Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features

Would admins close the various proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features? Started on 14 July 2011, the discussion has occurred for over 30 days. RFC bot (talk · contribs) removed the expired RfC template on 13 August 2011.

Perhaps admins can use Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security as a template for closure. Admins close the different proposals on the page with summaries of the consensuses, and when the all the discussions have been closed, the entire RfC is closed with an archive template. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, MER-C (talk · contribs), for closing many of the proposals. Many of them remain open. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: date formats in reference sections

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: date formats in reference sections? Both discussions are listed at Template:Centralized discussion. The first one is a stale discussion, having not received any comments since 22 August 2011. The second discussion has lasted for over 30 days.

If either of the RfCs result in "no consensus", a closure like that in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, where the opposing arguments are summarized, will be helpful to the participants. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Declined speedies

Would an admin close and assess the consensus in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Declined speedies, which I've combined with Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Restore disputed section?. The policy page was subject to an edit war over a disputed section and was protected. There has been no further discussion since 23 August 2011. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drnhawkins and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Willfults

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drnhawkins and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Willfults? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've closed the easy one.--v/r - TP 14:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, TParis, for closing and summarizing the RfC. Cunard (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC on the primary topic of China

This shouldn't be a particularly difficult close, but as its apparently been contentious for about 10 years it should be closed by an impartial admin. Cheers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fairly contentious... if no-one else cares to tackle it (please! <G>), I guess I could - just need to mull it over a lil' longer. Tabercil (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the RfC turns out to be relatively straight-forward... but there's a Talk:China#Requested move August 2011 which I'm stuck with and could use some advice. On reading the arguments it seems to me like the suggested move should be done. The problem is the article China has at least 10,000 incoming links, more like more (I gave up counting when I hit the 10000 mark). Assume for the sake of argument 10% of those link break as a result of the move - that's over 1000 broken links and I'm gun-shy about deliberately doing that. Any advice? Tabercil (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a triumvirate of admins can close Talk:China#Requested move August 2011? See the January 2011 discussion at User talk:Mkativerata/Archive9#Triumvirate, where Mkativerata (talk · contribs) wrote:

Here's an informal proposal that I'm minded to take to WT:Deletion process for approval to proceed on a trial basis.

Proposal: An administrator closing a highly contentious XfD may choose to refer the closure to a panel of three administrators. Highly contentious XfDs usually mean XfDs with an exceptionally high number of contributors, where it appears to the closing administrator that different administrators could reasonably close the debate with different outcomes.

The closing administrator is to refer the closure to a panel by posting at WP:AN to solicit the input of two other uninvolved administrators. The three administrators will then discuss at the talk page of the XfD how the debate should be closed. The administrator who referred the close to the panel shall act as the informal chair of the panel. After a reasonable period for comment (preferably within 24 hours), the chair shall close the XfD on the basis of the discussion and give reasons for the close that reflect the discussion. If the administrators on the panel disagree on the appropriate outcome and there is a clear 2-1 majority in support of one outcome, the majority view is to prevail.

I think for this proposal or something like it to win community acceptance, it would have to:

• impose as minimal bureaucracy as possible;
• make a convincing case that there is a problem to be fixed; and
• make a convincing case that it will help fix the problem. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mkativerata said that this is a "very good candidate for a triumvirate" but that he was involved and had already taken a stance in the debate.

Tabercil (talk · contribs) agrees with this proposal, so would two uninvolved admins be willing to join him in a triumvirate to close Talk:China#Requested move August 2011? Cunard (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been a participant on that page, albeit as a (hopefully) impartial mediator. I'm not sure if that makes me too "involved", but if not, I'm willing to be one of the three. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What truly makes an admin "uninvolved" or "impartial"? If we cannot answer the question to that, then what would make a "three admin panel" be any different? Moreover, how is this "minimizing" bureaucracy when this is doing the exact opposite? –MuZemike 15:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've relisted the move discussion. The topic appears to be contentious and keeping it open longer than the 7 days is probably a good idea. No hurry there. I'll be happy to join the triumvirate or whatever of 'uninvolved' admins to close the move. --rgpk (comment) 15:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks. As I said earlier, I'm thinking the move ought to be done based on the initial arguments on it but the sheer number of links in-coming makes me pause just simply because so many of them will be broken after the move. Since it's been relisted for another week, let's see what happens... Tabercil (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The hope of such a panel would be that if the 3 agreed, it would be much less likely to go to deletion review. Of course, if it was 2–1, it would be almost certain to go to deletion review, and that would probably balance out. We might as well use Deletion review as it stands, where considerable more than 3 admins as well as non-admins will look at it. But if the admin thinks the community is unable to reach consensus, we already have a way of handling that, which is a non-consensus close. But in any specific case where an admin asks for help, we're NOT BURO and can IAR to help out. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect anything to go to Deletion review, because we're not considering a deletion here. It's a titling question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Broken links?

I don't see why we'd get broken links. A redirect would be in place. I'm willing to bet a sizable proportion of them come in via templates, too. Each template that you update could be 100 links done in one stroke. Between that, and work done by bots and OCD Wikipedians, I don't think links present enough of a problem that they should influence our decision. They do, however, mean that it's a decision we shouldn't take lightly, but I don't think there's much danger of that either. There's not something I'm missing, is there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed moves are:

• China → Chinese civilization
• People's Republic of China → China

I think Tabercil is concerned that if these proposed moves are implemented, many of the links will be incorrect. I don't know if bots have the technical ability to fix these links after the pages are moved. They might have to be manually checked. Cunard (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Triumvirate

Restored to AN from the archives so that the triumvirate of closing admins can discuss the closure. Cunard (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, since I seem to be the chair of this thing, let's lead this sucker off. We have a roughly split group of people here: 32 for versus 29 against. And yes, I am aware that it's been canvassed so the numbers might be skewed. Even if I toss out the IP addresses, we're still left with 26 opposed and 28 supportive. As I wade through the arguments, both sides bring up valid points and I don't see any obvious sense of consensus here... Tabercil (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, who composes the triumvirate? Apparently I'm one of the three? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Tabercil (talk · contribs), RegentsPark (talk · contribs), and you comprise the triumvirate. Cunard (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The key question I have is how does the current situation meet WP:AT? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what was passionately debated - on the one hand it was shown earlier that the topic of China does refer to PRC; on the other hand, there's history on the "oppose" side in that there's 4 prior requests to move the article which resulted in two "non consensus", one "not moved" and the most recent one being closed out as "consensus against status quo, otherwise unclear". Tabercil (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

