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

Boubaker polynomials

Greetings,

The above-captioned article was created and, most importantly, deleted on a number of wikis (including this one) some time last year. It has been the subject of massive sockpuppetry and spamming on various wikis, particularly on :fr (see Wikipédia:Vandalisme_de_longue_durée/Mmbmmmbm and our own AN for a detailed list and background story in French).

The article has been re-created by Luoguozhang, who pretended to be editing from China. Well, not really.

This person uses the presence of the article on :en to pressure other wikis to restore their own version of the article. I'm not too familiar with your local practices, but do we have to restart an AfD request, or can you just wipe and protect the page?

Thx & Regards, Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 14:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the edge of speedying it as recreation of deleted material. Anyone disagrees? -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There are other editors involved in the article. I don't want to prolong this if it is a blatant recreation, but I feel that some input should be requested on the subject from those who understand it. ^LeaveSleaves 14:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree. The current version at least has references (though I haven't checked them yet; I merely note that they exist) and it isn't the crawling horror that the original misformatted article was, so it does address concerns from the original AfD. I'd send it to AfD again, with a mention of the questionable notability and history of problems. Unless there's evidence this term is widely used, it will likely get deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Like Popo, I am an admin on :fr and was a protagonist of previous deletions and struggles against an obsessive and disruptive editor. Nonetheless, I have noticed that this last recreation was discussed on this wiki's Mathematics Project, with some participants supporting the existence of the article. Hence, it seems obviously outside speedy deletion scope, as sad as it may be for any person who has previous experience of its main author. French Tourist (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics pointing to this discussion. As French Tourist notes, this is not speediable, and I'm not convinced it would even be deleted in a full AfD. Some attention to the sockpuppetry seems warranted but other than that I don't see that there's any particular administrative action to be taken at this point. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The article is indeed a bit better than the stub it used to be, despite being referenced too. Not a mathematic expert myself, it would be interesting to see whether the problems raised in the first AfD are now moot. (At least there's no hint Scolas is around this time). I'd say WP:AFD it, then, Popo. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a French contributor, and as I took part of the several deletion procedures on wp:fr, I can ensure that these polynomials are strickly unknown... There is no serious references, the displayed publications have not been made in recognized proceedings... Moreover, the pseudo of the author of the current article has appeared on wp:fr, asking for restauration ... And check users show that these contributions come from Tunisia... far from China as claimed... Ico83

Just to confirm that indeed, there was discussion about whether or not to allow recreation at the WikiProject back in autumn. I was the admin who did the latest AfD closure ("delete with strong prejudice against recreation"), and I would have felt comfortable speedying it again, but people at the WikiProject seemed to think it might be worth giving it a chance once more. We were aware at the time that the alleged Chinese newbie contributor was another sock, but there didn't seem to be a formal ban in force against him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The first incarnation was deleted basically because there wasn't enough there to be worth an article; the second was deleted for lack of scholarly references; the third HAS the references, so it's not a recreation. That's considered OK: It's not a recreation of deleted material if the reasons for deletion do not apply to the new article because of differences between it and the old one. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just want to point out that "Boubaker polynomial" now has several hits on Google scholar, which appear to be articles in serious physics journals. This seems to represent a major change in notability since the original deletion discussion. Jim (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I found this intersting paper in a Russian journal " Differential Equations and Control Processes " with authors from several Nationalities (China, Nigeria, Usa ...) about Boubaker Polynomials : possibility of downloading at :http://www.neva.ru/journal/j/EN/numbers/2009.1/issue.html Probably the nationality of the of the polynomials first extablisher was not welcomed in th French WP (In Africa many countries were French colonies until 1960). But as a scientific item, ther is no extra problem. Perhaps the question: why these polynomials were rejected in the French WP regardless WP rules can now have any answer ? Duvvuri.Kapur1 (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Désolé, vous avez cette erreur le wiki? --Kralizec! (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. It was rejected here because (a) it's a trivial modification of an already-existing article, and (b) there was no credible source that the name is actually used in the field. Problem (b) seems to have been resolved, but we still have problem (a). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I do confirm all the normal :fr procedure has been applied. This page is rejected due lack of notability, as discussed and agreed several times. Zetud (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC) (sysop :fr)

We must update our information about Boubaker Polynomials

The rules of WP are clear ( EXTRACTED from WP Standards):

1. Have they been the main subject of (at least two) published papers, or chapters in a book, or an entire book about this sequence?

2. Are they cited in MathWorld or PlanetMath ?

3. Are they cited in in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS)?

4. Do they have a demonstrated (and/or) published expression?

The polynomials were rejected in the French WP DESPITE FULFILLING ALL THE 4 rules ???? This is the Nonsense, One must not be very wise to understand the reasons ( when one just see the actual discussion in WP Fr about these polynomials http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Bulletin_des_administrateurs/2009/Semaine_6#Polyn.C3.B4mes_de_Boubaker

Some translations:

On ne peut rien faire pour le virer ? Ico Bla = How to do to cick these polynomials away from En WP ??? C'est dingue qu'ils aient gardé ça sur wp:en, Quand on voit le contenu, la notoriété infinitésimale de ces polynomes ..., je ne vois pas comment ils ont pu laisser ça = It is Foolish, how did they (En. WP) allow these miserably notable polynomilas ??

Duvvuri.Kapur1 (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, not the French. If you have a problem there, then you should post to its noticeboard, not this one. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh! Fortunately it is English Wikipedia, not the French; we are addressing an answer to what is evoked above in the english Wikipedia, not in the French (were we are, systematically blocked !) we do not have any problem Duvvuri.Kapur1 (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Indef block

I've had enough of this sock show. I know Boubaker used to sock previously, it was clear "Luoguozhang" was a sock from the start, but we've all sort of tolerated him. But "Duvvuri.Kapur1" is quite obviously yet another, as quack as quack can be. I've indef'ed the whole lot of them, and propose to treat him/them as indef community banned from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

These seem overly sever to me, disruption to the wiki is small with only few contributions between them and none of those seem to be particular personal attack or in breach of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy or WP:SOCK.--Salix (talk): 01:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They were most certainly in breach of WP:SOCK. He was systematically pretending to be two personas different from his known identity, to hide his COI and to pretend there was a higher level of public interest in his polynomials topic. BTW, I got aware only afterwards that there were two "Duvvuri Kapur" accounts involved, Duvvuri.kapur (talk · contribs) and Duvvuri.Kapur1 (talk · contribs). Interestingly, one of them let slip his moustache and outed himself as Luoguozhang from the beginning ([1]), whereas the other introduced himself as a mathematician from "an Indian university" ([2]), just as Luoguozhang had explicitly claimed he was from China; Duvvuri and Luo kept talking to each other providing the other with useful cues ([3]). This Duvvuri account even had the cheek of posting an unblock request trying to continue his sorry charade as a "fan" of Boubaker [4] Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics

Long discussion, now summarized by the table at the bottom... please provide feedback

Background reading: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs

After a long discussion last year into the appropriateness of fight songs, there was a consensus (not that one was needed) that lyrics should be removed from articles about fight songs, and that many such articles should be merged and/or redirected into the article about the sports team or the school. After User:NJGW and I tried to apply that consensus (see some of my contribs) a vast array of other editors have come back and restored the lyrics (which in many cases are copyvios) and/or unredirected articles which contained very little text and whose subjects were already discussed elsewhere.

Since there's already a consensus on this, I'd rather not reopen a centralized discussion or try to create a notability guideline for such a small category of articles, but I am at a loss as to how to continue. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The consensus in the link you provided was to remove the lyrics from and to merge/redirect non-notable articles about college fight songs. Standard notablility guidelines apply, as do standard consensus-seeking procedures. The issue I had was that dozens of such articles were merged/redirected with no discussion or consideration of each article's notablity. Some of them should be merged, some should not. There's no reason to rush through and get rid of all of them without going through the usual procedures: tag, discuss, arrive at consensus.

Also, a vital part of the "merge" process is to add the info from the removed article to the parent article. NJGW only deleted/redirected, so that the removed info disappeared from wikipedia. Zeng8r (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that NJGW has not deleted any articles. He just redirected them; others may have unredirected, but that's part of WP:BRD. As you say, there was no blanket consensus that fight songs should not have their own articles.

"Consensus-seeking procedures" don't seem to apply to removing lyrics, though. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the wording and conclusion of the "consensus" obtained on the lyrics. I also disagree on the interpretation seemingly applied by WP:NOT#LYRICS and WP:LYRICS which does not forbid the use of full public domain lyrics as long as it is not the sole component of an article (to avoid it becoming a "primary source" as stated in WP:Lyrics). It also contradicts an established consensus on lyric inclusion (see below). However, concluding the general discussion with such narrow interpretation of both that discussion (where 5 out of 12 editors, not including myself, stated that lyrics were justified in some conditions) and the no lyrics policy is unfortunate because article quality suffers in several cases. For example, in the article Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech, which has passed WP:GA with the lyrics included, the lyrics are wikilinked to provide additional information to their meaning and are essential for the subsequent discussion of the alternative lyrics and the historic development of the song. These sections become meaningless in this article without inclusion of the lyrics and, in my opinion, their inclusion does not violate a wikipedia policy in word nor spirt (see WP:LYRICS). Therefore, I see this as "consensus" decision as an unfortunate example of unnecessary rule creep. The purpose of wikipedia policy to not write articles solely consisting of lyrics is to avoid creating a primary source and prevent copyright violations. This is obviously not a problem with articles such as Rambling Wreck, Give My Regards to Davy, War Eagle, and others and the "consensus" policy trying to be enforced is unnecessarily and unfortunately hurting article quality in a well established category of articles.

The issue of public domain lyrics is also spoken to by the Song Wikiproject according to Wikipedia:SONG#LYRICS which very clearly does not prohibit the inclusion of full public domain lyrics in articles. This speaks to lyrics in hundreds of well established articles and categories such as The Star-Spangled Banner, Amhrán na bhFiann, God Save the Queen, America the Beautiful, O Holy Night, Deck the Halls, 99 Bottles of Beer, My Old Kentucky Home, Rock-a-bye Baby, Hush, Little Baby, Three Blind Mice, etc., etc. in well established categories as Category:Christian hymns, Category:National anthems, Category: American folk songs, Category:Nursery rhymes, etc., etc. This includes Featured Articles such as Old Dan Tucker and Dixie. A blanket ban on lyrics regardless of context, such as was the conclusion that was reached in the discussion for fight songs, seems to be treading close to violating WP:CON: " 'Consensus' among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". The "consensus" on the fight song lyrics reached by the limited number of editors (7) contradicts established lyric inclusion "consensus" (as well as FA reviewed articles) and therefore appears to be faulty and should at least be reexamined per WP:CCC (with better promotion of the discussion than had previously occurred to editors with interest in song related articles). I also believe any discussion on lyric inclusion should take place at the level of the Song Wikiproject as opposed to the limited subcategorization of fight songs. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleting and redirecting/merging are pretty much the same thing if no text is actually moved over to the main article. Poof! - it's gone. However, I agree that the cited discussion above is enough justification for removing lyrics without rediscussing it on every individual article, especially since that's general wikipolicy anyway. Zeng8r (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, not the same thing. The content is still in the history of the redirect and can be reviewed and added to the target if anyone cares to do so. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The casual user/editor has no idea how to do that. All they know is, they search for "Dear Old Nebraska U" (for example) and end up on the main article for the University of Nebraska, which doesn't mention the fight song at all. Zeng8r (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, the articles in question should go through AfD with a "Merge and Delete" request unless they meet the criteria for a speedy delete. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Mergers should not be taken to AFD. AFD is for when one is requesting that an administrator hit a delete button. The "D" in "AFD" stands for "deletion". Do not nominate articles at AFD if an administrator removing the content and the entire edit history is not what you want. Uncle G (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I merged information which was not already at the target. In the cases where there were only a line or two ("X's fight song is Y. It was written by Z") the information was usually already at the target page. For notable fight songs (ie Anchors Away) I only removed the lyrics. Zeng8r has not looked at my edits closely. NJGW (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Anchors Aweigh should not have lyrics removed because, although it is used by the US Naval Academy as a fight song, it is the anthem of the United States Navy and does not necessarily fall under the auspices of the discussion about college fight songs. See WP:SONG#LYRICS.

  As a further note, many of these articles would fail wp:NOTE and wp:V, making them AFD candidates (the short ones probably Speedy candidates). In my mind I was saving them from this fate by putting the information in a safe place. NJGW (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  • It is fine to make an AfD (or a speedy for that matter) a merge and delete which would have preserved the information just as efficiently. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Merge and delete is not a viable outcome for GFDL reasons. Merge and redirect, or just delete. If any content is being kept, then the history needs to be kept. J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, if something is voted on as a "Merge and Delete", it generally commonly understood to mean that it is just changed to a redirect and the information is moved to the article. (in essence what NJGW was doing, just with a vote) Perhaps I should have just said "Merge", as most AfD voters commonly take "Merge and Delete" to mean just "Merge" unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. (See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for further clarification) You could obviously be more clear in the wording if you wish, but we are talking about the same thing. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
        • It is not generally understood in that way at all. The general understanding is the one given to you by J Milburn. If your understanding is what you state, then your underestanding is wrong. Merger and deletion are incompatible. Merger is a form of keep, and can be enacted by any editor, even one without an account, as all editors have the tools to perform an article merger. Deletion is only actionable by people that have access to administrator tools.

          The procedures described at Wikipedia:Merge and delete are complex, easy to get wrong, and for truly exceptional cases only. (That page doesn't even describe the requirement of §4(j) of the GFDL for such procedures — an important requirement that is often not met.) The main case in which they were employed, transwikification, stopped needing them years ago, when Special:Import was invented. I've performed these procedures myself, following every part of the GFDL to the furthest extent practicable, and they are not simple. (See some of the transwikification contributions of User:Uncle G's 'bot across several projects.) Anyone reading Wikipedia:Merge and delete would not get them completely right. You would not get them right. Most editors wouldn't. (Many people performing transwikifications the old way didn't, and I had to use the 'bot to fix the results on several occasions.)

