Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features

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

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

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

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

Current timestamp to prevent archiving by Cluebot. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Closures needed on citation-related discussions

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

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

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

Current timestamp to prevent archiving by Cluebot. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SFD

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

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

Would admins close the following SfD discussions:

1. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/6#Cricket-admin-stub - already handled
2. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Czech-*-stub templates - Needs action, see below
3. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Category:Northern Ireland election stubs/Template:NI-election-stub
4. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/18#Rail -> Rail transport- Needs action, see below
5. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/20#Retail companies- Needs action, see below
6. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/21#Template:US-transport-company-stub- Needs action, see below
7. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/28 - already handled
8. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/2 - already handled
9. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/6 - already handled
10. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Madagascar province categories - already handled
11. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Old German district categories - already handled
12. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/9#Several new English football stub types
13. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Ivory Coast sport templates
14. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Template:China-road-stub
15. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Category:Pakistan rail stubs
16. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/15#American football offensive lineman, pre-1900 birth stubs
17. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/16#'Pre-' category maintenance

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

Closed, but left unactioned as I didn't know what to do :3 Stop by my TP if you can tell me what specific action is needed. :) -- DQ (t) (e) 06:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Agathoclea (talk · contribs), Fastily (talk · contribs), and DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), for closing many of the discussions listed above. I've added several more SfDs, which have become overdue. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I did all the new categories and templates for the rail transport but found a few categories and templates that were not nominated at that I recorded at User:Agathoclea/AWB#strays Agathoclea (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals) closures needed

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Structure WP:WQA conversations and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove ability for new users to create other accounts? Both discussions were listed at Template:Centralized discussion and delisted to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive owing to inactivity. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), for closing the WQA RfC. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 10 October 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Another merger requires an uninvolved party

Merge proposal regarding "2005 Ahvaz unrest" requires the attention of an uninvolved administrator to close an outdated discussion. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Restored unresolved request from archive. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Being accused of sock/meat puppet with no solid evidence

When being accused, am I guilty and having to prove my innocence on Wikipedia? Or is it the other way around? Cause it sure feels like that here. I've done some research into an old group called Technocracy. It is pretty interesting to me, which is why I'm researching it still, but does that automatically portray me as a Meat or Sock puppet of someone else? I tried to meet middle ground on an edit war which occurred on the Technocracy Movement article. It was immediately reverted and I was accused of being a sock puppet and meat puppet of another user who was banned a few years ago. It also happened 7 months back when I was another user talk which you can see I expressed on my talk page....and from that user page you could find who I was when I didn't have an account. I think my edits were neutral and at the time seem non controversial. Until I kept on getting reverted and labeled a sock/meat puppet of the same user I mentioned earlier. I just want to know is this how wikipedia operates because it makes it very difficult to even contribute to something you seem lacking in encyclopedic material. That is why I started editing there. Because when I was researching the group and information related to Technocracy I found there was quite a bit of wrong information and even material that seemed very negative. Like calling the organization "fascistic" here [[1]]. I've even tried to talk about the issues on the talk board and still get zero responses from the editors who are reverting and accusing me. Googlesalot2 (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I also think it's weird how three editors are working in collusion against me. That seems like the strangest thing of all. I remember one editor named epipelagic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Epipelagic who came from nowhere last time and accused me of the same thing. He never edited on the articles before when I was in conflict with user Johnfos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnfos 7 or so months ago. Now another user Larwencekhoo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawrencekhoo is now putting a tag of sock puppetry on my account. My edits ARE NOT EVEN NEGATIVE, POSITIVE, OR CONTROVERSIAL and I'm being labeled a sock puppet!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googlesalot2 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your motives for editing here are the same as many of us: we Googled something that led us to WP and it was wrong, we realized we could influence that wrongness, and now we're here. But since Googlesalot (talk · contribs) is not blocked (and you admit this is also you), why would you feel the need to create Googlesalot2? You're probably not supposed to do that without an official name change. You explain on your page that it's because you like the number "2". That could sound like an odd reason to some people. Doc talk 07:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in the rules that says someone can't abandon an account and create a new one. People actually do that all the time. As long as the editor isn't evading a block/ban it should be fine. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've actually lost my password a long time ago and didn't really bother to try and get it back mainly because of how I was treated previously when I was User: Googlesalot. I choose my current name to establish who I was and because 2 is actually my lucky number. When I registered this account about a week ago I was going to edit an article but just gave up, again, because of how I was treated the first time I came here. A week later I saw an article on the wall street journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576572552998674340.html(discussing technocracy) and decided to check and see if the technocracy article was improved and low and behold, there was an edit war occurring. Googlesalot2 (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see what the editors who have been accusing you of sockpuppetry have to say, so I have notified them of this thread. 28bytes (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think some history is in order here. Some years ago we had two editors, acting in tandem, who strongly pushed a pro-technocracy POV on Wikipedia; the editors were Skipsievert (talk · contribs), who was indef blocked in November 2009 (see here) and AdenR (talk · contribs). In February 2011, we again had two pro-technocracy editors acting in tandem who engaged in disruptive POV pushing at Technocracy movement and Technocracy Incorporated; the editors were FidelDrumbo (talk · contribs) and Googlesalot (talk · contribs). And now we again have two pro-technocracy editors acting in tandem who have engaged in disruptive POV pushing at various Technocracy-related articles; the editors are FidelDrumbo (talk · contribs) and Googlesalot2 (talk · contribs). The pattern of editing is the same in each case, only the names are different. Johnfos (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