At least the merge discussion quality looked fairly poor to me and far less policies and evidence were mentioned than this time and the disambiguation page discussion was fairly confused as it talked about lots of topics. To me this decision should be moderately easy. If the current situation meets WP:AT even given the sources found then it should be closed as no consensus or not moved. If the closing admins feel that the sources show that the common name applies and WP:POVTITLE comes into play then the articles should be moved. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, shall we come to individual conclusions, or deliberate as a group? If it's the latter, then in what venue should that happen? I'm assuming there's not a convenient café where we can just meet and hash it out... -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't care which way we run the debate, but I'm guessing since you live in Oregon and I live in Ontario (the province, natch) it'll be kinda hard to find a Starbucks that's local to the pair of us. <G> Tabercil (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) A convenient cafe sounds like a good idea :) But, more seriously, perhaps we should first close the discussion with a decision pending note. Then, perhaps each of us write up a decision and post it somewhere (user space?). And then hash it out somehow if we don't all agree. That's one way. A straight vote would be another but that wouldn't be the wikipedia way. Any other ideas? --rgpk (comment) 19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Another option (I've just started looking at the page) would be to list support and oppose arguments (support/oppose for PRC --> China) and try to decide amongst ourselves which ones are more valid and which are less. Looking at the lengthy discussion, I think a 'no consensus' is not the right way to go. We should try to settle it one way or the other. --rgpk (comment) 19:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually in Texas now, which is no closer to Ontario... well, maybe in spirit. I like the idea of listing arguments for careful weighing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A table listing the arguments for the various options already exists, which can be seen at Talk:China#Pro-Con_table. I'm not going to paste it here as it's fair sized. Tabercil (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that thing. That was made before this recent RM; there might be new arguments to add to it. It's definitely a good start, though. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are I didn't spot any. From I could tell the points raised in the current round are referenced in the table. Remember, this isn't the first move attempt, it's the fifth. And I do think rgpk has a valid point in that we ought to try and see if we can't settle it one way or the other. Tabercil (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note from an involved editor, I think there have been many many more RMs for China and the PRC than the five listed in the notice at the top of their talk pages. The discussion archives are extremely long and debate about moving the pages goes back to 2002. There may be dozens of move discussions, I just found 4 recent ones and made a little template to help people keep up with the debate. Looking at the shear volume of the text about titles and such, its important that the process be advanced a little bit. A "no consensus" result is worth avoiding if you can. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 21:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I started a page at User:RegentsPark/China listing the arguments. The arguments are listed neutrally for now. Perhaps you (GTBacchus and Tabercil) would like to modify or add to it. --rgpk (comment) 02:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

On re-reading through the arguments last nite (again), I've pretty much decided on moving as it would reflect the practical use of the name which is the point of WP:POVTITLE. Yes, the whole PRC/ROC thing complicates things, but it's also a distraction from what the current everyday use of the word "China" (when referring to geography) is in the English language. English changes over time, and it has changed so that currently "China" = PRC much as gay now means homosexual and (going for an much older shift) meat came to refer to the "flesh of land-dwelling animals" as opposed to the older definition of simply "food". We can address the PRC/ROC either via a "see also" at the top of the article and/or a clarification in the text of the article body. Tabercil (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reached a decision as well. I'll post my decision and explanation either later tonight or early tomorrow. --rgpk (comment) 21:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at the discussion now; soon I'll post with my opinion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

My decision is also to move so that China points to the current PRC article. The reasoning is straightforward. The main argument against moving is that, by choosing to point to PRC, we will end up being non-neutral. However, the essence of neutrality on wikipedia is that rather than being conscious neutral by giving equal weight to all viewpoints in deciding on a title, we leave the decision to usage (If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased (from Wikipedia:NPOV#Naming). It is clear that, in current usage, PRC is the primary topic for China and China is the common name for the entity known as PRC, and reliable sources overwhelmingly confirm this. Therefore neutrality requires that we move PRC to China. At best, the China article should contain a reference to the fact that the ROC also claims to be the legitimate China (assuming that they do that). --rgpk (comment) 16:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we're all on the same page. The arguments against the move are serious and deserving of the full consideration that we've given them, but our policies are clear that we achieve neutrality by following sources. I would support an expandable hatnote in which we make it clear to readers that there are two countries whose legal names include the word "China", and that they both have claims of sovereignty over the same territory. However, one of those countries is commonly called "China", and the other is commonly called "Taiwan", or "ROC". The unadorned word "China" refers overwhelmingly to the country currently administered as the PRC.

I'll be more than happy to help fix links after the moves; they are numerous. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Tabercil, RegentsPark, and GTBacchus, for reading through the lengthy, contentious move discussion and providing rationales for the decision you three made. Will one of you move the page and officially close the discussion with "The result was ..."? This was a novel way to close a difficult debate, and I am glad you were willing to try it. Because three admins came to the same decision, I hope this close will be more accepted by the participants of the discussion than if only one admin came to this conclusion. Cunard (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The decision is not at all complete without a mention of whether these moves imply Taiwan is not a part of China. It seems that the above three administrators were selected by convenience—i.e. the first three to come were to read through the discussion (and it seems clear that they unwittingly missed the strongest opposing point). We all know "convenience polling" is not scientific. Please randomly select at least 5 other administrators to do what the triumvirate has done above.  The Tartanator  02:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We came to this with open minds and looked at it afresh. Given your edit here where you are calling the RM a "ill-formed move request" and advising that "we will need to form a rapid response to reset the configuration or make China the disambiguation page", I'd say you have already made up your mind what our decision should be. Tabercil (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the physical move itself, If anyone else wishes to make the move go ahead. I'm going to hold off on doing it myself for 24 hours as I suspect there will be an appeal to the triumvirate's decision and thus would like to give it a chance to occur. Tabercil (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Tartanator, hi. Thanks for your remarks. I'd like to make a couple of corrections. First of all, I was not on this committee by "convenience" as one of "the first three to come". I don't pay much attention to this page, and never would have seen this in passing. Rather, I was approached and asked to be a member, specifically because I have a long history of closing literally thousands of move requests, and I've got a lot of experience with particularly contentious ones. Did you know that? Do you consider that a form of "convenience polling"?

Secondly, you assert that it's "clear" that we "missed the strongest opposing point", namely, whether or not Taiwan is part of China. That's actually the only point on which I had to carefully deliberate. Everything else was clear as day, so the point you say it's "clear" I missed is actually the one I thought very carefully about for more than 24 hours - actually for more than 24 days, because I've been aware of this move request and the related RfC for a long time. This move request has been on my mind for weeks.

These moves do not imply that Taiwan is not a part of China. They imply that the common name for the PRC is "China", and that the overwhelming use of the word "China" is to refer to the PRC. It is abundantly clear that the issue of whether Taiwan is a part of China is the only reason that this move was contentious. That's the only thing that actually required deliberation. Without that consideration, this all would have been trivial and obvious.

I, for one, will be following up on this move, and intend to be active in post-move edits, ensuring that the ROC/PRC issue is adequately addressed, very first thing in the China article, before the lede section. I think the idea of a custom-made, expandable hatnote is a good one, and I hope I have a chance to help implement it. The situation with PRC and ROC - the issue of cross-strait relations - is extremely important, and must be addressed in our China article at the top of the page. The history of this move proposal makes that abundantly clear.