          For all common purposes, including AFD discussions, merger and deletion are, and should be considered, mutually incompatible. Uncle G (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am pasting here my recent addition to the centralized discussion:
After a decision was reached here, I attempted to apply it to several articles and was met with strong opposition in several instances. Schools with only a few supporters on Wikipedia saw the fight song lyrics removed and not added back in. Other fight song articles had the lyrics added back in immediately and repeatedly. Editors felt that this centralized discussion carried little or no weight. Until all articles on this subject are treated alike, I think trying to enforce the removal of lyrics is unfair.

Here's one example of the kind of response I received when attempting to follow what was decided: "Fight On" →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Some users are going to have very strong opinions on this matter, what with the emotional attachments many have to their alma maters. With all the potential 3RR warnings and mediations and bannings that are sure to result over this, is it a fight worth fighting, really? Zeng8r (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. That is why I reversed myself on all articles where I removed lyrics. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion of the "consensus" was seems faulty in light of WP:SONG#LYRICS and at best over interprets wikipedia policy. As noted above, there are whole categories of songs (e.g. Category:National anthems, Category:Anthems, Category:Christian hymns, Category:American folk songs, Category:Nursery rhymes, and on and on) where articles on songs with full pd lyrics have maintained WP:SILENCE for a long time and have been favorably reviewed (even FA). Certainly there are articles that are better than others as far as have content that relies to heavily on the song lyrics, but clearly no ban on public domain lyrics within an article, and at best it is WP:CREEP, at worst it seems to violate WP:CON: " 'Consensus' among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". CrazyPaco (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If there are lyrics in those other articles, they should be removed as well. In any case, the lyrics in the fight song articles are mostly copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. Only lyrics that are not in the public domain should be removed. Articles that consist only of lyrics should be nominated for WP:AFD for lack of context according to WP:LYRICS. The vast majority of articles about songs in the public domain include their lyrics, including those that have passed WP:FA. Your interpretation goes against the prevailing consensus established at WP:SONG#LYRICS, WP:LYRICS, and by WP:FA review of articles like Dixie. Again, no ban exists on public domain lyrics in those articles as long as those articles do not solely consisting of those lyrics thus risking WP:Primary sources. If you want to change that consensus on policy, it seems that you would need to work to change the wording at WP:NOT#LYRICS and WP:LYRICS and WP:SONG#LYRICS to explicitly state your current opinion. Again, "Consensus' among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Af far as fight songs violating copyright, that may or may not be true as many fight songs were written in the late 19th or early 20th century. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I know you all mean well, but I disagree with the original logic/solution of the, frankly, so-called "consensus" that didn't do a good job of informing those of us who've edited multiple articles on fight songs. With that said, it would behoove anyone acting on that policy position to be more careful: if you're going to impose an 11-person "consensus", you better be willing to do the work and not only do half (i.e. deleting only, and not transcribing something that's very clearly PD). Simply going in and deleting lyrics without making at least an attempt to move them (if they can be) isn't the right way to do things. --Bobak (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on this discussion here I think it should be obvious to anyone that there is clearly no "consensus" on removing public domain lyrics from articles. To those of you still trying to maintain that farce, please stop removing lyrics from articles on those grounds. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The consensus exists as policy at wp:NOT#LYRICS, not the centralized discussion. It reads "The lyrics of traditional songs may be in the public domain, but even in this case the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc. Source texts generally belong on WikiSource. Excerpts of lyrics may be used within an article for the purpose of direct commentary about them." The centralized discussion merely agreed with the policy. WP is not a lyrics database for fight songs, or any songs. NJGW (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand if you have a long song with dozens of lines it might make sense to link to WikiSource, but when you have a fight song with 4 lines it makes no sense to do that. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No such consensus exists at WP:NOT#LYRICS for the removal of PD lyrics from articles if it is not the sole content of that article. Please stop inferring what is not there. This policy is further clarified at WP:Lyrics and backed by the consensus consensus drawn at WP:SONG#LYRICS and by song articles that include PD lyrics which have passed WP:FA. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

From wp:Lyrics: "A Wikipedia article on lyrics or poetry should have an analytical framework that describes the song and its cultural impact." Which of these articles "have an analytical framework" or discuss the "cultural impact"? wp:WikiProject Songs#Lyrics and music videos states: "It may be acceptable to use small portions of a song's lyrics or music video in the main body to illustrate a point." Just like you originally ignored my actual edits, you are now ignoring what you are quoting. NJGW (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is what WP:LYRICS states, you continually seem to miss this part or read something into it that is not there: "In addition to the main point of not violating copyright, do not write an article that consists only of lyrics. This would be considered a primary source. It may if it is GFDL-compatible free content, be transwikied to Wikisource, but it could also be speedy deleted by an admin for lack of context." Many of articles in which you have removed the lyrics provide plenty of commentary on the lyrics and cultural impact. Those include articles such as Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech that has passed WP:GA review and never should have had the lyrics removed. Some of the articles you have rightfully questioned like Dear Old Nebraska U. There is no criteria for how well or thorough these descriptions must be, but the later clearly fails to provide sufficient context and with that I agree with you. Remember an article does not have to be FA (like Dixie) to exist or contain public domain lyrics. All that is stated is that if the article consists solely of lyrics and doesn't provide context it may be nominated for AFD, it actually says nothing of wholesale removal of all lyrics regardless of how they are presented in the article, unless they are not in the public domain. You cannot inject policy where none exists that ignores previously existing consensus at WP:SONG#LYRICS that is demonstrated in FA and GA peer reviews as noted above. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the issue is that you are misunderstanding the terms "commentary on" and "cultural impact". Dixie (song) has both. Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech has neither. NJGW (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I (obviously) thoroughly disagree with that assessment, and likewise, your opinion certainly doesn't appear to be the consensus (per, among other things, GA assessment and WP:SONG). CrazyPaco (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please give us an example of the "commentary on" the lyrics or "cultural impact" discussed at Ramblin' Wreck for which the lyrics are needed. Also, reread wp:SONG - "It may be acceptable to use small portions of a song's lyrics or music video in the main body to illustrate a point." You may have missed that sentence, but it's there. NJGW (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already provided examples regarding the Rambing Wreck article in my comments above. The quote you are referring to at wp:songs is for cases of using copyrighted lyrics according to WP:fair use. For anyone that hasn't done so already, please feel free to view and consider the following policy/guidelines in their entirety at WP:LYRICS and WP:SONG#LYRICS. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• You've provided false and unrelated examples (saying that the lyrics are used to show historical progression when actually the progression is from before the song's lyrics were written), but you haven't said anything about "commentary on" the lyrics themselves or the "cultural impact" of these lyrics. Again, please give examples.
• Your interpretation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Lyrics and music videos is a personal one. Not only have you repeatedly called it a policy/guideline when it clearly is not, but the sentence also does not indicate a strict application to copyrighted lyrics as you suggest. You are grasping at straws, as your blanket statement on notability below proves. NJGW (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Of course my interpretation is a personal one, as is yours. However, it seems that my interpretation is shared by the majority of editors that have worked on public domain songs within the Song Wikiproject. There is no point going back and forth on this. You have made your case, I have made mine. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not equate a statement of fact ("X sentence is found at Y") with an opinion ("X sentence only applies to Z"). I have stated facts and asked questions, you not provided answers (or answered other questions) and given personal opinions. NJGW (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fight Songs and College Football my opinion, based on prior discussions at WP:CFB--Linking a "fight song" to the college "football" team is inappropriate. The fight songs typically apply to not only all sports but to the student body of the school in question. While the fight songs are typically a part of the "pagentry" of college football, the football team does not play the song--the band does. But also college choirs sing the songs regularly. Therefore, I see no real reason to have any special reference or exclusivity to college football and school fight songs. So from there, it goes outside the realm of my enthusiasm in Wikipedia and becomes an issue of songs, lyrics, etc. That's not to say that a fight song couldn't be notable or even worthwhile to have the lyrics in the encyclopedia, but I would take the stance that not all college fight songs are notable (especially when one consideres that many smaller college have "taken" the fight song of a larger school and simply changed a few of the lyrics).--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to note what occurred at the university article of my alma mater, so that this process can be made better. I get involved when I see an article I wrote blanked without my involvement or discussion, and then part of that article dumped into the main university article without a merge discussion or any attempt to work the text in. That was a bad move, and it upset me. It gave me little respect for the "centralized discussion" editors. Their consensus, as I understand it, was "there a place for fight song information in the article about the institution" not that all fight songs must immediately be merged without discussion with relevant parties. The lyrics are a separate issue from the "redirecting" of fight song articles. I don't believe "centralized discussion" has any authority to bypass traditional discuss and merge routes.--Patrick «» 06:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Since "a vast array of other editors" are opposing User:Stifle's actions, there is obviously no consensus for them. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "a vast array of other editors," and besides I assume they are mostly the alums that had the songs on their watchlists. If that is the only piece of evidence you are considering, I suggest you look over the table CrazyPaco and I created at the bottom of this section, in which I claim that the consensus is evident at other places/projects, by folks who do not have those pages watchlisted.

Are these even notable?

Fight song lists 3 notable college fight songs. Is that really all? Perhaps it's time to delete any that do not claim notability. Also, that article is a mess... it has no refs, uses lots of peacock terms ("steeped in tradition"), and is mostly a list of American college fight songs (and some Alma Maters). It could use a section about Hakas and other types of fight songs. NJGW (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would dare say that there are more than three notable fight songs. I am not sure exactly how many are notable, and many of the current articles likely are not notable, but I don't think I am venturing too far out on a limb guessing that it is more than three. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Most fight songs from universities competing in major NCAA Division 1 athletics could be notable, as long as they are not derived from other school's fight songs. I would define major universities as most of the school in conferences comprising the BCS and the Ivy League, with some other exceptions. The fight songs from these schools are often heard on TV, radio, movies, used in video games, and find their way into other promotions and products. Most have had multiple examples of professional recordings made of them in the past, and today, almost all are available for purchase either on CDs or for download and as ring tones and have shelf lives well outlasting the typical top 50 pop song. Compilations of college songs sheet music is continually being produced. Many of the lyrics have themselves become slogans and greetings for alumni of the schools absent of the accompanying music. Keep in mind WP:LOCALFAME as well. I agree that many of the articles need to add additional material regarding their notability, use, and history. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The essay you cite does not mean local fame=notability, only that local things CAN be notable. Saying that "most" of the songs from some of the schools "could be notable" is a non-argument, and the existence of recordings are not proof of notability (we don't have an article about every single Brittney Spears song for a reason). Instead of blanket arguments against anything I might possibly say, how about considering the fact that most of these song articles are 2-3 lines with no sources (and no sources available)? How about considering how derivative most of the songs are? How about considering improving the crappy Fight song article, which would actually help people see the cultural significance of these songs, rather than fighting tooth and nail for articles which would clearly fail speedy deletion requests? NJGW (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I cited many reasons why they could be notable. I do not support unsourced articles or blanket notability. However, size of the song does not denote notability (e.g. Happy Birthday to You). I also disagree with your assertion that most of the songs are derivative. It is your right to nominate individual song articles for AFD if that is your opinion, however, I believe more research into the topic of collegiate culture, fight songs, and songs in general would be beneficial. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment summary for involved editors

• Summary comment as framed below, point by point (move up here to keep the bottom clear per request of NJGW...I put these mostly because I haven't commented on all of the arguments, just lyrics).
  1) I do not feel all fight songs are notable. Songs from major universities (Ivy League) as well as those competing in major NCAA Division 1 athletics (e.g. BCS) do have the potential to be notable based on the pervasiveness of their songs throughout popular culture. I do not support blanket notability for fight songs.
  2) Merger is not deletion and is acceptable. However, editors considering merger, or reversing a merger, should remember WP:GOODFAITH. Editors considering a merger of an article that has not previously worked on the article should considering first applying a merge tag in order to work cooperatively, and garner consensus with, the authors of the existing articles. Editors should not be surprised by merger reversals if they have not attempted to obtain a consensus on the notability, importance, or quality of an article.
  3) I feel it was obvious that the centralized discussion did not reach a consensus on Lyrics. Lyrics discussion should not have occurred at the level of the specialized category of fight songs, but rather at a broader level of those editors who work on all types of song-related articles. I feel this contradicts the primary conclusion of the general discussion: "Fight songs do not need special guidelines". I believe the consensus obtained on the points specific to fight songs, other than lyrics, are valid.
  4) This argument is now split into five parts, not all of which seem to be separate arguments but rather a series of supporting quotes from wikipedia policy/guidelines for the original argument. My feeling on complete public domain lyric removal has been made clear above. I do not disagree with the final point about turning Wikipedia into a lyrics database. However, there is obviously a disconnect over what an "analytical framework that describes the song and its cultural impact" means. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Paco, please move this comment to the section above. You are simply restating the points from the table above and your points from the sections above. I had hoped this space would be used by uninvolved editors, not by us to keep going in circles. NJGW (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Summing up

Here are the main arguments as summarized by NJGW and CrazyPaco. Please, can some third parties comment on what they think?