To read what Googlesalot2 has said above you would think that he is one of the best editors we have on WP, not a WP:SPA. G has said several times above that his edits are non-controversial, but that is far from the truth. Consider this edit. POV pushing is evident in that anything that may have portrayed the limitations of technocracy has simply been removed from the page. The statement that technocracy reached its peak in the early 1930s has been removed, and G generally portrays the technocracy movement as a vibrant going concern in 2011. Reliable sources have been removed. The edit summary does not adequately describe what has been done. As often happens, Googlesalot2, has directed any editors who disagree with what he has done to the Talk page; a better approach is to discuss controversial changes on the Talk page before they are made. Johnfos (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

To add to Johnfos's history, the background disruption extends well beyond technocracy articles into sustainability and economic areas. Lawrencekhoo (above) has experience with the disruption to economic articles. In the sustainability area, the massive disruption of Skipsievert and his later partnership with AdenR is apparent in these talk page archives. Skipsievert stymied progress on this particular article for over a year, co-opting AdenR as the pressure built. You can quickly get the flavour of this disruption by searching on Skipsievert in this archive. To get another perspective on just how destructive Skipsievert is to the project, here are some ANIs about him: [2][3][4][5] and here are some other postings to noticeboards: [6][7][8][9][10][11] As Johnfos points out above, FidelDrumbo/Googlesalot now operate on technocracy articles with the same MO as Skipsievert/AdenR. Skipsievert and FidelDrumbo both occasionally resort to IP edits when they want to do additional reverts, and the location of those IPs match. Googlesalot appears just in the nick of time when FidelDrumbo needs him, just as AdenR did, in a manner that cannot just be coincidence. That is why I referred to Googlesalot as a meatpuppet. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC) FidelDrumbo has just now reverted the Technocracy movement article back to his POV, with an edit comment typical of the way Skipsievert games the system. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't "tandem" edit or "POV" push. If I have, then by the same logic I can accuse you of the same thing. I've have talked on the talk pages and have actively tried to discuss issues on the talk pages. Lawrencekhoo, epipelagic, and you haven't done anything of the sort. You tandem edit with both editors in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Epipelagic and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawrencekhoo. You all revert to same disputed material. You even revert small edits when the wording of the material is changed to meet neutrality. Like this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technocracy_movement&diff=453158380&oldid=452957615.