Now Tartanator, have I addressed your concerns, or would you like to hear more details about my thoughts on whether these moves imply that Taiwan is or is not part of China? I will be happy to go into more details, if you like, because it is literally all I thought about in considering this move request. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

All of that said... I would encourage you to select five more admins at random and ask them to review our decision. I'd be very curious to see what they'd say. It's more likely to happen, of course, if you do the selecting, than if you simply request or demand that an indeterminate "someone" do it. None of us is paid to take orders from arbitrary members of the editing community. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Something tells me there will always be arbitrary procedural complaints so please randomly select at least 100 admins to evaluate the RM. I'm being sarcastic. I'd just like to recommend that the three of you stick around for a while to help sort out appeals and interference. There are some very passionate political views involved in this debate and there's a group of editors that's likely to feel they got railroaded somehow. A little warning, it seems likely that as soon as the move is completed a long and complicated discussion will begin about whether and how to merge China and PRC. We might need a little help moderating that discussion. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to help with content. But for the next week or so I'm busy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure I'll stick around. Said passions are exactly what I had in mind when I said I'm holding off on the immediate move myself - to give folks a chance to digest what's occurred. As well, there's been an expansion on the Talk:China page showing the history on the topic going back to 2002 - there were three actual moves of People Republic of China to China that occurred in July 2002, May 2003 and October 2004, but were disputed and (obviously) reversed. So why should this RM be any different all of a sudden?? Tabercil (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize but, in transcribing my closing comments, I inadvertently dropped an addendum that I had intended to add as a 'small' note. (I had prepared the notes the previous evening and copy pasted them at work the next day, forgetting about the note.) Since the small note directly addresses the Taiwan argument, here it is: On the other arguments. (1) That the term 'China' cannot be precisely pinned down and so we shouldn't either: This is solipsism. No nation can claim a precise permanent boundary or definition. (2) That this implies that the PRC is the legitimate government of China or that Taiwan is not a part of China. Article titles don't take positions but reflect usage (disputes or alternative viewpoints are typically presented in the article itself it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the thing in question is the main topic being discussed WP:NPOV)--rgpk (comment) 13:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Tabercil and GTBacchus, thank you for elaborating. The point of contention, is, of course, a point of contention, and is thus a matter of interpretation. To me, titles also affect content, and in the interest of building an encyclopaedia that represents reality, we would have to state that Taiwan is definitely not part of (i.e. controlled by) China because we are making China and PRC interchangeable terms. Also, exactly the same arguments were made in the last pushes to move PRC to "China", so it is difficult to believe that three administrators can have mirrored viewpoints.

Tabercil, there is nothing implicitly wrong if anyone who opposes the move request does what I have done: to consider an appeal. And I expected a "no consensus" close yet again, not "not moved".

RegentsPark, the solipsism argument is a non-argument. Nothing political is permanent. We are describing current boundaries, and so the boundaries of most nations, especially those without territories, is definite. Also, consider WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, as explained by Benlisquare.  The Tartanator  16:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Tartanator, thanks for your reply. I disagree that we're "making" PRC and China interchangeable. We're reflecting that sources use "PRC" and "China" interchangeably. We don't decide these things; we reflect these things.

Also, I disagree that article titles are some form of content, except in the most superficial sense. We have articles called Holy Roman Empire, Seven deadly sins, No Child Left Behind Act and War on Terror. Those titles do not mean that we're asserting that one can wage a "war" on "terror", that no children were left behind by Mr. Bush's policy, that sloth really is a "sin" (much less a "deadly" one), or that the Holy Roman Empire was "holy", "Roman", or an "empire".

Titles are labels, not content. Assertions about reality occur in the article content, after the title, and they often show the problems with any apparent implications of the title. The article content of our China article will make cross-strait issues very clear, from the very start; I'll personally be there to ensure that happens. Perhaps you can help us be careful that we don't misrepresent the issue or leave out important perspectives. That would be awesome. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I've moved the articles. A move was requested and all it needs is for one uninvolved admin to close it. Here, three uninvolved admins closed it the same way, so the procedure is entirely proper. Please feel free to use other avenues of dispute resolution if you feel that the articles are at the wrong titles. --rgpk (comment) 15:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like those involved to comment here. This is not an ordinary move - it requires a change in the naming conventions, which requires further discussion, to be properly implemented. A decision was made, and thousands of links need to be manually reviewed - I'm not sure what's the rush here. --Jiang (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy this evening, but I'll be commenting there before long. Thanks for the link. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done on bringing this one to an end! It would be interesting to hear from editors, whether involved or not, about the trimvurate approach itself. I understand this is the first case in which it has been applied on the project. The rationale for it for highly contentious discussions, a triumvurate strengthens the legitimacy of the final decision, reduces the risk of error, and avoids one admin being personally lumped with the outcome. Has it worked well in this case? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

History section

I hope that all have noticed that the history section of the PRC article starts with "Prior to 1949", and one paragraph to cover 3 thousand years of Chinese history. Compare with the History section for France. This needs to be fixed preferably before, or immediately after moving PRC to China. --LK (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

wp:SOFIXIT Yoenit (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a content issue, not relevant here. There is already a discussion on talk actually. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SFD

Can some admins please come and help out at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion? The backlog there is out of controll again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Would admins close the following SfD discussions:

1. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/6#Cricket-admin-stub
2. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Czech-*-stub templates
3. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Category:Northern Ireland election stubs/Template:NI-election-stub
4. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/18#Rail -> Rail transport
5. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/20#Retail companies
6. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/21#Template:US-transport-company-stub
7. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/28
8. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/2
9. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/6
10. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Madagascar province categories
11. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Old German district categories - already handled

Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Pushing original research beyond 3RR

An anon user seems to be pushing his original research into Relativity priority dispute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

• 71.98.141.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.98.132.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.98.136.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At first they added blogs as sources, then they came with wp:CIRCULAR sources, and now finaly they have source that fails to back the added statement. Edits:

Revert 6: [1]

Revert 5: [2] ,

Revert 4: [3],

Revert 3: [4],

Revert 2: [5],

Revert 1: [6],

Orig: [7],

Can this somehow be addressed? Thank you. DVdm (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Note - Revert 7: [8]. DVdm (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Note - Now we get remarks like "You can't stand the truth, can you ? hide the truth". DVdm (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've full-protected the article for two days to make sure discussion occurs. A lot of the IP's sources were not valid for what they were using them for, but that last one they added does seem to call for discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the article. However, I definitely will not engage in a dicussion with someone who makes remarks like "You can't stand the truth, can you ? hide the truth". That might imply that the article remains in this bad state. I'll count on other contributors to engage in a discussion with this anon. Not me.

By the way, the matter was already discussed in the preceeding sections. DVdm (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Then an {{editprotected}} request to revert his last edit might be a good thing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, good idea. Done. DVdm (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The current article still represents the wrong (IP-created) version. The source has nothing to do with the Holton-section, and does not mention the priority issue at all. Like Dvdm, I recommend to revert to this version. --D.H (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP now calls Einstien "a shameless plagiarist". Why is the article still not reverted to this version as demanded by Dvdm and me? --D.H (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: As if nothing happened, anon (71.98.*.*) happily continues with this new attempt, so I have filed a request for semi-protection, but I think that some kind of block might be warranted. Up to now, we have

• 71.98.139.187 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.98.130.237 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.98.128.47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.98.135.234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.94.170.163 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.98.135.234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.98.141.58 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.98.132.88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.98.136.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

DVdm (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not know what to call this (personal attack, pushing original research, lack of courtesy, ...)