For removing lyrics and merging short articles	Against removing lyrics and merging short articles
Many of the songs' articles are too short and unreferenced to be considered notable enough to remain on their own.	Their notability is inherent in the fact that they are the fight songs of notable schools, and that they have been recorded and performed many times.
The non-lyrics information has not been lost, only merged. In many cases the small amount of information in the individual song articles was already duplicated at the main College or team athletics' article.	The information has effectively been deleted.
There was a consensus built at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs that "Fight song lyrics do not belong in Wikipedia articles. If free, they should be in Wikisource; if copyrighted, they should not be included"	The centralized discussion decision stating "Fight song lyrics do not belong in Wikipedia articles" institutes a prohibition on any use of lyrics in one subcategory of song. It contradicts a wider overall consensus for song articles as well as the primary conclusion of the general discussion: "Fight songs do not need special guidelines".
There is consensus outside of the Centralized discussion for the removal of whole-song public domain lyrics to WikiSource except where the lyrics are used to demonstrate textual analysis or to illustrate points related to cultural significance. This is demonstrated by the following passages in the relevant Policy, Essay, and Wikiproject:	No consensus, policy, or mandate exists to force removal of full public domain lyrics as long as they are not the sole component of the article. Consensus on this issue has already been demonstrated in three existing policies and guidelines (see below) as well as the successful GA and FA review of several articles containing full public domain lyrics. Therefore, inclusion lyrics in fight song articles, as well as inclusion of full public domain lyrics in Wikipedia articles, is acceptable, as long as it is not the sole or primary component of the article thus rendering it as a primary source.
"Source texts generally belong on WikiSource. Excerpts of lyrics may be used within an article for the purpose of direct commentary upon them."	WP:NOT#LYRICS: "Lyrics databases. Most song lyrics published after 1923 are protected by copyright. The lyrics of traditional songs may be in the public domain. However, even in this case the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc. Source texts generally belong on WikiSource. Excerpts of lyrics may be used within an article for the purpose of direct commentary upon them."
"A Wikipedia article on lyrics or poetry should have an analytical framework that describes the song and its cultural impact."	WP:LYRICS: "In addition to the main point of not violating copyright, do not write an article that consists only of lyrics. This would be considered a primary source. It may if it is GFDL-compatible free content, be transwikied to Wikisource, but it could also be speedy deleted by an admin for lack of context."
"It may be acceptable to use small portions of a song's lyrics or music video in the main body to illustrate a point. Lyrics and music videos that are in the public domain may be entered at Wikisource."	WP:SONG#LYRICS "Do not include the song's entire lyrics or embed the song's music video in the article unless you are certain they are in the public domain. Most lyrics and music videos will be copyrighted so we cannot legally put them in an article. It may be acceptable to use small portions of a song's lyrics or music video in the main body to illustrate a point. Lyrics and music videos that are in the public domain may be entered at Wikisource. Links to external websites that provide lyrics and music videos belong in the "External links" section."
Simply placing lyrics in an article with no textual analysis of the lyrics turns Wikipedia into a lyrics data base. This is specifically ruled out by WP:NOT	Used correctly, inclusion of public domain lyrics can enhance the understanding of the topic, is convenient to the reader, and therefore may improve article quality. Placement of public domain lyrics on Wikisource is encouraged, although not necessary, and should not come at the exclusion of those lyrics on Wikipedia when they enhance article quality.

• Shouldn't this be conducted someplace else? Maybe an RfC on WT:NFC or one of the college or songs wikiprojects? Protonk (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: admin-only pages

There's a constant tension between maintaining open discourse on Wikipedia and avoiding leaking information to malicious parties. WP:DENY prevents us from publishing information about vandals, but as admins cycle in and out over the years, many a vandal is forgotten and gains another chance to wreak havoc. Many oversight issues have to be handled with great care to avoid further publicizing the private information involved. In particular, I think it would be useful if more of the sequestered discourse of ArbCom on their mailing list were visible to all admins. Copyrighted material that may still be under discussion also needs to be quickly removed from public view.

I don't believe there's currently technical support to restrict pages so that only admins can read them; I propose that such a feature be implemented and some pages created for some of the types of information I describe above. An alternative would be a private wiki configured so only admins can read it (an existing setting I believe), with all En admins automatically made admins on it.

The most obvious objection to this is that not all admins can be trusted all the time and they might leak information as a means of vengeance, or if they think they're just doing someone a friendly favor. I don't know, what do you guys think? Dcoetzee 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see two sides to this. One is that it makes it easier to share information that would make admins' life easier, while not enabling the trolls. The other is that a private wiki/admin-only pages makes it a lot easier for people to say "zOMG teh cabal iz taking over!!!1!!11". I don't know, personally, which concern outweighs the other — just giving my two cents. Hermione1980 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

zOMG teh cabal iz taking over!!!1!!11
I see how an admins only forum would be useful in some cases but I think propensity for overuse is just to great as compared to benefits. If DENY gets in your way, ignore it. There is nothing terrible about discussing a vandal on wiki, frivolous discussion of them should be stifled but it does not do that much harm if we do: most vandals worth discussing are already so dedicated a little recognition wont make much difference. Cases so sensitive that they must be discussed in private should be referred to the ArbCom, silent discussion of users for no pressing reason, to which I imagine what ever was set up would devolve to quickly, is a bad thing. The admins IRC has already proven itself a failure. Icewedge (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

-admins and the satellite channels is where all the Grawp fighting goes on without any problems. BJ^Talk 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't really think of many uses for this TBH. The type of vandals that last for years are the type that WP:DENY isn't going to make a significant impact on, but there's only a handful of them (see also WP:LTA). The vast majority of wiki-related things discussed in the admins IRC channel are much better discussed in a real-time forum like IRC than in wiki-style discussions as they're either trivial things that need only minutes of discussion, or they're things that need urgent attention. If we did do this for some reason though, it would have to be a separate wiki, as MediaWiki isn't designed for per-page read restrictions. Mr.Z-man 02:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Z-man here... I don't see much use for it and see the negatives outweighing the positives.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Zomg the cabal is taking over. Can't imagine the use for this. Isn't there already an admin only IRC channel or something? Protonk (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Past experience suggests that this would play really badly with the community, especially those whose agitation it is most designed to avoid, and it would undoubtedly be compromised anyway, as the admin IRC channel is. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This already exists. It's called deletion.--Patton^t/c 12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't even support it as an admin. Whether it is the cabal spider hole or the executive lounge, until the need is shown for it, it should not occur. Would we desysop people for telling "secrets"?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can think of something. It relates to a problem which may, or may not exist - a way for vandals to cause trouble it might be hard to detect initially. I don't know whether it is minor or potentially serious. How should this be raised? Ben MacDui 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

An admin only page isn't needed, as much of the corporate memory is not invested in admins but all the contributors to the noticeboards and requests pages. There will be editors who have the knowledge that it is proposed may be kept in an admin only page who will therefore not know that it is being called upon. I would also suggest that having another perception of the difference of value between having and not having the sysop flag is not worth any potential gain for the existence of such a thing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• WP:DENY is an essay. I wish people would realise that, and stop treating it as though it's some sort of policy, which we all must follow. Majorly talk 00:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My question above is perfectly serious. There are several editors, including admins, aware of the problem but my take on the discussion is that no-one wants to raise it at Village Pump or here in case doing so might have significant consequences. Discreet suggestions here and there seem to have achieved nothing. It is my suspicion there is no way to address the issue directly. Ben MacDui 12:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for it justified in anything Wikipedia uses to describe administration duties. That it is suggested in seriousness suggests to me that some WP:Administrators are very confused about the purpose of Wikipedia. --KP Botany (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking a question that I notice nobody seems to be able to answer. Ben MacDui 15:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest emailing the person(s) you feel are in the best place to handle...whatever it is you're talking about—a trusted admin, ArbCom, or whoever. I understand why you can't be more explicit, as that would defeat the purpose of your question, but without more information, it's hard to answer. Hermione1980 16:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I outdented my response, above, Ben MacDui, to make certain you understood I was replying to the primary post, not yours. E-mail me, don't describe your issue, it doesn't matter, but I'll tell you the name of an admin you can e-mail to ask a question, who can maybe steer you in the correct direction. --KP Botany (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm only responding because the question was asked. And I do understand that 1600 admins to 8 million editors forces a certain unity (even if sometimes contentious) simply out of the sheer numbers. But there are email and IRC options, and with an already prevailing paranoia of admin cabalism, I'd seriously question the value of an admin only page. All IMHO — Ched (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting to help. Of course, if I knew who to email I would do so. It would need to be someone who was motivated to help, had sufficient wiki-experience to know whether the problem was real or not, understood something about anti-vandal fighting, had some serious technical knowledge and the clout to get something done. I'm not familiar with IRC and nearly fell asleep reading about it. Perhaps that's the answer, although I am not sure what the difference is in principle between an "admin-only page" and an "admin-only IRC". I have no interest in cabals but this is a conundrum it seems hard to nail. Ben MacDui 17:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you talk to one of the admins who supported you when you had you RfA? Maybe in an IM program? or email? — Ched (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I have fired off an email or two. Ben MacDui 20:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I object to this for the same reasons that many people object to the admin-only IRC channel. The entire point of something being on-wiki is having it accessible to the public. Jtrainor (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Long term copyright infringement redux

• Mgreason (talk · contribs)

There is an active effort to address extensive copyright infringement, possibly inadvertent, by this user. Infringement ranges from minimal—a few sentences or phrases—to major, with whole sections copied from coyrighted sources. Several editors have responded to my last call for assistance (and hooray for them), but this is a big job and more would be very welcome. The user's self-noted major contributions are listed in my sandbox. Articles that have been checked have been struck out. Articles where infringement (even minimal) has been confirmed are checked off. Generally, we've been cleaning slight or piecemeal infringement (sometimes I've simply added quotation marks to small matters, in compliance with WP:NFC) and listing major problems at WP:CP with the standard copyvio template. I've found it useful to compare against the listed sources, as this contributor often does cite the sources that are being infringed upon, although sometimes not at the point where the text is copied. If you have time, please consider helping out. Even if you only address an article or two, you could shave days off of the completion of this project. Thanks for any assistance. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How come this guy hasn't been blocked? We've given long-term blocks for less serious copyright infringement than this. Blueboy96 15:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No kidding. I doubt you'll find enough help to actually gain ground if Mgreason is still allowed to edit. — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a concern. :/ As I work more through the backlog here, I have wondered if blocking immediately would have been the best option even if the contributor is well-meaning, since well-meant infringement is still infringement. My thought had been to monitor future contributions and, now that the contributor has been explicitly warned of the potential of block, block as necessary if infringement resumes. As you can see from his talk page, I've made an effort to address these concerns with him, but he doesn't actually discuss much, so I'm unsure if the situation is any more clear for him now than it was after his first copyright notice in 2007. He does seem to have understood GFDL issues, though, after our conversation, based on this. As focused as I've been on cleaning past issues, I have not yet checked to see if the problem is ongoing, which might easily decide the matter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. I'd more than welcome other input on whether blocking is appropriate. This is a tedious and time-consuming process, and I must admit to being discouraged by it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

(un-indent) I'd support indef block, as he doesn't seem to be heeding the warnings on his talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, well meaning or not, until the editor can display a proper understanding of copyright its in the best interests of the project that he not edit. Shell ^babelfish 16:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support an indefinite block, for the reasons I stated earlier. I have to admit, I was pretty close to blocking him myself earlier. Seems to me that a long-term block for copyright infringement is SOP in my book. Blueboy96 20:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Mgreason indef. Some of the copyvio's are quite recent, made after being warned by Moonriddengirl. See for example Episcopal Diocese of Florida. No objection to an unblock if the user ever gets a clue. Garion96 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out and weighing in. I'll talk to the contributor to see if perhaps I can help him learn to properly utilize external sources in his userspace with the thought that after demonstrating understanding of that, an unblock may eventually be appropriate. Meanwhile, back to the backlog (well, after looking at today at WP:CP). Not marking this resolved, though, since there are still quite a few articles that haven't been checked out...and a few new ones, it seems. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

• Ancient Egyptian race controversy

This issue has been going on for more than a week now, and with the latest developments, I personally think that the case is clear. User:Wapondaponda made on change that probably was covered by wp:bold: diff Then, I made one revert that would be covered by wp:brd, accordingly: diff. On the talk page a discussion about the issue developed, which actually turned out better then I had expected. But, then user:Deeceevoice made another full revert, restoring Wapondaponda's suggestion diff and asked that I should be banned from the article on the talk page diff .

The article Ancient Egyptian race controversy ancient Egyptian is placed on probation:

"This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information."

Changing the lead (not to mention adding four to five new subtopics) is, of course, a substantial edit. The new first sentence of the article: "The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times.", is not supported by any citation and is, as far as my knowledge about the topic is concerned, definitely false. I am not going to start an edit war about this. I am simply going to place {{TotallyDisputed}} on the article and leave. But some uninvolved admin better take a good look at the issue. Zara1709 (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to see Zara back here on this. She's just finished a massively disruptive rewrite of the article that involved sweeping changes. For the second time now, she's unilaterally slapped an "in-use" tag on the article and then edited against talk page consensus, completely failing to notify anyone of her intentions or to participate in the ongoing debate about article scope. And now she's back here, presumably in an attempt to get the article locked down again (which she succeeded in doing after the last time she shut the article down for her personal use). Let Brenneman do his thing as a facilitator for a while and see what develops. Perhaps Zara's (threatened) exit (this is the second time she's said she would leave) is a good thing. Her actions at the article are just amazingly willful and extremely disruptive, and whether she stays or goes, it's got to stop. I've stated my intention, if she persists in such destructive conduct, to request a content ban. Hopefully, that won't be necessary. deeceevoice (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a correction to Zara's comment: the diff was not calling for an immediate ban from the article, but warning that further such unilateral edits would result in DCV calling for a ban. Also, there is already an uninvolved admin, User:Aaron Brenneman helping with the article, and doing a more than decent job of it, especially under the circumstances. I'd say if Aaron wishes further admin assistance that's fine, but to let him make the call.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Zara behavior needs to be dealt with" is admittedly open to interpretation. If you want my opinion, Tom Harrison has evaluated the situation correctly User talk:Tom harrison#Banning. If you look at the history of the talk pages, you will see that previously another editors had also been banned from the article. The very same issue of the scope of the article is now recurring. Zara1709 (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

While that stand-alone statement may be "open to interpretation," clearly you deliberately took it out of context, because the passage reads, in part:

"This is the second time Zara has slapped an 'in use' tag on the article and edited unilaterally and extensively. I suggest we stop this behavior, and that we do it now. Zara['s] behavior needs to be dealt with. She clearly has no respect for the process of collaboration and is determined to see her language prevail.