I've already had a talk with user Johnphos on the administrator board when I was accused of being a sock puppet. [[12]] That should be looked into for some history as well. I Want to continue the conversation from the past noticeboard material as it has some relevance here. User epipelagic came out of no where and started accusing me. He edited on the Technocracy movement article for the first time (twice) [[13]] [[14]] and then accused me of being a sockpuppet in the same day. [[15]].

I honestly think these users are working together to obstruct progress on the technocracy articles. They obviously knew or where in contact with user:skip and now want to "get back" by POV pushing negative material in the Technocracy articles.

I want to thank Johphos for actually trying to discuss the issues on the technocracy article. Thank you. Why can't you do that on the talk page? Here's a the quote in question.

Technocracy's heyday lasted only from June 16, 1932, when the New York Times became the first influential press organ to report its activities, until January 13, 1933, when Scott, attempting to silence his critics, delivered a rambling, confusing, and uninspiring address on a well-publicized nationwide radio hookup

I think the quote is fine except for the second part which is a bit strange to have. I'm guessing it's okay to put on the article since it is quoted material...but I thought any quoted material can be deleted if it is disputed? I'd be fine if it was written more neutrally and not a direct quote. Googlesalot2 (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Johnphos has an ax to grind as to controlling some articles connected to that subject. I am not connected to any former parties mentioned, my account is not.

Apparently if anyone shows up on Wikipedia to edit the Technocracy related articles they have to put up with edit warring from Johnphos and his cohorts already mentioned by another editor here in a negative light as to their editing.

Looking at the history here it seems that Johphos does not like having a neutral presentation of the material on the Technocracy movement and the articles on the founding organization was repeatedly attempted by Johnphos to delete. The most notable group connected to Technocracy, he wanted to get rid of the article entirely. His arguments of those articles for deletion he created himself is telling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Technocracy_Incorporated ... it appears he is casting around for negative and non neutral edits on this subject.

Looking at another player who reverts and edit wars there is a pattern of making as negative of an article on this subject as is possible.

Calling an organization fascist that is still around or editing to imply fascism is not accurate. The actual group was against fascism http://www.archive.org/details/GreatLakesTechnocrat-JulyAugust1947 but that information by some source keeps returning that they were a fascist group somehow. It is libelous maybe to a currently running group or at least not accurate at all to present it that way, not neutral.

Simple things like saying 'demise' of something is reverted. Demise means death or of something being over, and as an historic organization from the 1930's that is still around again it is not accurate to say it demised itself in the 1930's but that is the edit that is being negatively done by Johnphos. Read this article by a government website about the current status of that group, scroll down to the Technocracy section in the social security government website, these are the kinds of links that Johnphos has taken off http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Johnphos does not seem to care on neutral editing this material, to have articles controlled by little groups that want to slant things negatively and then accuse of socks and puppets and so forth when challenged, instead of making talk page discussion.

Johnphos who claims to be retired mostly from editing is a constant watchdog of putting old and not accurate info back into this article and as said tried a couple of times to have other articles connected deleted and does not contribute on the talk page as the other two people he edits with also do not. Wikipedia is a joke in many ways when tiny editing parties try to control presentation and then claim those that differences are part of an editing plot. Mostly I have ignored his insults and accusations but was alerted on my talk page to come here.