During a discussion, a user is repeatedly and aggressively accusing me of being an Iranian government official, while I am just a US resident working for a public US based company, trying to prevent Original Research in an article:

"I am familiar with Iran government's official literature as well as many of the editors here."

"It seems you have problem with the phrase 'Khomeini's hypocritic approach in rising to power"... It hearts[hurts]? O.k. I'll change it. But buy a dictionary and search for 'hypocrisy' and choose another name for what Khomeini did. I couldn't, you try!"

"wait, you should have some consultations, make a hard copy of the article, and check it with them and see whether it is tolerable or they want all of the shares? In the second case you can ask their majesty to prepare a formal propaganda for Imam Khomeini and issue it to wiki ... what about me?! Don't worry about me and people like me. They can find and assassinate us anywhere across the world"

Kazemita1 (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message on the article talk page and a warning on his talk page.--v/r - TP 16:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Copy-vio blanking question

Quick question about what other's think is appropriate.

Background:

• India Evangelical Lutheran Church was marked as for CSD as a copy-vio by RadioFan.
• Rather than delete, I blanked the offending sections and left only a stub
• RadioFan would like the copy-vio removed from the page history

Now, the edit history is essentially:

• The current text with the copy-vio text
• RadioFan CSD tag
• My blanking of the copy-vio text leaving the current text

... so there's no way to delete the copy-vio text without deleting the entire article. However, a work-around could be to delete the entire article and restore it again attributing the two contributors to the remaining text.

Question:

• Is simply blanking the offending text OK?
• What do others think of the work-around?

--RA (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In these cases, you can just revdelete the revisions containing copyvios per criterion #1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't do that without removing attribution to the author of current text (the original contributor posted a mix of the current text + copy vio text). --RA (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think usual practice has not been to delete the text unless the owner of the copyright requests it; generally it's sufficent to remove it from the article. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That was the case when the additional work of selective deletion was required. My impression is that admins will revdel these more readily. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

RA, if you do revdel it, you can opt to hide the text but not the username or edit summary, which will leave the original contributor's name visible in the page history. See, for example, the page history of this similar case. 28bytes (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks, 28bytes. --RA (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As explained above, WP:Revision deletion is much better at addressing this situation than WP:Selective deletion. Non-admins may request revision deletion under Criterion 1 by tagging with {{copyvio-revdel}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Eyepeepeeeye/IPs_(2nd_nomination)

The page nominated for deletion here consists of the details of check user results for someone whose RL identity is known. Ironically, someone seems to have created a sock account to do it. Isn't this a fairly serious abuse of checkuser privileges (per [9]) which ought to be looked into? --FormerIP (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Those are not Checkuser results. CU provides IP, useragent, and a bunch of other info. This is just someone playing armchair Nancy Drew. → ROUX ₪ 19:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Where on earth could they have got the data other than from checkuser? --FormerIP (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the exact method used, but they could be collected from the history of the page(s) that were being socked. Monty₈₄₅ 20:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I get it. It's a list of posts made when not logged in which the creator suspects are linked to the account, rather than a list of IPs used by the account. All the same, is there not a case for bypassing MfD and getting rid of it? It's fairly sensitive personal data, all said and done. --FormerIP (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that all this information is public (which appears to be the case), and given that an admin (Nyttend) has voted to keep it, I find it hard to believe that this should be deleted without going through the normal discussion process. Additionally, this page was already discussed on MfD, and the discussion was closed as NO CONSENSUS. Typicly, once a page is discussed at XfD, it isn't speedy deleted unless it turns out to be a copyvio; while exposing potentially private information could be said to be as bad as a copyvio, the status of this page as revealing such information is exactly as it was at the time of the old discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Monty is correct: Eyepeepeeeye has culled edits from page histories, such as this one in which David R revealed his own username. It's not private information. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection at Lodhi

I just fully protected Lodhi for 1 week to stop a rapidly brewing edit war. I attempted to guess what the "pre-dispute" version was, and reverted to that. I have never edited that article or its talk page. However, I am quite involved with all of the regular editors (in fact, some people think I'm part of an unholy, power-tripping triumvirate with two of them), so some might argue that my protection violates WP:INVOLVED. My feeling is that the action is acceptable, since full protection is actually for the benefit of all of the editors (and, of course, Wikipedia). If anyone thinks I've done wrong, please slap me, feel free to undo the protection, and/or change the version that's protected. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm going to be away from Wikipedia for at least an hour or more, and have no problem if any other admin unilaterally undoes my actions without consulting me. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It is well known that you three (Sitush, MatthewVanitas and yourself) have been exercising an overbearing influence on the entire topic of Indian caste articles. You three have been acting in tandem on all these articles and have acted in tandem to obtain blocks and bans on hordes and hordes of eds who have tried to edit these articles. Presently, you have even changed the article content and protected it despite being heavily involved(in the caste article area and the eds involved there). You have even issued an oblique threat of block to me on the talk:Lodhi page. You are also involved with me on a number of caste articles. You are a blot on the name of admins. Step down.MW ^ℳ 03:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I threatened to have any one of you blocked--very much including Sitush and MatthewVanitas (again, I can't do it myself, but I can certainly ask for an edit-warring block, the same as any other editor). In fact, if I had to make the call myself, it would be MV who is closest to editor warring, and Fowler&Fowler who needs a stern warning for incivility in edit summaries. Furthermore, I protected the article the way it stood before edit-warring--in fact, I actually chose that version because a cursory glance made me think it was closer to the version you liked than the one MV liked, to further show that I was acting neutrally. Apologies if I chose the wrong version, although, by definition, every version is the wrong version for someone. But if you feel there was a more proper version of the article that goes back farther, then please indicate which diff and I another admin can change the protected version (note that no admin should arbitrarily choose one version in the middle of the edit war). Please note that I literally haven't even read the article yet, nor any of the sources, and have made absolutely no effort to determine which of you, if any, is "right"--all I did was look for the last semi-stable version (i.e., before MatthewVanitas added a bunch of new text that you and Fowler&Fowler seemed to be objecting to), and chose that as the version to protect. Finally, every single person I've sought to have blocked was, in the end, an editor engaged in sockpuppetry or gross personal attacks--and no amount of systemic bias justifies sockpuppetry, editing through a block or ban, or gross incivility. One report Sitush made turned out to be false, and he apologized for that. It's not our fault that some editors feel so strongly that they have to promote their own caste and bring down others that they are willing to break Wikipedia's policies to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The one report that turned out to be false was against me and it was a pretty random sockpuppetry allegation. Anyone competent enough would never have made that kind of an allegation. As far as Qwyrxian is concerned, I've seen patronizing advise directed at Indian editors at talk:Jan Lokpal Bill, on another admin's user page and an implication that Indian editors are somehow incapable of following policies. All of this, IMO, is a manifestation of the generalizations and the assumptions being made about Indian editors. While there may be many such editors, we do not make such broad-ranging generalizations in real life and neither should we make them here. Due to this, I feel Qwyrxian should recuse himself from India related matters for the long term. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Diffs, please. I have some guesses, and if I'm right, you misunderstood my words. However, if uninvolved admins/editors think I am too biased to take admin actions in this matter, I will voluntarily ban myself from taking any admin actions on any India-related articles. I just want to see a consensus of uninvolved editors tell me that I am actually acting unfairly on this topic, preferably based on some actual evidence. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