"I suggest we come to a very clear consensus here and now that any such further conduct on Zara's part will result in a request for a content ban."

My words are open to deliberate misrepresentation, but nothing about them is "open to interpretation." deeceevoice (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what Ramdrake said, on all points. And he's correct. I didn't call for a ban on Zara, though, to my way of thinking, I'd have been perfectly justified in doing so. The fact of the matter is Zara's done what she's (inaccurately) accused me of doing. She earlier branded me a troll when I called her on it the first time she shut down the article, then called for my banning.[5] And, yup. It happened, but it was wholly unwarranted, utterly unjustified, and it didn't stick. So, it is in this atmosphere that Zara did it again! She put up an "in-use" tag, made massive edits against a developing consensus without prior notice, and with no attempt at explanation/justification. All things considered, I think my response has been a fairly measured one. ;) So, if anyone is tempted to intervene -- and, again, I don't think it's warranted -- please don't jump in with both feet. I know admins are busy people with a lot of demands on their time. But take a moment to familiarize yourself with what's really been going on with the article first. Aaron Brenneman's efforts at shepherding (as opposed to bullying) the article and maintaining some semblance of order there deserve at least that. Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I admit that the sentence about banning was worded rather badly and I should have been more precise. What I meant should become more clear if you look at Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 14. I have, there, been of the opinion that that article should have a broader scope, but after some discussion if started to reconsider my opinion and didn't defend that any more. But there was another editor, user:Big-dynamo who continued the discussion. And in that discussion Moreschi wrote at one point:

"Can someone please bite the bullet and ban this troll? To say that Afrocentrism is only part the controversy surrounding the ancient Egyptian race controversy is so wrong I don't even know where to start. It's all about Afrocentrism, and Big dynamo has just conclusively proved he should not be editing this topic area."

This is what I was referring to. After August 2008 I spent some more time on the issue. You can find some of my result in the old revisions of Race in ancient history. And I actually came to the conclusion that Moreschi was right concerning the scope. The article has to be very largely about Afrocentrism. In other issues Moreschi turned out to be wrong, like that about meme. Anyway, if you want to have an article with a broader scope, you should have either 1) participated in the discussion or 2) allow the time for a throughout discussion now.

On second though, therefore, I can't allow the scope of the article to be changed like that. I will revert to the more narrow version, and if we get an edit war, I have to request that the article is fully protect while we discuss the issue ( or for 3 months, which ever is less). I am really disappointed that most editors from the old discussion aren't showing up (Wikiscribe being the notable exemption) and I am largely the only one who is defending the previous consensus. Any any case, if deeceevoice gets her version pushed through, then some admin please apologize to user:Big-dynamo.Zara1709 (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What you can or cannot allow? Actually, deciding upon article scope isn't the prerogative of a single individual. But reverting back to the previous version is fine. It's something I probably would have done had I realized the scope of that editor's changes (even though they appear to be somewhat in line with a developing consensus on the talk page -- and I stress "consensus") -- before seeing your shut-down of the article and your massive changes against consensus. And, once again, I don't have a version I'm "pushing", and however you want to brand it, you can't make it so. There are others who find my input useful and valid. I simply want the lead paragraph and the article scope to reflect the true nature of the controversy. But this is all subject matter for the article talk space -- not here, Zara. We have an admin presiding over the article at the moment, so there's no need to keep running to AN/I whenever something doesn't sit well with you. Try some patience. Stay and work through it collegially and collaboratively. Or, as you keep threatening to do, edit somewhere else. Because ongoing disruption and article lockdown are neither constructive nor acceptable. deeceevoice (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not my fault that Dbachmann, Moreschi and Woland aren't actively participating in the discussion at the moment. If they would show up rather soon, that would make things a lot easier. However, you can't call it consensus if you propose a reversion which they wouldn't agree on, which is obvious from the discussion archives. Zara1709 (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nor is it the fault of anyone still working diligently on the article, trying to come to some sort of agreement. You can't tell me that Bachmann and Moreschi are unaware of the discussion. You referred to the talk page "archives" -- and for a reason. They haven't been participating. I visited Woland's talk page and specifically asked for his input. Collaborate with the rest of the editors to discuss the issues around article scope and other matters or don't. Participate or don't. Absentee participation, or collective participation by one-person proxy -- such as what you're attempting -- runs counter to the spirit of the project and, ultimately, is unhelpful. Again, this is not about what you "cannot allow." The discussion continues. deeceevoice (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I can collaborate. Simply state sources in support of the sentence: "The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times." Simply explain why you don't want Afrocentrism to be mentioned in the lead. And we were making some process in the discussion, which was only interrupted by you breaking wp:BRD with the last revert. Zara1709 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's good to know, Zara, because it's not a skill you've been strong on lately -- at least not at the above-referenced article. Please. Take it to the article talk space, Zara. As it is, I've had to refer the participating editors here so that they can see for themselves what your approach to the article is. For my money, there's something exceedingly wrong with that picture. deeceevoice (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fast copyedit required Giles Hattersley

Can someone check this stub for grammar and spelling etc - ASAP for obvious reasons. Thanks. Giano (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Gave it a look, should be passable now. Does anyone know what this business about false claims in the apparently non-existent article is all about? Skomorokh 16:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is why I have written the page, 1000s must have looked for it today. It is important that we defend ourselves from these allegations when ver possible. Today's was totally spurious. Wikipedia's PR, or rather lack of PR, is more than worrying. Giano (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth: "15:48, 2009 February 8 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) deleted "Giles Hattersley" ‎ (pending further investigation)" [6] — Gavia immer (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's just great, now Mr. Hattersley can point to the deletion log and claim that Jimbo's deletion of the article is some kind of acknowledgment that the article contained exactly what Mr. Hattersley previously claimed it contained (before it existed). — CharlotteWebb 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that the article DID exist, but was oversighted (leaving no trace), perhaps seconds or minutes after Hattersley's article hit the press? Or that Hattersley is talking about an article on another Wikimedia property than the English Wikipedia? Just an extremely "assume good faith" concept from a banned user here (check with Alison). Delete this question, if you must. But, I think the idea is worth considering. -- 76.98.14.41 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Related conversation at User talk:Jimbo Wales, but right now, no one can find any trace of the supposed claims on Wikipedia-en.--Tznkai (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well...I'll say it now. It was not wise to create an article which had never existed purely because a person complained (falsely) that a wikipedia article on him contained errors. It was also unwise to delete this article, turning a minor complaint from a minor journalist into an issue that "looks" bad. Regardless of what we tell ourselves, we can't prove positive to the public that no article containing falsehoods ever existed. All that is publicly available is the deletion log. A deletion log which notes permanently that Jimbo deleted it--a triviality that I'm sure the British press will ignore. We need to get out of the business of self-referentiality and into the business of maintaining an encyclopedia. The next time that a blog in the guardian says, without evidence, that we have done something untoward, let's not trip over ourselves to look as guilty as possible. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Blog in the Guardian? Which blog in the Guardian is this? DuncanHill (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the Sunday times. He used to work for the guardian. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he did. The Guardian has had stories about him, but he seems only to have worked for the Sunday Times and Arena. DuncanHill (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A proposal to remedy en:wp's chronic incivility

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#How_to_raise_the_tone_of_the_wiki

Incivility is standard on en:wp. Actual personal attacks are routine and expected. This drives people away from the wiki and leaves a hard core of borderline sociopaths as the only people willing to put up with each other. This is despite Wikipedia:No personal attacks supposedly being hard policy.

Precis: the AC to warn that it expects better behaviour, and then to start knocking heads together. Likely to start with the admins, as the ones most expected to set a good example - hence me posting this here. Those of us with the magic bit must lift our game. Or else.

Commentary at the above link (or even just "great idea!" or "terrible idea!" will likely be read by the AC.

Let's make this encyclopedia project suck less to be involved with. - David Gerard (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• (splutter) "... leaves a hard core of borderline sociopaths as the only people willing to put up with each other"? And that doesn't breach WP:NPA? Dear pot, meet kettle. Black Kite 20:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If you don't think there's any problem at all, by all means say that - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't say there wasn't a problem. I just thought it was incredibly ironic that a posting about how to counter personal attacks on Wikipedia was presented in the form of what was effectively a personal attack against most editors... Black Kite 20:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Hey, that would include myself! I consciously try not to snap at people, and occasionally succeed ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Firstly, I agree that it was completely uncalled for to call editors who stick to policy "sociopaths" - and re: the proposal, I don't understand it. Is your proposal to have the well-known policy announced and enforced? Because I believe that that is already the procedure here. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So far it isn't being enforced and it isn't reining in gross incivility. See proposal - David Gerard (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Re: the proposal, I don't understand it" "See proposal" - how about we all agree that you're great at wisecracks, and stop the so-called witty repartees. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd hope you could assume some ongoing good faith - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd hope you'd demonstrate some, rather than resorting to silly "See proposal"-type responses! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are making a proposal that the community enforce its own policies. Suggest that they could be more rigorously adhered to, by all means, but it is not a proposal (novel idea, new solution etc.) to "begin" blocking people for incivility, is it? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is for the arbcom to notify that it's taking a special interest in enforcing it - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean like if the British government were to announce that it was particularly interested in prosecuting drug-users, drug crime would be significantly reduced? Just no, I don't feel that this idea will remotely affect the level of incivility. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence the other bit, actually doing so - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't really face continuing this much further, it being very dull indeed, but your "proposal" - to announce and enforce well-known policy - will make no impact, and since it is neither new, innovative, original or novel, it scarcely constitutes a proposal IMO. Thanks for taking my criticisms on board so well! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, what in your eyes will affect the level of incivility here? It is a growing problem. Kingturtle (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the inciwikity is actually caused, IMHO, by WP policies aimed at preventing use of WP as a "community." It is easier far to lose one's temper at a person one knows nothing really about than to lose one's temper at a person one has met. Collect (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My sense is that the civility of Wikipedia's editors, like the quality of its articles, ollows a normal distribution. Yes, Wikipedia is home to some real bullies, and an even greater number of irritating but not quite abusive editors. It is also home to some real decent, generous, helpful and receptive people, and a larger number of people who are often abrupt or slow to get someone else's point, yet nevertheless relativly easy to work with. And the vast majority fall in between. I think as long as we try to make this th encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we just have to accept the fact that anyone includes some jerks just as it includes some gems. perhaps we notice the bullies more because there is an understandable tendency to make things "better." I think we should resist that and be more accepting of the good and the bad. I am speaking generically of course. I am all for solving problems if they are more narrowly and specifically defined than "incivility." For example I do not think our active community of editos comes close to reflecting the diversity of our readership and this means that some bodies of knowledge and access to views get left out. Any way to remedy this,l I would be all for. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

the way to remedy it is to remove the bullies, especially the ones who bully new editors, and who attack improvable articles instead of helping the authors improve them. We notice the bullies more because even a small number of them can do incredible damage. DGG (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kingturtle asked the 10 Million dollar question - what has caused the increase in incivility? I've been considering this for a while, and my OR is this. Wikipedia has risen to the top of sooo many search results - Wikipedia has gathered soooo much press - in short, Wikipedia has become the "in" thing. Hence, it draws a much younger audience. A younger audience will often display less civility because (if I remember when I was young) - you feel that nothing can hurt you or touch you. Soooo you don't feel you have to bother with being civil. All IMHO — Ched (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I know that's not exactly what Kingturtle asked, but I did want to get that thought in. I don't know how to fix it, wish I did. — Ched (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The typical time of participation in Wikipedia seems to be 12-18 months, i.e. comparable to participation times in MMORPGs. Elonka did a paper on this, I don't have a link. So if you've been here more than a year or two, you're an old-timer and a freak. There's all sorts of weirdnesses about Wikipedia culture - David Gerard (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If we simply enforce the rules we already have on a regular basis, or at the very least not chastise those who do, then the problem would be a fraction of what it is now. Chillum(old timer/freak) 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Largely it's not enforced against admins. This leads to problems for all admins in attempting to enforce it, including those that aren't abusive - David Gerard (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Ched makes an excellent point. The drop in median age of editors is one issue (if we could documentt that, but it sounds right). I think there is a related issue: the number of editors has increased exponentially and regardless of their age, too many of them do not understand our core policies, which evolved to dampen conflicts. Remember, for those of use who have been around a long time, there was a year or two where the community grew at about the same rate as core polciies were being revised and strengthened ... policies grew as we did, and vice versa. That is no longer the case. But the fact is Wikipedia has ben an uncivil place since i first got here, filled with trolls and bullies. The problem in my mind has not gotten worse, there are just more bullies and creeps because there is more of everybody here. I Do think that the recent elevation of WP:DE helps when it coms to fighting bullies and trolls. Otherwise, we just have to keep socializing newbis. There used to be a welcome team, I guess they are no longer active. many newbies come and are never welcomed, never directed to the five pillars or core policies ... the amazing thing is how many of them turn out to be good editors! Slrubenstein | Talk 03:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the village that has become a city, and while Stadtluft macht man frei most cities existed at the edge of sudden urban riot. (I forget how many riots in Imperial Rome led to the Emperor quaking behind his Praetorian Guards.) Only in recent years have cities become a relatively healthy & safe place to live. My point is that while a certain amount of incivility/personal risk is inevitable, we are not doomed to an intolerable amount; we can improve the social climate, if we have the imagination & insight to figure out how. -- llywrch (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Abolishing AN/I