Looking at the history of Lawrence Khoo on these articles also being mentioned as a tandem editor with Johnphos it seems that he is a mainstream economist in the real world who also is enforcing negative edits and possibly is disgruntled by differing information from his published points of view. That seems pretty wrong if true and a problem with experts that try to control info on en. Wikipedia seems like a bad wrinkle and a non neutral trap. In other words its a competing system from his views and he seems to regard it with disdain and negative not accurate edits. Fidel Drumbo 04:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

The three users are now trailing my edits and reverting for no good reasons. What am I supposed to do with this behavior? Is this even allowed? Can I just revert anyone on the assumption that I think they are tandem editors? Here [[16]] on the Technical Alliance article, user:Johnphos has reverted my edits that includes reliably sourced material and then accused me of being a sock puppet. Here's another revert done by user:Lawrencekhoo [[17]] who also calls me a sock puppet. They are obviously working together. Is this allowed on Wikipedia? Groups can work together and accuse other editors without even discussing the edits in question?Googlesalot2 (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think FD and G have gotten carried away with themselves, and that what has happened with the technocracy articles on WP is very sad. There are no doubt well-meaning people with a genuine interest in technocracy, and I respect that. And I wonder what they must think of what has gone on here. I wouldn’t be surprised if they think that the very acrimonious and public controversy which has been perpetuated here by just two editors is a terrible advertisement for the technocracy movement. Johnfos (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think what you and your other two friends have done is a terrible advertisement for Wikipedia in general. Also, what do opinions on the perception of the technocracy movement have anything to do with the issues brought up on this board? The issues are that you and your two Wikipedia friends User: Lawrencekhoo and User:epipelagic are accusing an editor(me) of sock puppetry on nothing but flimsy opinions. You revert my edits which should't be controversial, and if they are then you three should at least talk about the issues on the talk page or at least revert the edits you contend instead of the whole revert. I honestly can't understand how you can come on here and talk about what I have done on the wikipedia articles as "very sad" when you barely try to work on the issues you believe I've done. I've tried to meet middle ground when you were editing warring with user:Fideldrumbo by just fixing two edits I saw as bad encyclopedic material. Like the "fascist implications" and the "rambling, confusing radio address quote". I immediately get reverted by your friend user:epipelagic instead of discussing it on the talk page which I have ask you all to do. All I get from you three is no responses and you guys just revert my edits. I've even tried to talk to you and user epipelagic directly and you guys just ignore me or delete your message off your talk pages. What kind of constructive behavior is that! This is why I believe you guys have some serious axes to grind that you must accuse an editor of sock puppetry just so you can keep the article to YOUR liking. When this is WIKIPEDIA where users can edit freely. It sure doesn't feel welcoming of Wikipedia to have to go to an article, edit and then get accused of sock puppetry from nowhere. Googlesalot2 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There is clear behavioral evidence that FidelDrumbo and Googlesalot are socks. For example, Skipsievert used to insinuate that editors he was edit warring against were 'under investigation' by Wikipedia for bad behavior, just as FidelDrumbo did here. And here, FidelDrumbo goes to Skipsievert's talk page to remove an ANI notice. Googlesalot also shows amazingly good knowledge of Wikipedia's workings and terms for a supposedly new editor that has made a total of 43 edits for both accounts (including talk page edits, this ANI report and page reverts). I have filed a detailed SPI report on this matter. Please see here. LK (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. So I must be in cohorts because I know how to read and file complaints as was done previously to me when I was labeled a sock puppet 7 or so months back? I guess learning from others is an experienced editor thing? And apparently reading some articles every now and then on how to edit Wikipedia and applying that knowledge also makes me guilty? Now, after reading what I'm really accused of...which is a sock puppet of a probable sock puppet or meat puppet(AdenR) of skip seivert(was he a sock puppet too?), this is honestly becoming a circus. I'm not going to argue this anymore. It's sad. I'm not connected to any other users. I'm surprised admins haven't blocked you three or made a notice or something. I guess I don't really understand how Wikipedia works. I probably won't edit here again...maybe every now and then(won't lose my password this time, I might have to go through this all over again!). Heck, maybe another user will get accused as well of being a sock puppet of a sock puppet of a sock puppet cause they want to edit a few things on the Technocracy articles. Way to ruin Wikipedia LK for others. I guess only serviced editors of Wikipedia are allowed to edit articles. Tell your friends Johnphos and Epipelagic what I said for my defense on the SPI report. I'm done here. Thanks. Googlesalot2 (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Page moves for User:Dolovis

I'm bringing this back up, as it slipped into archives without quite being resolved. Please see:

• [18] For the original page move ban for Dolovis in July.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Page Move Ban for last week's discussion of possibly lifting the ban.