[10] [11] [12] Zuggernaut (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, what's the problem with any of those diffs? I don't see a problem with any of them. Dayewalker (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It is unacceptable that someone who is spreading such narrow minded and prejudiced views should be an admin at all. Their present actions on the Lodhi article themselves should be a reason to think that we have someone who is incapable of handling admin tools properly.MW ^ℳ 04:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

MW, you're either not listening or not understanding--I didn't even read the Lodhi article in detail. I honestly thought I was protecting the version you preferred, not MV/Sitush. The only point behind the protection is to make the edit warring stop and have everyone discuss the issue on the article's talk page. I seriously don't care which version you end up with, nor do I plan on even helping you decide, because I have plenty of articles to already deal with and I don't need another dispute. Would you have preferred that I protected the version of the article just before I set up the protection? Those are really the only two options available to a protecting admin--the pre-dispute, or the current version (unless there's BLP/copy-vio problems, which did not seem to be the case here). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Funny that someone can express narrow minded and prejudiced views at a page without editing at all! Claims that editors' beliefs make them ineligible for adminship are attempts at censorship; see this relevant page. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs from Zuggernaut, in the first one, it looks like I'm criticizing both Fowler&Fowler and Sitush. The only generalization I make is about articles, not people; that generalization was based on past experience, but I am actually beginning to think that generalization is wrong--almost all of the caste articles are battlegrounds with lots of bad faith editing. The edit on Jan Lokpal is a standard declaration of WP:NOTFORUM, and I was actually a bit bothered that you removed it. Because that subject was so prevalent in the Indian news, both the article and the article's talk page were getting tons of edits either in support or opposition to the Bill, not about improving the article in a neutral way. I was letting editors know that we don't tolerate that type of discussion, and that such posts can and would be removed. The one on Dougweller's is actually one that I was thinking you'd raise, and is something I stand by. Non-western countries have different opinions about what is a reliable source for truth, about what is legitimate copying and what is not, and about what it means to be "neutral". This is well-verified by quite a bit of research. This does not make one system better than another, but it does make them different. Wikipedia's "culture" is, by and large, based on Western (and especially, US "academic") culture, particular with regards to intellectual property and reliable sources. For example, we don't consider information written in ancient religious documents (from any faith) to be "reliable" in the sense of them providing facts about the world. Not all of our editors agree--some Indian editors, for instance, consider their interpretations of the Puranas to be sufficiently reliable to be all the sourcing we ever need; similarly, some Evangelical Christians have at times tried to argue that the Bible is a sufficient source of evidence for other information; similarly, every day we get Muslim editors who try to tell us that our articles must be changed to conform with Islamic rules. Wikipedia rejects these views. I am concerned that Wikipedia is doing a good job of inviting previously un-included people to the site, but isn't doing a good job of explaining our culture. Many Indian (etc.) editor are more than capable of learning Wikipedia's culture; many of them may already have it, depending on exactly what way they've been educated. Some of them, sadly, are not (and this is true across cultures). The problem is that Wikipedia is inviting all of these new people, but is acting like it's their fault if they don't understand, right away, how our culture works. This is the standard colonial/oppressive mentality--that our way is obviously "right" and "superior", and that everyone of course knows this. Thus, if we're not careful, our outreach programs actually reinforce systemic bias, rather than right it, because we failed to provide a proper introduction to how we work. Finally, I'd like to direct your attention to [13] and [14], from a conversation I had with MangoWong on another user's talk page, that may give you a little more insight into my thoughts in this matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You did fine, Qwyrxian. I might've suggested not reverting at all and simply protecting meta:The Wrong Version, but hey, no big deal.

Zuggernaut, I have no idea how you can read those comments the way you are, but Qwyrxian clearly did not say anything like what you are implying.

MangoWong, I trust that this is not normally how you deal with other users, and that Qwyrxian is simply special. Please moderate your tone. lifebaka++ 05:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I will try to do as you say. Qwyrxian, Sitush, MatthewVanitas, myself and caste articles. These five entities cannot seem to be able to live without each other, and not a day passes without there being some sort of a "meeting", somewhere or other. Fowler&fowler is a very major player in all this. All six entities can be seen on that article now. I don't quite see how Qwyrxian could be construed to be "uninvolved" here. If others think it is OK for Qwyrxian to perform admin actions on things with which Qwyrxian might have such a close involvement, OK. I won't push it. If this is a "normal" definition of "uninvolved", OK. It only means we will continue to see things like this again. Nothing more there.MW ^ℳ 06:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I only just saw this and sadly don't have the time to read the entire discussion upstairs, so apologies for any misinterpretation. First, another apology for my uncivil edit summary on Lodhi, which was borne on the wings of frustration. For there user:Sitush and user:MatthewVanitas had yet again written one of their inimitable leads in which the word "Lead" was seemingly interpreted as the "Varna section." Accordingly, there was no mention of "varna" anywhere in the article except in the lead. The rest of the article meanwhile was devoid of every shattered shard of narrative. As for Q, I don't think he should recuse himself from anything. I've found him to be a mostly neutral presence in these caste-related articles. He wrote a very eloquent comment on my dealings with Sitush, which I found to be helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

PS Not for a moment should my criticism of Sitush and MV be seen as an endorsement of their opponents—the reincarnating IPs and SPAs—who claim direct descent from the Sun and add nothing but inflated and light headed content. Both Sitush and MV are (in the main) fighting the good fight; they just need to be more nuanced and less heavy handed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Could I have a block review

A couple of days ago, I dealt with a WP:RFPP for Jesus from a new editor to this frequently contentious article - Wikiglobaleditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). It was apparent on looking at the article history that the reporting editor was trying to add contentious information about a WP:FRINGE theory, based on a YouTube video. Not surprisingly, three established editors were reverting him on fairly sound policy grounds, and he was up to six reverts by this point. He had also reported one of those reverting him to WP:AIV (report declined by the reviewing admin there). I blocked him for 72 hours, and started a discussion on his talk page about what the problem was. User:Blanchardb and User:Slrubenstein have also contributed. User:Nick-D declined an appeal [15] because Wikiglobaleditor said he wasn't editwarring.

Given Wikiglobaleditor's replies [16] [17] [18] in which he basically says he has the truth and we're all oppressing him by coming up with our own versions of policy, not the real ones which support him, I have increased the block to indefinite, as I don't want to let him loose on the project until he has better understanding.