The Incidents noticeboard is an unhealthy plague on this project. I would like to see it marked historical. How can we accomplish this? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't.  GARDEN  22:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We can do anything so long as we want to!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just spill over here? rootology (C)(T) 22:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not feasabley possible IMO. Where would people go if they had an incident to report? Where would all the reports currently on ANI go. For any proposal concerning the abolishment of ANI, I'd strongly oppose. Something like this would need community wide discussion. I'm guessing Jimbo would oppose abolishing ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a poll. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• You could just...awwwwww! C'mon! Protonk (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Duh! --Rodhullandemu 22:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is, why is Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents an unhealthy plague? —harej ;] 22:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(4ec) Could be done if we abolish admins. DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let IPs delete the main page...  GARDEN  22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Its the atmosphere of the place. We need a more village pump-style place. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As much as I regret the frequent drama there, I doubt that any change in format will improve the atmosphere there. We need a place where frustrated people can ask for admin help; by definition, people who bring things there are frustrated. Tempers will flare and drama will exist. Frankly, I'm always impressed by how calm many of the participants are.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The village pump serves a good purpose. It lets people talk about features and ideas which they don't have the expertise to write themselves but want someone else to do it for them--for free--and it concentrates it in one place where I never have to go. It is wonderful. Protonk (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous idea I've heard all year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Hey wait, AN/I hasn't existed forever. What did we do before it? Why couldn't we go back to that? Hermione1980 22:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Before ANI, we just dumped all those reports here on AN. Basically, what MZMcBride is proposing is to re-merge AN & ANI, which would bring back the same old problems. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• It would certainly be possible; most of the real incidents there have other places to report them: the various noticeboards like WP:BLPN, WP:NORN, WP:AN3 or general reporting areas like WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:SPI. Most of the rest of the reports are just noise. Mr.Z-man 22:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the solution is simply to pay less attention to it. If you're an admin, only post here if you have a real solution to what is clearly a real problem. Cut out the drive-by opinions and let the bullshit reports simply be archived without attention. Without fuel, the fires will die. Tan | 39 22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think ANI is overused, but the inverse of that is the other boards are often ignored by admins. I've had notices at SSP and Edit War go unanswered for twelve or more hours. ANI (and AIV for the simplest of cases) is the only board that's regularly maintained. Dayewalker (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons those boards are underused is the fact that AN/I gets results. Another reason is that some of those boards are difficult and confusing to users (AN/3 used to be a complete mess, took me so long to figure out how to write a report that the edit war was stale by the time the message was posted, SSP/RFCU was the same way). Things improve and decline in that regard over time in different areas. AN/3 is better now, as is SPI. But AN/I is still the all-purpose "this is a problem and it needs fixing" board. That leads to DRAMA, naturally. but it is also awfully hard to fix. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea here is to do what Mr.Z-man suggested. Diffuse the drama to various places rather centralizing all of it (and thus creating a powder keg). --MZMcBride (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Where would the civility ones go? As they make up a big bit of ANI? rootology (C)(T) 22:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA might be the place for them. MBisanz ^talk 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with MBisanz here. WP:WQA would be the place for civility issues. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion is crazy, AN/I is the only reliable wikipedia project. Elbutler (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Spreading the various types of complaints out onto their "home" forums is fairly easy to do... One would simply have to replace this page with a template asking the user to choose what type of complaint they are making, a la the image upload templates that select a proper license type. It would lead to two issues, however: first, all of these pages would have to see increased monitoring from admins, and second, there would still need to be an AN/I type forum for concerns that don't fit a specific problem type. Resolute 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So we keep this board for specific admin-related issues. See Template:ANI deprecation notice. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• There would still be many issues that can't be easily shoehorned into any single category. Moreover, drama on ANI is due to the existence of drama. Removing ANI will not reduce the overall level of drama. Furthermore, there's a common misconception that seems to be implicitly accepted in this discussion. There's a notion that "drama" is somehow a necessarily bad thing. We as a community are composed of many different people from different backgrounds and often different ideas about what is best for the project. We disagree over content inclusion, general policies, how to interpret policies, which of conflicting ideals take priority and many other things. That such disagreements will often be heated and generate "drama" should not surprise us nor should it bother us. As long as people continue to work on this project together there will be drama. At the end of the day what is important is that such interaction leads to an improved encyclopedia. More often than not it does. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This isn't a poll. And your argument is rather silly when one looks at the facts. People aren't "continuing to work on this project." They're leaving because they get sick of the drama. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've refactored the first part of the remark so it doesn't look like a poll vote. The rest of your comment isn't a response to my point at all. Drama will exist no matter what. High levels of drama are inevitable. Yes, people do leave when they get sick of drama. That's the way it is. If you think you have some way of actually reducing drama without harming the project then I'd be happy to listen to it. Reorganizing doesn't do that. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Diffusing the issues has a number of benefits. It allows admins to selectively watch boards that they're interested in. It creates less likelihood of drama building up all in one place (which means there's a higher likelihood of boards being productive and drama-free). And it means that discussions can stay active longer without having to archive due to page size. What's the disadvantage here? I think abolishing AN/I will reduce drama and I've seen no evidence to the contrary. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • "Diffusing the issues" = splintering focus. Other boards have failed for this very reason. Either they receive too little attention from the wider community or they receive too much attention from a certain subset of editors. AN/I is a good catch-all and off topic discussions can redirected easily. The solution is not to abolish the board but correct its use. - auburnpilot talk 23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
        • This is chicken and the egg. If people can't go to AN/I, they'll focus on other places. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• AN/I is a plague, RFA is broken, ArbCom is incompetent, Jimbo is <today's opinion>... - auburnpilot talk 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • So we try to improve things rather than accept the poor current status. And I would hardly call the view that AN/I is a plague transient. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, but in my opinion, it's equally without basis or viable alternatives. - auburnpilot talk 23:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • Did you read Mr.Z-man's suggestion above? What are your thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - wow, MZMB with a good idea? Say it aint so! :o Sceptre ^(talk) 22:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It ain't so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Why's that? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think that anything on Wikipedia is per se broken, first of all. Redundant, perhaps. Maybe I just don't participate in WikiDrama™ much, but I don't see much of a difference between regular AN and AN/I. Also, 99% of the time, anything I've seen posted to AN/I can be diffused. I've never understood why AN/I was separate anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My question as to why Administrators Noticeboard Incidents is a plague was never answered. —harej ;] 23:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That post - right above this - is partially the reason AN/I sucks. Tan | 39 23:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

While one can shoehorn a lot of discussions into a few major categories, not everything will fit and some things will only fit if you squint real hard. For example, dealing with Betacommand's bot behavior, or when someone makes a death threat, or when a professor assigns 200 students to write wikicontent, or admin X is discovered to be running a sockpuppet farm, etc. There are many infrequent issues that are hard to categorize and if you dump AN/I they are just going to land at AN (which gains nothing as far as I can see). While I can understand encouraging discussions to be moved to dedicated noticeboards when the clearly fit, I think it is unproductive to try and close down AN/I and offload everything. Dragons flight (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I always thought it was strange that we had two noticeboards that served the same purpose (WP:AN and WP:ANI) and were used interchangeably (whether people are supposed to or not). On top of that, 97% (my own approximation) of the threads on those two noticeboards can be handled elsewhere (like the other noticeboards that are listed at Template:Editabuselinks). I'd support this idea. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec, resp to initial post) You can't change people's behavior by eliminating the place where they misbehave. The problem with ANI isn't the existence of the board -- it's the behavior of the people who post on it. Does anyone else see the relationship of this thread to the one above? DG suggests that those of us with the bit must "lift our game." That's what it would take to make ANI less toxic. All of us who post there can take that one extra moment before clicking "save" to determine whether or not the snipe, flame, or snark we just wrote actually helps the encyclopedia or not; and if someone insults you, you don't need to insult them back. "Revenge yourself on your enemies by not becoming like them." (You may leave your incivil replies and insults to my mother below.) Antandrus (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

YO MOMMA WAS AN ADMIN, OOPS THATS YOU - David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've thought before that it might do more good than harm to lock everything but the articles, but ultimately it's not practical. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea, we already have enough of a problem with bureaucracy. All that will happen is a smaller group of editors will create a much more bureaucratic atmosphere at the smaller noticeboards. The answer is to fix the problems here rather than to splinter then into smaller pieces. RxS (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am with TenPoundHammer. The issue for me is less the drama of ANI and more the question of what exactly is the difference between reporting something here and reporting something at ANI. I would like that clarified if possible. JuJube (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Specific proposal

To report:

• Problems with biographies of living persons → Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
• 3RR violations → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
• Ongoing vandalism → Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
• Pages needing protection → Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
• Civility issues → Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.
• Everything else → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea. That's just effectively merging ANI with AN. The backload here is already massive. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The backload would be shifted to other places. This isn't merging anything. It's quite the opposite. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I support changing the admin noticeboard into more of an index, with more specific notiveboards - however, we'd have to create a few more than we have at present. WP:AN/Content, WP:AN/User conduct e.t.c. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So make some suggestions, though it's very likely somebody has already created such noticeboards and they're just not visited much. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What about, instead of getting rid of AN/I altogether, we'll simply be bolder in moving threads to the right page/noticeboard? MZMcBride already wrote what belongs where, and most of the time threads on AN/I simply don't belong there in the first place. --Conti|✉ 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I fear that the only way to enforce such a thing is to lock the page altogether. I see no other real way to force people to post elsewhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The problem is not AN/I but the way editors use it. If a discussion belongs at a more appropriate board, copy/paste and leave a note explaining where it went. Closing AN/I while simultaneously creating a half dozen new boards is not a good idea. - auburnpilot talk

Remember that WP:AN started because Ta bu shi da yu thought "oh, that'd be useful." It promptly spawned ANI and AN3 as sub-boards. Supposedly ANI is for current news reports for admin attention, this is more of a longer-term thing. And the traffic here is already vast.

I suggest leaving ANI there, steering more problems off to the further sub-boards and fixing the behaviour that makes ANI a problem - make it effectively redundant rather than just removing it - David Gerard (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, fair enough. :-) So do we have consensus to start doing this a tad bit more aggressively? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How about a proof of principle discussion so we can see if we are on the same page. Of the 38 threads on ANI currently, which would you move elsewhere? Dragons flight (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• 1 Scribe711/Wired for Books ## Don't we have noticeboards for spam-related issues?
• 2 User:SmashTheState, or, Now we see the violence inherent in the system!!1 ## Username violations surely have another place on the site
• 3 Reversion of large numbers of my edits by User:Pigsonthewing ## 3RR noticeboard
• 4 Big Dunc, blocked ## Unblock request; use user talk page
• 5 Continuation of edit warring by User:Arimareiji in Rachel Corrie ## Edit war noticeboard
• 6 User:HorseGirl070605 ## Legit use of board
• 7 Images used in Intelligent design covered by Non-free content policy? ## Non-free content issue / edit warring on AN/I? The hell? We have like twelve other more appropriate places. Article talk pages would be a start...
• 8 User:Godvia ## Legit use of board, though AIV also works
• 9 Eugene Krabs dilemma ## Conflict of interest noticeboard (yes, I'm pretty sure we have one)
• 10 Disruptive editor at South Korea and some related articles ## AIV? Edit warring noticeboard? Take your pick
• 11 Upcoming revert war on several articles ## Edit warring noticeboard
• 12 Pope John Paul II ## I assume there's a socking noticeboard. If not, one should probably be created; or use RFCU or something
• 13 Problems at Indiana University South Bend ## COI noticeboard again?
• 14 User:Cheapfriends and North / Northern Cyprus ## Socking again...
• 15 User:SoUnusual ## Legit use of board (admin misconduct)
• 16 Infoboxification by Dwiakigle ## User talk page? Article talk pages? WikiProject talk pages? Surely there are better places than AN/I.
• 17 User:TAway ## Talk page of the user or article; or edit warring noticeboard
• 18 Vandal harrassing User:MBisanz ## AIV
• 19 Large sockfarm ## Socking noticeboard? Put all of this is in a centralized place so I don't have to look at it. :-)
• 20 Incivility by User:Panlatdelkwa ## Wikiquette board
• 21 Possible sock of Manhattan Samurai ## Socking noticeboard
• 22 IP 69.14.222.125 ## Spamming noticeboard? Conflict of interest noticeboard? AIV? Edit warring noticeboard? Specific admins' talk page? This could go anywhere.
• 23 User:Miklebe impersonating User:Mikebe ## Probably legit use of board
• 24 3RR discrepancies ## 3RR noticeboard exists for a reason
• 25 Content Managment System pages and Deletion ## No idea what this is. Looks like it would be better off on the article's talk page
• 26 BLP concern John Burris ## BLP noticeboard exist. I posted there today.
• 27 Continued userspace campaigning by indefinitely blocked user ## Legit use of board, probably
• 28 User:LOLthulu ## Socking noticeboard!
• 29 User moving articles without discussion ## User talk page. Article talk page. WikiProject talk pages. Then come to AN/I.
• 30 Drake Circus ## lolwut? Article talk page?
• 31 User:Johnlemartirao ## Block request for user for vandalism / disruption --> AIV seems appropriate
• 32 Racism and the panarabism ideology ## Speedy deletion request. Tag the page. Don't post about it.
• 33 Israel Shahak article ## Legit use of board
• 34 Tag-abuse by Dicklyon of a page for which he is already in formal mediation ## Sanctions noticeboard? User talk page? AIV? Maybe AN/I, just maybe
• 35 User:Nationalist320 and his sock User:Sea888 ## Socking noticeboard
• 36 Disruptive editor/Sockpuppet ## Socking noticeboard
• 37 Sort of kind of a legal threat ## Legit use of board
• 38 Personal attack by User:Damjanoviczarko ## Wikiquette

I think the only thing we need is a noticeboard dedicated to socking issues (if we don't have one already). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ohh, sounds like fun:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Scribe711.2FWired_for_Books→Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Big_Dunc.2C_blocked→WP:AN or WP:AE
3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continuation_of_edit_warring_by_User:Arimareiji_in_Rachel_Corrie→WP:AN3 (which claims to be more about edit warring than 3rr these days but I don't think that is true in practice...not sure though)
4. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Godvia→Not sure. Any admin talk page might work.
5. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Eugene_Krabs_dilemma→WP:EAR
6. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Upcoming_revert_war_on_several_articles→WP:AN3
7. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cheapfriends_and_North_.2F_Northern_Cyprus→Probably WP:AE. If we haven't had an arbcom case on that part of SE europe, I would be surprised.
8. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:TAway→WP:AN3
9. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandal_harrassing_User:MBisanz→WP:RFPP, I'm dubious on the "we'll find socks if they keep doing it" claim, there are a whole lot of IP addresses in the sea.
10. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Large_sockfarm→WP:AN or WP:SPI
11. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_sock_of_Manhattan_Samurai→WP:SPI
12. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_69.14.222.125→Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
13. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Miklebe_impersonating_User:Mikebe→Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam..maybe.
14. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#3RR_discrepancies→WP:AN3...or WP:AN since the blocks came from "edit warring"
15. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Content_Managment_System_pages_and_Deletion→Wikipedia:Help desk?
16. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP_concern_John_Burris→WP:BLPN, where it was sent, but evidently not responded to.
17. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_userspace_campaigning_by_indefinitely_blocked_user→talk page of any active admin
18. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:LOLthulu→WP:SPI, as that's basically what it turned out to be.
19. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_moving_articles_without_discussion→Dunno. see the cyprus comment.
20. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Israel_Shahak_article→WP:AE, I'm almost certain that article is under probation.
21. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nationalist320_and_his_sock_User:Sea888→WP:SPI
22. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editor.2FSockpuppet→Ditto. That editor adding the reports shows up on AN/I a lot.