After a couple of comments to the effect that Dolovis should use RM and see how that goes, he replied indicating that he has been doing so. I replied as an RM regular, and we haven't had any problems with him. I asked about the circumstances of the ban, and Dolovis indicated that his attitudes and behavior regarding page moves, in particular those related to diacritics, are different. He agreed with me that when it comes to these things, it's better to skip the 'R' step of BRD, and that there is no such thing as an uncontroversial page move involving diacritics.

This is good enough for me. Nobody indicated that it's not good enough for them. Dolovis asked if I'd close the move, and while I was waiting to do so, the discussion was archived. Dolovis posted to my talk page, but there was a reply from User:Djsasso that he agreed with the objection raised by User:Mjroots. That objection was raised before Dolovis' explanation that satisfied me, and Mjroots never responded to Dolovis' assurances that he won't use page moves the way he did before. If nobody's even going to address these assurances, then I don't get what's going on.

I request that Dolovis be allowed to move pages again, conditional on keeping his word that he won't revert any page move, and that he won't treat any diacritic-related move as uncontroversial. If he doesn't stick to these conditions, then I fully support re-instituting the move ban.

Opinions? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In particular, here is Mjroots comment: "Per the others above. Use WP:RM for now, once you can demonstrate that you are not going to cause disruption with page moves, the community will consider whether or not to lift the ban." I think that's been demonstrated. If that's not the case, then I think it's fair to ask concretely what it would take to make such a demonstration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If I'm interpreting the above correctly, Dolovis has indicated that he'll use WP:RM for any diacritic-related moves... is that correct? 28bytes (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's my impression, and it's the reason I support lifting the ban. If there's a page-move mess, I'm likely to be one of the janitors cleaning it up, and his statements reassure me that I don't have to worry about that.

Yes, I just explicitly volunteered to help clean up any mess that may result from this, and I'd say in general that I'm available for help with any situation involving page moves. Feel free to tug on my sleeve anytime. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If he is committing to exclusively using RM for all diacritic-related moves, then I'm on board with lifting the formal restrictions. 28bytes (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Well its only been just over two months and he has made very few requests in that time. Now I fully realize not many moves happen very often. But the source of his issues were mostly moving ice hockey player pages (with diacritics specifically). Since the last two months were the summer outside of hockey season the likelihood of him making ice hockey player moves were next to zero. I think it would take a bigger body of work to judge than the 4 move requests he showed in the earlier discussion. That being said he has so far stopped his double edits to prevent others from moving over top of redirects so it does look like he is moving in the right direction. -DJSasso (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point. We'll keep an eye on his page moves. Does he have to find a bunch of pages to nominate for moving to get out from under the gun? This isn't grade-school. Let me be a... cosigner for him. If he screws up, I'll take partial responsibility. Does that help? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Dolovis has improved since the page-move ban was imposed. However, if the ban is to be lifted, I'd like an assurance and understanding from Dolovis that he can't just move pages, regardless of whether he believes he is in the right or not. I'm not convinced that a complete page-move ban is preventative, but he should stay away from moving diacritics articles. He should at least be allowed to perform moves that simply correct any typo errors. GTBacchus, in the future, remember to notify the parties when starting a noticeboard discussion. HeyMid (contribs) 22:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that reminder, Heymid. That was my absent-mindedness, I'm afraid... I notified two of them because this came up in a thread on my talk page they were part of. Mjroots wasn't there, so my bad. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Dolovis has indicated that he'll treat any diacritic-related move as controversial; i.e., that it has to go through RM. That exchange can be seen in my second link at the top of this section. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• The purpose of any such ban is to limit or eliminate disruption caused. If Dolovis is agreeing that his diacritic page moves and double edits to redirects so as to prevent non-administrator intervention were disruptive and that he will not resume the same pattern of editing, then the restriction is no longer required. It can, of course, be easily reinstated if old behaviours resurface. Resolute 03:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Dolovis to use RM for moves involving diacritics, but is otherwise free to move articles - a relaxation of the ban rather than it ending. Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah as long as he understands that if the same issues surface the ban will end up right back I have no problem with relaxing it. I just wanted to make sure it was clear is all. He has in the past when he got stopped from doing one thing found another way to create the same problems but in a different venue so his assurances don't hold as much weight as they might another editor. An example was the issue Sporti brought up in the last discussion. Or when he was creating redirects with two edits so he could prevent others from moving articles. While separate issues they all revolve around the same problem. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As was accurately described by GTBacchus, I agree that there is no such thing as an uncontroversial page move involving diacritics. What was the catalyst of the attention I received was my bringing attention to that fact by invoking WP:BRD. I trust that all other involved editors are now in agreement, and that in the future all editors will use RM for moves involving diacritics. Dolovis (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm involved, so I won't do it myself, but I move that this discussion be closed before it's archived again, with a note that consensus seems to support a "relaxation" of the page move ban, subject in particular to the understanding that page moves relating to diacritics are in all cases likely to be controversial, and therefore requiring a full listing at WP:Requested moves. This is also subject to the understanding that disruption relating to page moves may lead to a speedy reinstatement of the ban in the future.

