please. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think Bali ultimate gets it exactly right above. If there was "baiting" it was by Rod - come on, it was entirely predictable how Malleus would respond and it looks to me like Rod was fishing for a reason to block him and cause all this drama.radek (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog

Resolved

 – cleared, thanks Rodhullandemu 21:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

At Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request, which I have recently been dealing with. Needn't be an admin, but it has grown and WP:NFCC is not really negotiable. Due diligence, you know. Rodhullandemu 23:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocking policy

I am a user from fa.wikipedia. In our project there are always disagreements on interpretation of en:Wikipedia:Blocking policy. It is said that "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". Please advise us on the following cases:

Case 1: Suppose that admin blocks a user for reasons such as sockpuppetry, vandalism, edit warring, ... . After the end of the blocking period, the blocked user starts vilifying or attacking the blocking admin. Is the blocking admin considered as involved admin. Is there any restriction for this admin to block the user again?

Case 2: Suppose that admin warns a user for vandalism or incivility or .... The warned user starts arguing with admin instead of accepting to change his/her behavior. Is this admin considered as involved admin now. Is there any restriction for this admin to block the user?

--Wayiran (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that our policies do not extend to English Wikipedia administration is separate from fa.wiki, we have the express stipulation at WP:INVOLVED that "...an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'." –xeno^talk 15:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Without more information about the exact circumstances surrounding the case, it's difficult to advise Wayiron how case 2 would be resolved on en-wiki in accordance with en-wiki policy. More information is needed about what it is the warned user is arguing about (and how the warned user is arguing about it). In case 1, the admin would generally not be permitted to use their tools - only one of the admin's peers may block for the perceived incivility/harassment. Although en-wiki's methods of resolving these issues may guide other projects (such as fa-wiki), it is in no way binding on those other projects as xeno has correctly noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just a note that its usual for fa wiki users to seek clarification here because they adopt our policies locally. That means when they are not sure how to interpret a rule they usually ask us for help. Where we do need to be careful is to be seen to be taking sides in an external dispute. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec)Just to comment on the questions, you are not involved for taking administrative action against someone and nor can a user force an admin to be involved by mouthing off at them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks - I wondered (and thought perhaps this was why). –xeno^talk 18:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

User Name

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

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. Doc9871 (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Are user names displaying email addresses allowed?  Polymathsj ^(Talk) 23:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

New ones aren't possible to create (accounts can't have the "@" symbol in them), although there are usernames from before the restriction existed that do contain an email address. Regardless of whether or not they're allowed, they are a terrible idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Read this; and I agree it's a terrible idea. This question should be posted in the appropriate area here, by the way, as the page notice explains when creating a new section on this board. Happy editing! Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a look

Please take a look at this.  Polymathsj ^Talk 23:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

He's obviously exempt. You can't create a new one now, but he's been here since 2005. Did you see the big warning template when you created this new section? "If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you." Wrong venue, I'm afraid... Doc9871 (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

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