Soo, 22/38 is about 2/3rds. Not too shabby. Protonk (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem in being proactive about shutting down non "admin intervention needed immediately for problem that doesn't fit SPI/AN3/AIV" threads and directing users to various other noticeboards, so long as we do it consistently, clearly and helpfully. This means we can't just say "An3 is ← that way" (I've been guilty of that) and we can't just fix their problem in record time then say "Well, if you really wanted your problem fixed, you should have gone to ABC noticeboard" (Guilty as charged for that, too). We, that is the editors who lurk on AN/X, should spend more time on the other noticeboards. Complaints answered there work doubly. They remove the complaint (duh), but they also remove the implicit incentive for editors who are party to the complaint to bring something like it to AN/I next time. The faster and more completely a problem gets resolved on those 'other' noticeboards, the less crazy AN/I will be. Another thing that will dramatically reduce the influx of AN/I threads on non-emergent issues is to sit down and really give some teeth to WQA and RfC. right now the former is worthless unless someone is going to be chastened by a 'stern warning' and the latter serves little purpose (in most cases) except to show to Arbcom that all steps in DR have been taken. Those need to get fixed. That will help stem this tide of dramahz. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You talked me into it. I just added WP:RFP to my watch list, and I've already taken care of one item there. Looks like it's a lower drahhhhma area, too. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that AN/I would be the appropriate place to go with editors' behaviorial problems which extend past the boundaries of other boards, i.e. the problematic editor who's uncivil, edit-wars (or close to it), is disruptive or tendenitious, etc. Each of the behaviors might not be significant enought to get a strong response on an individual board, but together they indicate a problem editor who should be dealt with in some way. Isn't that something that should be reported on AN/I? (And aren't those editors exactly the kind who stir up drama?) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI is a mess because it deals with disruptive editors who don't want to be blocked, and frequently think that the best way to avoid a block is by continuing their disruptive behavior there. As we can't get rid of disruptive editors (sadly!) all abolishing ANI would achieve is to move the same disputes into boards where there's potentially less oversight. Nick-D (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving toward a consensus

So, do we have at least some general agreement that we should begin to start pushing people toward more appropriate forums when they post to WP:AN/I and it belongs elsewhere? I propose putting Template:Noticeboard key in the editnotice of WP:AN/I and possibly on the page itself and then getting serious about enforcement. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to enforce this we need to make sure we do it in a non-bitey manner. Don't simply shut down threads that aren't appropriate. Copy them over to the correct board and let the person who made the thread know. Furthermore, we need to be ready to move the complicated cross-situation ones back over to ANI if it is necessary. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Joshua and to take it further, admins need to pay more attention to these othere areas as well. I've encountered things posted at different areas that are there for hours, a couple even there for a couple of days. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think some handy ?action=watch links in the editnotice would do the trick. And I agree that we need to do this in a user-friendly manner. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well...I think you have consensus to do what should have always been practice: move non-emergent disputes from AN/I to the appropriate fora. In order to do something more I would want to know that the targeted boards can handle the change. Because if they can't, we are right back where we started. Will SPI push DUCK cases back to AN or AN/I? Will AN3 push "edit warring but not 3rr" cases back to AN/I? Does the spam noticeboard get sufficient attention from admins willing to mete out blocks for persistent spammers? Also, is this universally a good idea? We may think it is (here on AN), but I bet one of the reason people like it as AIV is that they can just dismiss reports that don't fit a specific rubric. Same with (well, it used to be) AN3. RFCU used to (a while ago) be that way. There may be some merit in specialization and systematization. Protonk (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping any section headers and leaving a "Discussion moved to: Foo" note. And then we just need to encourage people to watch the boards that interest them. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving posts to more appropriate boards would probably work, if those boards were actually watched. The few times I've posted on more appropriate boards, and it's been ages, my posts have been ignored. Completely ignored. Which is a lot nicer than some bored and immature administrator stopping by AN/I for a closing pot shot. So, yes, even though no one here considered that the vast majority of those editing Wikipedia wish all the bureaucracy would simply die off and have no idea of all these other boards and stuff because it is impossible to find anything on Wikipedia outside of articles (and there's a user currently trying to fix that issue) it might work to simply forward posts to the appropriate boards. It's a simpler idea than creating a new level of surveying, and hiding where most newcomers might think to come behind a frustrating voice mail board.

Of course, moving posts would have to be done with a simple and polite message, and that seems almost impossible at AN/I (mostly due, again, to immature administrator cheap shots). But, yes, I think this would probably work.

Oh, and all discussions discussing the drama consumers (those two or three editors that consume over 30K every time someone mentions them at AN/I) should have a special drama board. It could be called something nice like, "Repeated issues," to make it seem like it's not the drama board. In fact, just doing this, making a large volume repeated drama board might make the whole of AN/I more civil by giving those craving the drama a creative space, and probably the asshole drive-by cheap-shot administrators and editors would be more attracted to that board--maybe.

By the way, the Burris BLP issue was taken care of in the easiest way possible: other editors started watching and editing the article. However, last time I suggested an issue had been assisted at AN/I I got personally attacked by a couple of cheap-shot, drive-by, administrators, so the issue must stay on AN/I even though it has been dealt with. God forbid a mere editor would be allowed to say an issue they raised had been dealt with when there were a couple of little kids with mops looking to have some malicious fun. Yup, board forwarding sounds like it could work. --KP Botany (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

NB that the "Burris BLP" issue, which wasn't really an issue since there was no BLP violation, was resolved by you leaving a talk-page comment, and the other editor on the page immediately agreeing with your proposed addition of a 1996 factoid to the article. It wasn't even appropriate for BLPN, much less ANI, and it was only because you didn't AGF that you felt the need to go complain. THF (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Wow, looks like you folks might be serious about this. One observation I'd like to make, and perhaps I missed it in skimming through everything since my last comment, but I think there would need to be one or two guidelines. What comes to mind, and forgive me if I missed this in the "quick skim", but 1.) The editor (or admin) who closes the thread at AN|AN/I should be required encouraged to ensure that a thread has been started at the appropriate board, (as well as a link provided to said new thread in the closing) and 2.)(optionally) make sure that involved parties are notified of the new board/thread on their talk pages. — Ched (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC) ... and in line with MZM, let's hope that foobar doesn't end up FUBAR (sorry, I just had to add that) .. ;) — Ched (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC?

Anyone else think we should initate a RfC on this to involve the wider community? If we do, I suggest we should add a notice to the watchlist page. D.M.N. (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like overkill to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, its not like we're changing a policy or anything. Its especially overkill if we're just going to be more proactive in moving threads to more appropriate boards, which is really something we should already be doing. Mr.Z-man 17:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Just be more aggresive in moving posts to the correct pages.--Patton^t/c 19:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If the original complainants goal is to encourage vandals and discourage regular editors, this would certainly be a good step in that direction. Too often we hear an admin say, "This is the not the place to post that complaint." WRONG ANSWER. The right answer is, "Oh, that's a problem, I'll fix it." This kind of splintering (which is already too much) does nothing except encourage lazy admins to give an answer that equates to what Freddie Prinz's landlord character used to say: "Eet's not my job, mon." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed fully. WP ought by its own history be antithetical to bureaucracies and creation of dozens of "proper places for discussion of that problem", and supportive of individuals actually acting responsibly on any problems which they see. Collect (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. We try to do that, but what happens is a siphoning of interest from specialty boards to the general boards. Why go through the bother of reporting someone at AN3 when I can just make an AN/I report? Every time we take one of these wrongly placed queries and fix it instead of moving it we send an implicit signal: "Don't go to the other boards, come here." We don't want to do that. We want (presumably) SPI/AN3/AIV/UAA/etc to work. We want the various content noticeboards to be fruitful places of discussion. We don't want every issue coming to AN/I. In order to do that, we need to give people an incentive to go to those boards. Does that mean that we say "wrong queue, I'm not helping you"? Of course not. We say "I'll move your request or tell you how to move it, then someone will help you there." That is the right answer. I appreciate the anti-bureaucratic argument that we shouldn't have "proper" places for discussion but I submit that ship has sailed. we have those noticeboards. Some of them work rather well. They benefit from specialist attention and lack the drama-rama of AN and AN/I. So part of what we do should support that. Protonk (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

To echo the point, I personally don't much care for drama. Accordingly, I seldom post to AN/I, and don't watch it regularly. However, I do watch, and participate, in some of the other noticeboards - AIV if I notice a backlog, RFPP, BLP/N, etc. To the extent that appropriate cases are moved to the appropriate venues, you'll get a different subset of admins who have chosen to deal with those issues. As long as others pitch in, there no reason that over time that processes like WP:RS/N couldn't take hold just as firmly. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV is an excellent example of the way to do things. It doesn't require the tedious construction necessary to post at the 3RR page, for example, which requires you to have two screens open at once to repeatedly go back-and-forward to find and post stuff that's already visible in the history. AIV simply says, "Here's a problem - fix it." AIV should be the model for the way to deal with issues. It's shortcoming is that it's too restrictive. If the complainant were to post a sentence or two explaining the issue (3RR, POV-pushing, etc.) then you could use AIV as the one-stop shop for most all disruption, and then you wouldn't need WP:ANI anymore. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I should point out another problem with the notion of splintering ANI further, and that is forum shopping. If a user doesn't like the answer you get in one place, he takes it to another place. Well, if there's a one-stop shop, by definition there will be no forum shopping going on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

10 reliable sources vs. "no way that is true"

Resolved

 – A content dispute, now resolved.

In the article Marysville, Victoria there are a couple of users trying to remove the well sourced report that the town has unfortunately been completely destroyed in fire, because they believe that journalists are exaggerating. This is not a content dispute - we have a few Wikipedia users on one side (I already gave one warning for blatant content removal) and reports of the several well established and reliable media like The Australian, Sky News Australia, the Geelong Advertiser, Brisbane Times, The Courier-Mail, ABC News etc. on the other side. Please remind these people of WP:SOURCE and WP:OR policies.--Avala (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Although we should give credence to sources, we should also be aware that newspapers may exaggerate these things. The present wording, "According to reports almost all buildings were destroyed." seems good. If all buildings were destroyed, then the word almost could be removed. But the current text seems to agree with a neutral reading of the sources provided. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is the latest video as the last resort for those who don't believe the written word. Anyway I tried rewording. Hopefully no one removes it now.--Avala (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

From personal reports from friends, apparently it really is that bad, entire small towns are gone. The press actually don't have to exaggerate on this story - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Avala, the problem was your insistence that the town be labeled entirely in the past tense; no one is questioning that most of the town was destroyed by the bushfire. We had this argument with Greensburg, Kansas as well as with New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, where in both cases groups of users insisted on beginning the article with "... was a city ...". Towns continue to exist as legal entities even if every structure is destroyed; please see the talk page, where we are explaining it to you. Your rewording is an improvement. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it is a tragedy. Now the sources actually cited were sufficient close to the topic at hand that they either hedged their own wording ("Virtually the entire township of Marysville in Victoria has been destroyed by bushfires.") or simply used direct quotes from distressed residents. The present revision of the article has the "thou doth protest too much" syndrome: [7]. In terms of encyclopedic accuracy, I would much rather see a well-sourced "almost" than a poorly-sourced "entirely". It comes across as POV. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RECENT provides some useful advice on dealing with immediate events like this. As this is essentially a content dispute, it should continue at Talk:Marysville, Victoria rather than here. Also, vandalism templates are not helpful during content disputes.[8] Euryalus (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I really like the "I already gave one warning for blatant content removal" bit. What that means is "I just gratuitously {{uw-delete2}}-templated the user talk page of an experienced editor (and administrator) who has never made a bad faith edit." If there is any event in this relatively benign content dispute that warrants further scrutiny by administrators, that was it. Hesperian 01:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just templating an experienced editor is not an issue that requires administrators' intervention unless the user continues this disruptive behavior. As Euryalus said, this is an issue that needs to be settled at relevant talk pages. ^LeaveSleaves 02:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Hesperian 02:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I am going to issue a warning to someone who made an edit that consisted only of removing 10 references and nothing else. If he wants to be constructive he would reword, try to do something. Removing references is none of the actions I would ever consider benign. It doesn't mean I was looking to get them blocked or anything, I just wanted their attention so they would know that they made a mistake and hopefully in the future they will make constructive rather than destructive edits. Anyway the latest edit seems to be fine with everyone so I guess you can check this as solved.--Avala (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Euryalus (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lex Luthor (no, not the one in the comics)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive512 § The Lex Luthor of Wikipedia

I have just received this email:

[redacted] by //roux   03:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

-- This e-mail was sent by user "An Argento Fan" on the English Wikipedia to user "DuncanHill". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

Make of it what you will. DuncanHill (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in contact with Manhattan Samurai also. I don't get the impression at the moment that he's terribly sorry. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Return? Hell no. MS proved several times he was only here to stir up drama; give him an inch and he'll take a mile. Also redacted the email text (feel free to put in a summary) per som ArbCom decision for which I do not have the link. //roux   03:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A bloody ridiculous ArbCom decision if you ask me, but I won't revert you over it! DuncanHill (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I told him that if he wants to come back he should spend some time editing another project productively. I'd be perfectly willing to let him back in say three months if he doesn't sock during that time and is a productive editor elsewhere. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

DuncanHill (or anyone else with email contact), could you ask this user for their permission to quote this email on Wikipedia so that it can be unredacted, in order that the community can evaluate it. They dont need to give their permission; if they dont, it can be summarised. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC) p.s. a Committee member also received an email from "An Argento Fan" (possibly the same email) but if the community wants to evaluate it, that would at least save the committee some time digging up the history, and we can go back to drinking pina colada on the beach.