Is this excessive? Alternately, is there someone out there who might have better success getting through to him. I don't think I explained very well about how Wikipedia regards the theory that Jesus escaped and lived out his days in Kashmir as a fringe theory, even though it is quite well known in the Indian subcontinent (and isn't the work of some English crackpot), although the real problem is his belief (having watched this video on YouTube) that it's the gospel truth (if you'll pardon the phrase). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

He's appealed [19]. Could someone look at it in due course. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) On a brief review of his talkpage, the block looks fine to me. If and when he shows signs of "getting it", he can be unblocked, but based on his behaviour so far, there is no reason to believe he'll be significantly more likely to have "got it" after 72 hours, 1 week or indeed any other fixed period from now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Fut. Perf. actually beat me to the decline while I was looking up a couple links to use (WP:RGW, in particular...) T. Canens (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

We're required to act politely towards them, giving them access to the appropriate channels in which to state their case (so I wouldn't support talk page blocking). However some people just don't ever get what the aims of the project are, and there's no duty on anyone in the project to continually attempt to achieve this, when there is no indication of it sinking in. Good block, good indef block. Anyone who wants to spend their time explaining it over and over through talk: is welcome to, in that worthy but probably futile endeavour, but anything outside that one user talk: page is likely to be an imposed time-sink for editors who do have more useful things to be doing.

On another aspect, I'd like to see an article on Jesus in Katmandu, along with Joseph of Arimathea in Glastonbury etc. Fringe theories and myths, even when demonstrably wrong, have their place in an encyclopedia too, when appropriately sourced and neutrally written (Achieving that neutrality, mind you...). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh definitely. Some of these are very long established pieces of folklore, not just a crackpot theory, and there should be a whole body of scholarship about them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As Elen notes above, I turned down this editor's first unblock request as they claimed they hadn't been edit warring when in fact they were edit warring severely. I think that Elen was very generous in not implementing an indef block originally, and strongly support her subsequent extension of this block on the basis of the editor's posts on their talk page. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I was in the process of declining the original unblock when I EC'd twice. My unblock was going to say: Increase to indefinite was clearly neccessary - editor has stated that they intend to disrupt the project in many ways, including edt-warring and continued discussion about a topic, as opposed to discussion about improving the article, using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You appear to have zero desire to read nor understand the basic principles of Wikipedia, and your unblock request shows this clearly. FPAS beat me to it. The editor is increasingly belligerant, and does not seem to desire to understand the project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If I look at WP:BLOCK, the second section states, Blocks should be used to: (1.) prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; (2.) deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, (3.) encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Given that it is apparent that a 72-hour block has achieved none of this, and given that the editor has shown intent to continue disrupting Wikipedia to make sure his views are permanently inserted in the article, I think forcing him to review his behavior before he's allowed to edit again, regardless of how long that takes, is perfectly in line with our blocking policy. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Let the current block ride out and expire. If he shoots himself in the foot again, we can indef him as disruptive to the project.--v/r - TP 15:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, the current block alread is indef. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the block should be reverted to the initial 72 hours time span (i.e. block until about tomorrow at 12:00). That one seems OK, even if maybe slightly harsh, as Wikiglobaleditor was disruptive. Turning into indef simply because during the first few hours Wikiglobaleditor and others kept a futile and harsh argument makes little sense. If the point was to give 72h to cool down, then let that period run and then see if it cooled down or not. If you keep fuelling the discussion most naturally it carries on. Down-talking the user's sources because "our primary focus is the mainstream view of the English speaking world"(?!) does not help (note: I am Portuguese); calling him a "couch-potato" does not help; SHOUTING at him does not help. So, lets help him to help himself by giving him a real chance of becoming a useful editor, by restoring the 72h block? - Nabla (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Point of order - I appreciate your input, but the block wasn't "72h to cool down", it was because he was persisting in reverting three other editors, to the extent that he had reached 6RR. I don't do cooldown blocks. The conversation on his talkpage was not "a futile and harsh argument", it was an attempt by several editors to get him to understand policy, and avoid him running straight back to the article - particularly necessary after he appealed the initial block on the grounds that he was not the one edit warring. While I agree that the phrase about the mainstream view of the English speaking world was clumsy and did not convey what I meant, (a) it remains true that Wikipedia regards the theory that Jesus escaped to Kashmir as a fringe theory and (b) a pirate youtube copy of a popular tv show does not a reliable source make in this highly contentious area. If you think there is a better way that could have been explained to him, I am open to suggestions, as it clearly didn't go too well when I tried. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Two points taken! First, your block did not explicit mention any cool down. Still, what was the intention? In the short term, to avoid further reverts, as you say, in the 72h the intention was?... I presume you hoped that after 72h the situation could normalise (and that is what *I* called cool down); Second, the argument was not futile, my bad expression, it was fruitless. But I stick to harsh with all those bolds, underlines and caps going on (not by you, I note). As to a better way of handling I already said it above, but I'll underline and expand a bit: in generally policy (sources, etc) and alternatives (write another article, ...) was well explained to the user, but it was counter-productive to have a few harsh remarks as I have pointed above, that is one thing that could have been different, but well, no big deal and we all do it once in a while. Most of all you could have kept you word (and still can): you have blocked for 72h (fine), you stated that you'd block longer if he engaged in edit warring (quite fine), the user said he would only edit the talk page. Good! Looks like you got yourself a deal! Then another user (Slrubenstein) comes in. He previous called Wikiglobaleditor a "couch-potato", now he makes long lecture, downtalks and shouts at Wikiglobaleditor's reply. Wikiglobaleditor shouts *back* at him and so you extend the block? Not the best option it seems. You talked him out to a deal, and it was a good deal; he gets to have his say on the talk page, eventually we may get ourselves a new stub about it, and if the user failed to do so... you would block. Considering the extenuating circumstances, that the user was poked, and as a sign of good faith I ask you to get the block back to the initial deadline. Or allow me to do so - Nabla (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CDB. The term "cool down block" carries negative connotations and is against the blocking policy, which is probably why Elen was keen to clarify that she did not block Wikiglobaleditor to make him cool down. Jenks24 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, I did not recalled the WP slang when I wrote that. As explained I was using the common expression, my bad. I had no intention of arguing that Elen acted outside of policy, and I fully understand her clarification. Thanks - Nabla (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Nabla, if you want to fault me for overzealous comments that you may feel are unconstructive or inappropriate, fair enough. I must ad that in what you call my long "lecture" I was actually trying to explain that Ellen's words about English-speaking were wrong and that we welcome editors who read and write other languages and scholarly sources in other languages, surely this was a good thing to do. I did not quite call him a couch-potato; I did say that one cannot be an encyclopedia researcher by being a couch potato and I stand by this, although you have a right to disagree.