  Does that seem to fairly represent consensus? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• I request that thepage move ban be lifted (not certain what "relaxation" means), with the understanding of all parties involved that all page moves involving diacritics are controversial. There will be no disruptive behaviour on my part, and I am delighted to take any diacritics-related page moves through RM. It has always been my position that such moves are controversial, which is why I reverted them, per BRD, when they hit my watch list. Dolovis (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • (I agree that it's kind of silly to call it "relaxation", but I try not to get hung up in semantics; it encourages the lawyers... I don't see anyone asking that you be held to a higher standard than we're all held to regarding page moves: if you have reason to know that it's controversial, don't treat it as uncontroversial. That's what we all do, or we'll all be speedy-banned and beaten silly with trouts and clue-by-fours. No fun.

    Side note: I've developed the habit of never editing a redirect after I move a page. I want to make sure than its easy for someone to revert me if they need to. Sticking to a policy like that also saves you ever being accused of editing redirects to prevent your moves being reverted, which is kind of nice, because those conversations are unenlightening and not really related to encyclopedia-building, when you get right down to it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC))

    • Actually, I am being held to a higher standard than others. If you read the two ANI's that lead to the ban you will note that the editors who piled-on against me were editors who were themselves actively moving articles to page names using diacritics. I was banned for making double-edits to redirect pages (which I did in an a naive attempt to slow down the controversial moves), not actually for the page moves themselves, which were few and far between. It is time to lift the ban. Dolovis (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Complex RM at Talk:Tree shaping#Requested move 2

Hi, we could really use another admin's opinion here. There is an RM which has been running for six weeks without a close. Of the three admins that have looked at it, one closed it as "no consensus", then changed their mind and re-opened it. Two other admins participating in the discussion have differing opinions. So we're at the point where now we're having trouble finding a consensus among administrators, on whether there's an RM consensus... So we could really use another opinion or two, thanks! --Elonka 06:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