He gave me permission to publish. I'm not sure that's sufficient since the email was sent to Duncan not me (am I just being anal?). If it is then I'll just stick it here. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a notice on both my talk page and my userpage saying that I may publish any emails sent to me through Wikipedia. I am reluctant to reply to him directly, as I am not entirely confident about letting him have my email addy. DuncanHill (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, here is a summary:

He wants to apologize to the community for "Lex Luthor" malarky, and to open talks with the community to apologize for other things. He says he has been "an intellectual pretzel", sometimes making excellent contributions and sometimes being disruptive. He wishes to make amends. He proposes starting a discussion, with the aim of returning as User:BillDeanCarter.

It's hard to summarize something very short. DuncanHill (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He sent me the full text with permission to put it here. So:

I would like to apologize to the community for the "Lex Luthor" disruption and to open up talks with the community to apologize for my other actions. I have been an intellectual pretzel, making excellent contributions on the one hand and then being quite disruptive on the other hand. I would like to make amends for that. I propose that we begin a discussion and that we discuss my return under the account User:BillDeanCarter.

For what it is worth, I think he is sincere. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is he BillDeanCarter though? DuncanHill (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. He claims that a checkuser will confirm that he is. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why he chose me to email - I do have a kindly face apparently, but am not particularly familiar with him or the problem. DuncanHill (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this, but I'm no neutral party. If this is even considered, then he'd have to agree to a total topic ban, indefinite, to anything related to Gonzo Journalism OR Alan Cabal. It's pretty clear to me from his many comments on the topic that there's a conflict of interest there. I have a lengthier hypothesis on the matter, but won't go into excess detail without being asked, but the phrase 'Gonzo Journalism from the inside out' would be the nut of it. ThuranX (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question asked me to make the following statement. I presume in response to Thuranx's comment here:

"I would like to extend my apologies to ThuranX and Arcayne for the funny business I performed last month and any trouble it may have caused. I was just being silly and did not intend to be malicious in any way. My actions were simply to annoy in a playful way rather than damage your reputations."

Make of that what you will. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support a return (as the neutral outsider that I am) on the conditions that:

• He edits productively on another WM project for 3 months
• CU on that project confirms he has not socked
• He is topicbanned from Gonzo Journalism and the related articles

• Any violation of the third condition will result in him being reblocked; obviously if he screws up the first two he wont be unblocked in the first place.

Any takers? Ironholds (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - nope. It all looks rather self-serving to me; I suspect that the whack-a-mole has been nuking his socks faster than he can establish them and he's getting put out. He can come back in a year, maybe. //roux   12:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I supported the last unblock and even tried to work w/ him over email to craft an appropriate condition for unblock. A lot of people spent time and effort to help him work on "his" article (almost always a mistake, IMO...but one I made as well). When he went back to trolling/etc. he brushed aside all of that work and spoiled any good faith that may have been built up. Protonk (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose We've given him two second chances, he failed both of them and the 2nd time declared a personal vendetta against wikipedia..in this case third time's not the charm. Elbutler (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Resolved

 – This isn't a pressing matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could tell me how tall the average administrator really is? Please let me know?? South Bay (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

About the same as Napoleon. DuncanHill (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was 1.86 m. MER-C 05:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm trying to see how to alter that to get a standard distribution. My initial thought was to take a bunch of rands and average them to get a close to standard distribution. But the rand template automatically picks the same random number whenever it is called on a single page load so that doesn't work. Incidentally, actual admin issue, there's a typo on the template documentation. "Invokation" should be "invocation." Hmm, looking at it the typo occurs repeatedly. Is invokation a different (correct) term? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Josh, please don't go messing with rands, we get enough trouble with them already! DuncanHill (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So how would you objectively choose a random a number? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The same user had asked, on Feb 1, what the average age of an admin is. The answer to both questions is as follows: The admins are ALL of average height, weight, and age. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Got my curiousity aroused -- "invokation" is the Swedish spelling -- for some reason it is a real common English misspelling as well. The "k" use is found a lot -- WP has an article on Autarky though "autarchy" is more logical on its etymology. As for height, Abe Lincoln was asked by a child whether his legs were extraordinarily long. Reply: They are exactly the right length to reach the ground. Collect (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on User:Fragments of Jade

I propose a community ban on Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs) and any sock thereof per the extreme disruption and sockpuppetry—see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/67.163.193.239, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/67.163.193.239/Archive, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Checkuser abuse, and related other sockpuppet cases. Editor is engaging in abusive sockpuppetry to harass and attack other users as well as to blatantly disrupt the encyclopedia. Thank you, MuZemike 08:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban, although it seems a tad pointless; an indef block, and any socks that turn up will be indefed as socks. I guess this is just making a more formal "whatever you turn up as you are not welcome" statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironholds (talk • contribs)
• Yep, what Ironholds said. I've only seen one of the socks, but that was sufficient for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. MER-C 12:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yeh. No-brainer. //roux   12:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This degree of abusive sockpuppetry on an ongoing basis is unacceptable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of sourced information

Can someone please take a look at Slavica Ecclestone article. A bunch of an. users and (I suspect) sockpuppets keep removing information backed up by several sources and replacing them with information backed up with one source only. This is obviously a case of nationalist POV and I can't find this person alone. Surtsicna (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You've gone into WP:3RR territory there, but I'll accept that the exclusion clause for vandalism applies here. They have been warned to take it to the talk page; slap a final/only warning and if they don't pay attention then someone can block them. Until then I'll hang around the page history with rollback at the ready. Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Screw that actually; avast, there be socks on the high seas! User:LukaKarabatic and User:MiraSkoric appear to be quacking from the same hymn sheet; support immediate block for socking, POV-pushing and edit warring. Ironholds (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

..And screw that, I'm an idiot. multiple sources seem to confirm she was born in the now-Croation region. Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr robert bell

Resolved

 – copyright problem addressed; other issues exist, but not such that admin intervention seems currently necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone could have a look at this page, it's at least a partial copyvio of [9] and [10] and the way it was created with a maintenance tag from September makes me think that it's either copied from somewhere or a repost of something deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange. I'll see what I can puzzle out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged the copyvio and listed it at WP:CP, with notice to the contributor. My guess at this point is that the contributor was using another page as the template for this article and didn't notice or understand the maintenance tag markings at the top, not that it's a repost. I see nothing in the logs of this or related names, and the source shows that the template used is "infobox premier." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Hit list" accusation from User:CadenS

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved. while keeping a list of user edits and actions may not be the most tactful way to observe edits, no policy is being broken. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Please see this thread on my user talk page: User_talk:SheffieldSteel#Hit_List.3F. CadenS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) In a nutshell, CadenS accuses me of maintaining a hit list of editors. I have a user sub-page containing a list of editors I have been monitoring. In the absence of any kind of "editor watchlist" provided by the mediawiki software, this is the best way I could think of to conveniently check the contribs of multiple editors. This page was not linked from anywhere on-wiki until CadenS found it, presumably from looking at my contribs. He has posted to the talk page of every editor on the list, and has demanded that I resign the tools. I can see several possible solutions to this. I'd like feedback from other editors about which might be best. Keep the page as-is, ignoring CadenS. Add a disclaimer to the top of the page, saying e.g. "This page is a list of editors this admin is monitoring, and is not intended as an attack on them or any kind of public statement about their actions." (done) Remove all annotations and comments from the list. Move the list onto a piece of paper, delete the page, and type in the user names by hand in future. Open a user conduct RfC on myself with a view to resigning the tools. (I am not interested in speculating as to CadenS's motivation for this, and I'd appreciate it if the discussion wasn't distracted by that.) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC) I'd consider the source, personally. Take option 2, let CadenS calm down from this latest outburst, move on. //roux   14:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Defintly 3 at least. You can't list perceived greviences on a user subpage unless dipute resolution is forthcoming. Not sure if there is anything against a list of names, but if you removed annotations and put a describer at the top, that should be fine. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC) 6. Use the Bookmarks/Favourites list of your browser to keep this off wiki. –xeno (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Or copy the list into Microsoft Word or something similar. That would preserve the hyperlinks and comments while keeping it off wiki. Hermione1980 14:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Keep as is (option 1). CadenS is under community editing restrictions. Someone, somewhere has to keep a note about that and actually monitor them, or the restrictions are meaningless. Personally, I keep my editors' watchlist as a mix of watching their talk pages and paper notes - your way is better and more transparent, not less, and all editors listed have a reason to be on the page. It's not like Kelly Martin's B Ark list of many moons ago. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 14:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Option Z: Move it to a google doc, forget about the accusations. Still copy/paste, still accessible anywhere. No drama. If you have editors you keep tabs on for various reasons, it is almost always better to leave it off wiki (IMO). that doesn't mean leaving it on-wiki is wrong, just that it evidently causes people to endure cruel, cruel butthurt. The wiki pays a price in openness, but we can blame those who would complain about lists more than the list makers. Protonk (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Support any move off-wiki. An RfC isn't necessary. Ironholds (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Well, I'm not an admin, hell - I'm not even sure I'm past my trial period yet, but given that it would be easy to just pick File..Save as, and save an html file to your HD - (or any of the other options above), I don't see what the problem is. I would personally probably go with the advise of the other admins just to save the drama - but you don't have to justify yourself to anyone. — Ched (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Comment. Shef your inappropriate list is linked on-wiki, that's how I found it. In the toolbox on my page there is "what links here", and when you click on that you will see that my name is linked to what I see as your personal hit list (of editors you clearly dislike). I contacted the others on your list because they had a right to know what you are doing. I do not believe your claims of "monitoring". Your annotations and comments from the list reveal that you have what looks exactly as a personal hit list and nothing more. As I've said before, do the right thing and resign. My other suggestion to you is to open a user conduct RfC on yourself. However, I'd prefer you resign instead. Caden S (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sure you would. You might imagine that we would take your recommendations with more than a grain of salt. Can you explain what policies/guidelines Shef is violating that warrant desysopping? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I find this to be utter nonsense; there's nothing there that isn't already available on-wiki, it's just collected in one place for administrative convenience. I'm sure I'm on many lists, but that doesn't bother me in the slightest. Some mature perspective please. --Rodhullandemu 21:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC) (ec)Comment - no misuse of the admin tools, no incivility, no breach of any applicable guideline or policy (as far as I am aware) - in fact, nothing more than a page of notes. An RfC would be unwarranted and a waste of everyone's time, and calls for resignation are, frankly, ridiculous. And people wonder why WP:AN and the associated boards get clogged up with dramahz...GbT/c 21:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Option -C- relabel the list "My bestest friends" and get on with life. Seriously, keep it as is. How else should you keep track of folks you want to keep an eye on? To me, its a bit like telling a parole officer not to write down your address. Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you everyone for your input. On reflection, I have decided to move the page into "admin-only space" in the interest of avoiding further drahma. This reduces the convenience to me - and the transparency to non-admin users - but on balance that seems to be the best course of action. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC) The best course of action is for you to give up the tools. You've abused your postion as a admin with your "list". Moving your hit list to admin-only space does not solve a thing. You're still going to be stalking our every move, watching and waiting and adding other innocent editors to that list. That's wrong. Caden S (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC) This is not stalking, unless I am a banana. Disruption, however, is blockable. --Rodhullandemu 22:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC) As I told Caden last night on his page, I see nothing wrong with this. I've kept a similar page on some editors in my user space before. When you have to fill out a 3RR or edit war report on someone, it takes quite a while to dig up all the diffs. As it is now, when I find someone I'm pretty sure isn't going to be following policy, I just sandbox the diffs until I need them. If I don't need them, even better. Caden, you just seem upset that you've been blocked in the past and other editors remember that. If you go back to being productive, nothing will ever come of this. It's not a big deal. Dayewalker (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC) I actually have a problem with this. Why exactly are you letting a disruptive user bully you? Add to it that this won't end the drama, he'll just think you're stalking him behind the 'admin curtain'. I think he should suck it up, do his time (oh the pain of not being able to edit about 1% of wikipedia) , and stop the nonsense. Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Guyonthesubway, please try to remain civil and avoid making personal attacks such as calling me a "bully", a "distruptive user" or referring to my objection to the list as "nonsense". This type of behavior is not helpful. Also, please do not make allegations of me accusing Shef of stalking me. I'm doing no such thing and if you read my talk page you will see that this issue over the list is over. Furthermore, your remarks that I "should suck it up, do his time" etc is again incivil and not helpful to this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CadenS (talk • contribs) 22:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Please remember to warn yourself on civility for the various comments you've made regarding 'hit lists' 'vandalism', and for not assuming good faith on the whole matter of the list. thanks. Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Once again, I ask that you remain civil. You are assuming bad faith again in regards to my objection to the list. Please read my explanation above in reply to Shef or see the reply I gave to him on my talk page. ← Guyonthesubway, drop the stick and back away from the horse. CadenS, behave yourself. In other words, drop it, both of you. //roux   23:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

When userfying, Leave a redirect behind, and then delete it

Just a note that it's probably a best practice when userfy'ing something to "Leave a redirect behind" and then delete it afterwards, rather than suppressing the redirect. Otherwise, it will be impossible for a future individual to find out just where the userfy'd article has gone. –xeno (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See bugzilla:16950. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. While we wait for that to be fixed, we should follow the above suggested practice. –xeno (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Or just put a link to the userfied page on the user's user page? – ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't help. The problem is that if someone comes along one day looking for the article they wouldn't know where it went because moving without leaving a redirect presently leaves no trace other than the move log. –xeno (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No action taken by TravisTX, admin?