Be that as it may most of what you see as problematic has to do with me, not with Ellen of the Roads, and I would hate for you or anyone else to evaluate her block based on my own expressed views (and how I express them). My understanding is that Ellen made the block indefinite because Wikiglobaleditor stated explicitly that when the block expired he will return to using talk pages as "soap-boxes" for arguing his own POV. I do not think the issue is simply cooling down because he is not being blocked for misrepresenting me or insulting me or arguing against me - the problem is not his hot-headedness and I have to emphasize that I was never involved in an edit-conflict or edit-war with this editor, so whatever heat is between us is I think secondary to the main issue. Ellen's block was not - or not primarily, as I interpret it - to give this editor time to "cool down;" it is at least as much to give the editor time to familiarize himself with the many policies and guidelines he had been violating. And his most recent talk on his user-page not only gives no evidence that he has yet taken any time to look at our policies (and I added a wikiwelcome with links to make it easier for him). I think this is another reason to consider extending the block. Personally, as soon as Wikiglobaleditor shows that he has read the policies to which several other editors have referred him, and shows and inclination to take them into account in his editing, I would favor lifting the block. In any event, these are in my view the key issues, not hot-tempers, and I think Ellen has tried her best to explain it to him, and several other editors have added their own views, clarifying where necessary comments made by Ellen. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Though I don't like the expression, I agree that "one cannot be an encyclopedia researcher by being a couch potato", but your words were not generic as used here (one can not be...) but directed at him (you can not be): «I am afraid, Wikiglobaleditor, that you have to be more than a couch-potato to research an encyclopedia article». Again, no big deal, it happens, but you were, let's say, unpolite enough so that the other party may rightfully feel insulted, even if you did not meant it. And that quite likely obliterates whatever ton of good reasons and advices one may give, as you did. - Nabla (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

@Nabla. Given the chap's last but one edit [20] aimed at Slrubenstein I am extremely disinclined to unblock. The personal attacks "lying after lying" The claim to being a long term editor when the account was registered on 8 July 2011 "You don't have any idea who I am... I associated in the wiki-projects and Jimmy Wales since 2004...my contribution as a Editor - just go through them". The threats "now I have to report my findings on wiki editorial environment to somewhere else, and that is more important." all give me serious cause for concern. And his response to Maunus [21] doesn't inspire confidence either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, that one reply to Slrubenstein is not good, I haven't really noticed it yet. Wikiglobaleditor does have some 100 decent previous edits with no problem (checked a few at random) over 2 months. It was positive contribuition, and seems it was completely ignored, bot not much, obviously not a long term editor. And the rest well... I hope Jimmy Wales has few such friends... If any. The second reply, I see no problem, after having multiple editors saying him more or less the same thing again and again he wishes to stpo the argument. Sounds reasonable. Bottom line: Quite likely he is simply in a trolling rampage, and most likely he would get the indef block anyway after the 72h block, but we could no know that for sure. You condemned him because he might be disruptive (and he might express a minority opinion on talk pages, maybe?). I've seem Minority Report (film) a few years ago, good movie. Have you? They had precogs and even so they could guess future crimes wrong. I will not insist you lift the block, looks like I'm alone on thinking there would be less harm done lifting the block, than there is in keeping it. - Nabla (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of the very serious edit warring which led to the block and the editor's subsequent posts on their talk page, it seems to be a certainty that they'll behave unacceptably if unblocked. I don't think that it's a good idea to unblock someone as an experiment to see if they'll continue to behave disruptively. If Wikiglobaleditor calms down and makes commitments to edit in a collaborative fashion things would be very different. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Very serious edit warring? 6 reverts in 24 hours, once? Bang! One bad day, blocked for life? Are we all saints over here or what? And would you calm down while being blocked and insulted and talked down (from your point of view)? I doubt it. Yes, more likely he will be disruptive than not, but we, has a community, never gave him a real chance. - Nabla (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nabla, I've looked back into his edit history. He joined at the start of July, and has been making useful gnome-type edits, mostly tagging, some Afds that were unproblematic. The edit that caused all the trouble was his first attempt to add "serious level" content to the encyclopaedia. I think what happened surprised him, because he thought the rules worked completely differently to the way that they do. But if someone edit wars, and continues to insist that they weren't edit warring, it is hard to justify unblocking. If he would accept someone talking to him about what went wrong, I would have thought an unblock would be possible, but he's just deleted BWilkins attempt [22] without comment. If you think you can succeed, then I would say to give it a shot. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup. My final words "The above steps are your only way forward. How you proceed is up to you" followed by their removal by the editor shows exactly which way this editor wishes to proceed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with your opinions and actions, Elen and Bwilkins. If he showed any sign, no matter how small, of being willing to engage in discussion with editors and understand that his actions are disruptive, I'd think differently. It's all very well, after all, letting new(ish) editors with a wildly off-base interpretation learn via a collision course of mistakes but, where that collision course is borne of a deliberate agenda in addition to an abject unwillingness to change their behaviour, there really is nothing to be done except an indef block. It should perhaps be noted that if at a future point he decides he's willing to talk and learn about Wikipedia policy in a sensible manner, he ought to be permitted an unblock. --Tristessa (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• I would actually support giving him a second chance. It can be hard to say "I'm sorry", but perhaps his actions will show that he understands the message. If not it's easy to block him again and he can't do that much damage with so many eyes on him. I'd say a goodfaith unblock could make the differences between a valuable future contributor and someone who'll hate the project for life.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I offered him help on how to be unblocked - and "sorry" was not even part of it. He chose to delete the polite advice. I'm still willing to unblock if he simply stops stomping around like a toddler and understands why he was blocked and doesn't do it again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I note he has current communication on his talkpage addressed to Nabla. I've dropped Nabla a note - perhaps he can talk some sense into the guy, because going on what he's written, he needs it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Good block. Support indef. I don't think this user is likely to ever 'get it'. In particular his reply in regards to his RfA attempt as well as his name-dropping of Jimbo displays immaturity and a non-collegial attitude. Overall a hostile pov-pushing user that would've ended up indef blocked sooner or later anyway. -- œ^™ 22:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Good block - I support "indef as in until and unless something changes" in this case, as they haven't done anything yet that I can see to warrant bannination, but they do not appear to get it right now. If they come around or someone helps them come around then I'd support an eventual second chance. No disagreement that a block for now with no set end date makes sense. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Help on ruling

Sock indefblocked. Collapsing per DNFTT. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I believe the admin "Kuru" is made a very serious mistake here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:LardoBalsamico_reported_by_User:Sillystuff84_.28Result:_page_protected.29 He has all but admitted his mistake here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kuru#3RR_or_4RR.3F Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Kuru gave you the right answer. You're lucky he chose not to block you, please quit bringing more attention to yourself or another admin might.--v/r - TP 15:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Could you please explain how I exceeded 3RR? Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC) There is no mistake, especially a serious one that he has admitted to. The two of you were edit warring and kuru did the sensible thing protected the article to stop both of you. GB fan 15:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Could you please explain how I exceeded 3RR? Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Anybody? Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) You invited a block on Kuru's Talk page, and you're repeating your behavior here. There's nothing left to explain. You just refuse to accept the explanations. If you really want to be blocked, I'm sure an admin will oblige you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Agree with GB fan, and may I point out that this looks very much like canvassing. Favonian (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC) I believe it falls within the acceptable variations of canvassing. I'm being entirely open about it. Yuru ran away, so I contacted online admins. Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Your first edit counts as a revert ("Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert"). Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC) So ANY edit at all, can count as a revert then, right? Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Your last comment is correct. I agree with the original admin action. WP:3RR is not a license to revert three times a day; an edit war exists as soon as people start reverting, whether or not they ever get to 3 reverts. Anyone spotting this is quite within their rights to make a warning and in this case it was entirely appropriate. Exceeding 3RR is an automatic bright line for a block; edit warring up to that point is just as much frowned on, but depends more on admin discretion. I agree you were lucky not to be blocked. Hope this is clear enough for you now. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your input Kim Dent-Brown. I believe then it should be made more clear on the 3RR policy page that ANY edit at all can count as a revert. As it stands now, it's very misleading. Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC) That does not appear to be the case at all; as noted your first edit was a revert of a recent addition by the editor you are in conflict with. This has been explained; is it still not clear to you? Kuru (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC) At the risk of wikilawyering this to death, the statement made by Sillystuff, "any edit can count as a revert", is on its face correct, but largely beside the point. What matters is not what can count as a revert, but what does count as a revert. The policy language makes it clear what does count as a revert, and that part of the policy language has been quoted to Sillystuff more than once. I might add that in the policy, the key language is bolded and in a colored circle. To elaborate, if Sillystuff in his first edit had added material to the page, it would not have counted as a revert because it did not "undo[] another editor's work", whereas an edit that undoes can be the beginning of an editor's undoing (sorry, couldn't resist). After that first revert, of course, the next three reverts have to take place in a 24-hour period to violate the rule, although as others have rightly pointed out and as the 3RR policy states, one can be blocked for warring, even if one does not violate the "bright-line" aspect of 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Note, Sillystuff84 is now canvasing the edit warring discussion. Monty845 15:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Blocked 12 hours for disruption (canvassing and forum shopping in addition to original edit warring.) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