Resolved

 – User:Jpaoewfjewf blocked due to suspicious noises. —Travis^talk 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASandbox&diff=269569344&oldid=269569039 Mudlogger56's edit: "Go and get stood on ya queer bastard" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpaoewfjewf (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably because it's a sandbox? –xeno (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. See if I get banned anytime soon. Jpaoewfjewf (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't block people for a single edit such as that, especially since it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, as well as being in the sandbox. Not to mention that mudloggers only other edit was a positive one--Jac16888^Talk 17:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it may have been aimed at the user who kept adding over 500K of nonsense to the sandbox, who I eventually had to block. Even in that case, I'm not inclined to do anything about it at this time. If you feel differently, the correct noticeboard is over there. —Travis^talk 18:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I'm not aware of anyone ever being sanctioned for not taking action on something. — CharlotteWebb 18:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...the more I look at Jpaoewfjewf (talk · contribs), the more I think it is the same person as the one I blocked, Tiorutoiwerueoi (talk · contribs). Jpaoewfjewf was created one minute after Tiorutoiwerueoi was blocked. They both added a ton of garbage to their usertalk pages (and elsewhere, in Tiorutoiwerueoi's case). Both usernames are seemingly random collections of letters. And, Jpaoewfjewf's entire editing history is in response to a remark allegedly made toward Tiorutoiwerueoi. —Travis^talk 18:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask that a close eye is kept on User:Mudlogger56 from now on? I don't think that such a first edit bodes at all well, whether in the sandbox or anywhere else. DuncanHill (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing's stopping you from doing exactly that, and reporting anything actionable. We can all keep eyes on folks as often as we feel like reloading Special:contributions. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Class project? Heads up.

Hey, I need to log off but I just came across this - User talk:Pmedward - looks like a class project. I'm sure there's a page with guidance about these somewhere, but I can't find it. Could someone welcome them and keep an eye out for any problems? Thanks. the wub "?!" 20:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Wikipedia:School and university projects? Pagrashtak 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Slbs

Resolved

 – And the link turns red..._Gb^T/c 20:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a joke or hoax article that merits a speedy. --Túrelio (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. _Gb^T/c 20:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

French people - Need page history restored.

Resolved

Someone archived the talk page of French people by moving the talk page to a subpage, which erased the history of said talk page. "Current" (2009) discussions were also removed in the process, I can put those back in, but I can't restore the page history, so I could use admin assistance here. Equendil Talk 22:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the history back and manually archived everything to Archive 3, feel free to manually move back out any threads you feel are still salient. –xeno (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just realized WP:ARCHIVE actually suggests moving pages for archiving as one possible method, seems highly unorthodox to me though. Anyway, thanks for the help, I'll reinsert a couple sections. Equendil Talk 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - I tried my best to write a strong discouragement of that, but someone rewrote it to its current version. See Help talk:Archiving a talk page#Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving for more on this. –xeno (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I see ... you can count me as being stronly against page moves for archiving. Thanks again. Equendil Talk 23:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh and you beat me to User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso's talk page hehe. Equendil Talk 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing autoblocks after unblocking users

Yesterday, I know of at least two admins who unblocked people and forgot to remove the autoblock. I have seen this happen many times in the past as well. Would anyone object if I add a note to MediaWiki:Unblocked to remind people to remove the autoblock? I was thinking of something like:

If you just unblocked a user account, please remember to remove any autoblocks in place on the account.

Thoughts? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Might also want to add "by searching looking through Special:IPBlocklist for the username". –xeno (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, searching by the username doesn't return the autoblocks. I looked at the Special page, and found about 500 blocks ago this block and autoblock:

1. 19:18, 9 February 2009, PMDrive1061 (Talk | contribs) blocked #1311350 (expires 19:18, 10 February 2009, account creation blocked) (Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "BigNigs". The reason given for BigNigs's block is: "{{UsernameHardBlocked}}".)
2. 19:16, 9 February 2009, PMDrive1061 (Talk | contribs) blocked BigNigs (Talk | contribs) (no expiry set, account creation blocked) ({{UsernameHardBlocked}})

But the search result [11] contains only the original block, not the autoblock. So a searching admin can't even find the autoblock to remove. I certainly don't know of a way of finding the autoblocks to remove other than asking the affected user to trigger them and report which autoblocks are in the way. GRBerry 16:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant the old-fashioned Ctrl-F method. –xeno (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This tool can be used to find any autoblocks still in place against any given user. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, that tool should be linked in most of the unblock templates out there....hmmm....one sec. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Added a note to {{Request accepted}}. Will at least make a handy link to click there once the unblock template has been tl'd. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Eyes needed on DRV please

I believe the issues surrounding TurnKey Linux have been mentioned here (maybe on ANI) previously; there's another DRV underway (the first one was closed when the nominator and page creator, one of the developers of the software in question, withdrew it), that could definitely use some more eyes. I'm going to try and not go back there, because now I'm just flat out pissed off after having my integrity impugned by said page creator, but I can't guarantee it as the responses to anyone who feels the deletion was in order have been maddening at best and if I'm attacked further I'm likely to respond. (It takes a lot to piss me off. Insulting my integrity is a guaranteed escalation to DEFCON 1.) Additional opinions on the whole matter would be greatly appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom Lennox

This doesn't belong at AIV because it's not persistent, and it doesn't belong at Wikiquette, since it's way past that. Tom Lennox has gotten absurd with personal attacks and some minor vandalism. Here are some diffs: [12] [13] [14] [15]

Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you check his talk page note that he received a block about an hour ago.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well crap, all that typing for nothing. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear

Resolved

 – Speedied under A7 and A3. Horologium (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This "article" doesn't seem to fulfil the Wikipedia standards.--Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:Deletion process for information on how to properly bring articles such as these to administrator attention. –xeno (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's gone. Horologium (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for splitting hairs, but I don't think A7 can be applied to a phrase... A3 didn't apply either. G4 I think would've been best (prior AFD). –xeno (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a G4 candidate, as the old (deleted) article had nothing to do with the new article. It was a vanity article, complete with a photo of the "co-founder of the "Oh Dear" catchphrase and subculture." It was nonsense, something made up one day in school. I don't have a problem if you want to undelete it and send it to AFD. Horologium (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I'm fine with an IAR deletion, but I guess what I was driving as is that it's better to mark it as such rather than shoehorn it into a non-fitting criteria. –xeno (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• N.B. I re-created it as a wikt redirect. –xeno (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Block notices on IP user pages

Resolved

 – No admin action required.

It is frustrating not being able to get an answer.

• No reply to my post at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, it just got delete by a bot with a notice in the edit summary of who placed the block,
• no reply to my post at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User_page_block_notices
• No reply at the admin page User_talk:J.delanoy#Blocking_IP_users

But it does at least seem that admin J.delanoy has changed his practice as is now posting notices on IP users pages were in the past he had not, and least the pages I checked some of which I am posting here

• User talk:85.102.249.255 this page still does not have any notice about the block that was added
• User talk:71.43.248.99 - this user was blocked by an different admin but no notice was or is posted.

So is it policy to only slectively post blocking notices on IP user pages? Sounds like a very bad policy to me as another user coming in on that same IP would have no idea when the block will expire and may have no idea what or where a block log is. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The second one did have a notice, look up the page a little bit. For my part, I usually leave a block notice except in the case where it's an IP hopping vandal who has a brand new fresh red linked talk page and I've duck blocked before they got any warnings. In this case it's always a rather short block. –xeno (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If a new user comes in on that IP, they will still see the standard block message when they try to edit, which will give details of the block, its expiry, and the blocking admin. (Mediawiki:Blockedtext). Black Kite 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about the displayed block notice when attempting to edit. But it still does not address the policy question. Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK#Explanation on blocking - blocked templates are not mandatory. —Travis^talk 22:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you actually reviewed my contributions for more than 2 or 3 days, you will see that I almost always leave a block notice. I have not changed my practice at all in the last few days. Please do at least a tiny bit of research before making accusations. Why is that so hard? Also, take note of the lengths of many of the blocks for which I did not leave a notice. In general, if I implement a block longer than a couple of weeks, I do not leave a block notice, since there is no reasonable chance that someone would visit their user talk page a month later before attempting to edit a page and finding out that they were blocked. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it's still important to leave a block notice even for long blocks as it's an easily viewable record of the history of the user/IP. –xeno (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this, and try to practice it 100% of the time myself. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That may have been because your policy question was unclear. I couldn't tell from your post what your question was about, just that it had something to do with J. Delanoy and blocks and that you had asked it elsewhere. Might I suggest that you provide a simple, concise explanation of the problem, your question, and the desired solution so that those of us reading these threads can contribute productively. As for the seemingly implied question, I feel strongly that block messages are entirely optional. Where there is a long term editor being blocked or where an IP editor is being blocked for something other than vandalism, a block message should be written out (not templated). Otherwise, one may leave a templated message or no message at all. The information in the block log as well as the existence of the block itself should be abundantly clear to someone trying to edit when it shows up in the edit window. For longer term blocks (e.g. schoolblocks or blocks where the IP owner is expected to change), a block message is obviously very helpful. But in the case where the message itself is going to be read by the person receiving the block, it is a lot of duplicated work. Either way you look at it, no one is mandated to do it and no one will be "punished" for failing to do it. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if the question was unclear but it thought "So is it policy to only slectively post blocking notices on IP user pages? Sounds like a very bad policy to me as another user coming in on that same IP would have no idea when the block will expire and may have no idea what or where a block log is." was fairly clear, but apparently it was not. And as for J.delanoy I did review numerous entries, scanned the contribution list and edit summaries which for Feburary 10 included numerious "You have been temporarily blocked." and previous were no where near as apparent and the pages I did check where 3rd and 4th level warnings were posted I did check the block log and user talk page and more often than not there was no current block notice even though the block log showed a recent block and as noted above it involved more than just the one admin. But again, the basic question was what was the policy, which has now been answered. So thank you, even though I do disagree with the answer, it is just one more case I happen to disagree with Wikipedia policy as I believe only registered users should be able to edit. But lets not drift off on a tangent, as what I think and believe is not important. So thanks for clarifying the policy. So I guess the easy way for me is simply to stop bothering to revert vandalism and leave it to someone else as it is taking up way too much of my time anyway. Will just cut down my 3,500+ watch list to those article as personally consider important. By the way, it is frustrating when an admin ingores the post you make on his talk page, which is made clear by the fact that he has replied to a later post by another user, and had made countless edits hours after the post was made. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Boils down to: it's not as convenient for non-admins to check the block log history, so we should leave the notices for transparency and ease-of-reference. Jmho. –xeno (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So very true. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Help getting article posted.

Resolved

 – No admin action required.

This is all so confusing. Why can't I get my article uploaded. Can someone please help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyes1985 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Euryalus (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Without a specific problem description I can only makes guesses as to what trouble you are having. To create an article you must be logged in and have an account which is not blocked. To create an article you need to go to the Search Box and type in the article name you'd like to create, then click the edit button and create the page as if you were editing an existing one, once you are finished with your first edit click the "save" button, or you can click the "preview" button to see how the page will look. —Nn123645 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Vanishing & returning admins

Say an admin resigns, then invokes RTV and has his talk pages deleted. Later he returns, and becomes an admin again (no RfA). Should his talk pages be restored? DuncanHill (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RTV is dissolved when an editor returns. Their talk pages should be restored. It doesn't matter what user rights they have.   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

+1. New name or same name? –xeno (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Same name. DuncanHill (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Same answer though, was just curious. Should be restored. –xeno (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How could the admin get their `bit back if they used a different name? This is starting to sound like a plot hook in a conspiracy cabalist's pamphlet! --Kralizec! (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess by confidential email to a bureaucrat. It happens. Mostly so they can come back without the harassment that led them to vanish. Just look at how many admins have WP:Requests for adminship/TheirUserName as a redlink. –xeno (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some who have vanished and then returned under a different name, than got adminhood restored. I believe I am right in saying that blocks have been offered to editors connecting the old and the new usernames. There are of course also admins who have never had an RfA under any username, so just because you can't find an RfA doesn't mean they have vanished and returned. DuncanHill (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: I posted a similar inquiry at Wikipedia_talk:Right_to_vanish#Returning_RTVs. This should be covered in that guideline.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

An admin who vanishes and then returns should not be automatically made an admin again. The vanishing erases the editor's relationship to the community, and that's what adminship is (supposedly) all about, the trust of the community. A vanished and returned editor needs to re-establish that trust, and stand for RfA again, IMHO. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the answers, I have asked the one I noticed to restore his talk page history. DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Which he has done. Thanks to all. DuncanHill (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)