afd closure requested

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danilo Ursini needs closing, its been open for a month. Phearson (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it was never listed on the AfD pages, that's why no one noticed and closed it. I'll list it on today's log, so that it get at least some attention at that venue. Thanks - Nabla (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of Jespah

I propose a topic ban on the user Jespah (talk · contribs) per this report which was written solely by me, an uninvolved party. The report is large as I try to be as thorough as possible about these sorts of things. I ask that the report not be altered and that any new discussion take place here.

The report concludes: Jespah has been editing since December of 2008 and, as of this post, 98.1% of her 1121 non-deleted mainspace edits (I can't see the deleted ones) have been made on 7 articles. These 7 articles are John Prendergast, Unlikely Brothers, Satellite Sentinel Project, Enough Project Lisa Shannon, Not On Our Watch, The Enough Moment and are either about organizations or people who do humanitarian work in Africa. Of the other 1.9% of her edits, all of the 21 edits are in regards to humanitarian work in Africa and/or the subjects covered in the top 98.1% of her edits. In short, I see not one single non-deleted mainspace edit that doesn't have to do with humanitarian work in Africa. While this isn't an issue by itself, when paired with Jespah's ownership issues, strong personal interest in these subjects, POV pushing, and extreme lack of ability or willingness to work with other editors to improve her editing patterns, it currently makes her a detriment to WP. Not only is she directly a detriment to the content of WP, she has tied up several other editors for an excessive amount of time which effectively impedes their ability to improve the project in other areas let alone the stress it causes them. I can only speculate on their stress; I'll refrain so that those editors speak for themselves.

I propose that Jespah be banned from editing the articles John Prendergast, Unlikely Brothers, Satellite Sentinel Project, Enough Project, Not On Our Watch, and The Enough Moment as well adding information about those topics to other articles. I'm not overly confident in this scope and ask that we use it as a starting point with the goal of allowing Jespah to edit subjects in which she is not so personally invested. I started with what amounts to humanitarianism in Africa but I feel that it's far too broad.

This is the first time I've ever proposed a topic ban so please let me know if I've missed anything. OlYeller^Talktome 17:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note - we might want to include a prohibition on the creation of new articles related to this topic. The Interior (Talk) 23:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ol Yeller lays the case very well. I do think we've reached the end of the trail for this user. There is a continued inability to acknowledge the issue or effectively change the behavior. I think part of the issue is Jespah's belief that this is an incredibly worthy cause, it causes her to be unable to view the issues from an encyclopedic perspective. I support the limited topic ban proposed and hope that Jespah can try her hand at other areas and possibly come back to these topics in the future when she has gained a better understanding of encyclopedic goals. --Daniel 18:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the proposed topic ban. (I am, for the record, an involved party.) OlYeller has pulled together a lot of material in admirable fashion. The matter does, however, have a fairly voluminous history and any editor who is interested in going beyond OlYeller's report will find what I *think* is a comprehensive set of pertinent Talk page and other links on the Talk page of the report. JohnInDC (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

informational only - the deleted contributions from this editor match the pattern described. Many of them are image files created by this editor (supposedly as own work) and depict John Prendergast, who is inevitably first-named as merely "John" in an intimate/casual fashion. There's also a dead article on yet another organization working in the same field and for the same worthy cause. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban, this looks very much like vanispamcruftisement but given the subject I suppose we should write it off to mistaken crusading zeal. Whatever, it needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• It's been a year since I first crossed paths with this editor, and, I'll admit, I'm a bit sad that it has come to this. I had really hoped that this editor would "see the light" and realize that Enough and Prendergast could have nice, informative Wikipedia pages that conformed to policy. But that is not the case.

Jespah has insisted that Enough's press be hosted on Wikipedia pages, and sees no reason why it should not be. She has shown little interest in finding any other sourcing, and in fact sees the group's PR as perfectly neutral and reliable. No amount of discussion has made any difference. So, in the interests of moving on, I reluctantly support a topic ban as described above. (and thank you to Ol'Yeller, who has put a lot of time into his report.) The Interior (Talk) 01:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I have followed the issue for six months after seeing a report on a noticeboard, and have reluctantly concluded that Jespah will never accept advice on how articles should be written (NPOV, RS), and will never avoid an opportunity to embellish one of these articles to promote the Good Cause. It's a difficult case because the user is civil and I don't recall seeing a single edit that stands out as a clear problem (although some copyvio claims were made here). The issue concerns relentless advocacy for the particular group—advocacy that results in considerable wasted time as other editors attempt to clean up. Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• I would point out that if you're going to topic ban a user from editing the only articles they edit, then that's pretty much tantamount to banning them entirely. fish&karate 08:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't - because like any wikipedian, they can leave their personal crusades at the door and pitch in to help with *our* goals. If they don't want to do that, then they effectively exclude themselves and frankly it's no great loss. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban - In one respect, I admire this editor for their tireless work on behalf of their cause. However, this isn't the place for it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. I do believe it is worth assuming good faith here, but the user evidently is at best an enthusiastic proponent somewhat lacking in judgement and detachment when editing with a tenacious intent to force inclusion of these organisations' promotion. The user, a single-purpose editor, is evidently hell-bent on support for a noble cause but lacks understanding of how this attitude is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Sad, indeed, due to the article diaspora here, but true. --Tristessa (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Economy of Iran /edits by anon user(s) 82.35.7.105 and 80.195.239.239 (who seem to be the same person)

Hi, somebody has been making unconstructive edits here by introducting dubious sources or simply vandalizing wikipedia like here (by arbitrarily changing sourced statistics from the worldfactbook and the world bank among others). As per wikipedia rules (WP:RS), I am asking that you warn this person and revert his edits. Thank you. 209.212.23.45 (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Browncoat101

Hi all. I received an email from this user stating that they have to use a proxy to access Wikipedia, for what I perceive to be legitimate reasons. That proxy is blocked. I have given them IP block exemption. Can someone review my action to make sure I didn't do something incorrectly and also log everything properly? Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)