At first sight this may seem like a trivial dispute between competing names for an obscure art. For that reason I would really hope that we can find an admin (or several) who is willing to invest some time in understanding what this dispute is all about rather than just doing a 'drive-by' close. To do this will require taking time to understand the arguments put by the various participants and the checking the quality of the cited sources and what they actually say actually say. It is not an exceptionally arduous task but in my opinion it needs doing to get to the bottom of the dispute. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That article is under ArbCom restrictions. I doubt there is anything simple about it. Rmhermen (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but in the hope of attracting some uninvolved admins, I will mention that the Arbcom case was a very minor matter (by Arbcom standards). It was needed only because there are two editors with a commercial interest in the name of the article, and certain limited topic bans were established. There is no drama. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was taken by Martin Hogbin to have my partial topic ban (could talk by not edit Tree shaping or related articles) to become a complete ban on this subject. The result was my ban was changed to a very narrow ban, and I am now allowed to edit the subject. Unfortunately due to issues in real life Arbcom didn't look at the evidence against filing editors behavior. So no the RM is not just a simple case. Blackash have a chat 03:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Having been a peanut gallery observer of the ArbCom case, and the fact that several of the editors directly involved in that case are both here and at the requested move discussion. Having read the reasoning I'm thinking that there is a very thin or almost no-consensus. As such I really don't think a page move would be appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask if we can have an admin who will actually listen to and understand the arguments and assess their conformity to WP policy and then decide if there is sufficient reason to overturn a 2/3 majority decision. Arbcom asked us to have an RfM to get new opinion, we did that and we got the new opinion, it was unanimous. What is the point of having an RfM if the decision of the new editors is completely ignored? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

2003 Russian Premier League Cup

The protection policy is transcluding onto 2003 Russian Premier League Cup, but I can't find the template. L888Y5 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's Template:Deleted, which shouldn't be so used in the mainspace. Remove those, and your problems should vanish. Courcelles 23:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • For future reference, the place to ask about this sort of problem is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) (WP:VPT), not here. While some times admin action may be needed to solve these issues, this isn't usually the case. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion on RM closure

Hi. Could someone take a look at the RM close I did at Talk:Sega_Genesis_and_Mega_Drive#Requested_move? See also the discussion here. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 14:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a good close, for my money. I've been thinking of doing it, and I would have made the same call you did. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Could I ask you, then, why the concerns of the opposers were not considered persuasive enough to defeat the move? Powers ^T 13:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking me? I think it's been an issue for a long, long time, and this might be a good compromise. I see lots of good arguments made, and after all that's been said, I think this solution is worth a try. I'm not a fan of endless disputes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(In case Powers is asking me!) Like I said on my talk page, there are no strong policy based arguments on either side, so it's not a question of ignoring the concerns of the opposers. Based on the post move discussion on the article talk page, it would appear that the vast majority of editors are willing to accept the new title and move on, which supports both my conclusion as well as that of GTBacchus above. May I suggest the seeking of other means of dispute resolution if you believe that the article is incorrectly titled. --regentspark (comment) 20:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Poll on extending ArbCom resolution for two years

Can an uninvolved admin like to have a look at this with a view to closing it, as someone who supported extending the ban, it is clear that there is no consensus for that and keeping it open is unlikely to change that. Mtking ^(edits) 08:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I concur from the other side of the fence. This poll needs to be closed to allow contributors to move on to the more informed and open discussions/polls further down the page. This is part of a very thorny issue for the community and we could really do with some admin support to maintain the current calm and constructive discussions going. Thanks. Fmph (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a triumvirate ala the China move close which seems to have been accepted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is one admin not enough here? If a grouping of admins is needed, you only need a few to comment on or endorse another admin's closure, as is sometimes done at complex DRVs or MfDs. Also, the Macedonia naming dispute poll was overseen by a grouping of admins, and there are other examples as well (the triumvirate idea is not really that new, it has been suggested and used several times over the years). But (eventually, if that is what is decided should happen) any actual move discussions should be decided by community comment and vote (as was done at the end of the Ireland naming case and following the Macedonia case). The role of any admins would only be to oversee the process. Carcharoth (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Because using it at China probably saved you guys an Arbcom case - and getting three people to close that discussion has significantly reduced the number of complaints. Given this topic is also controversial it seems reasonable to use it here. Maybe this particular bit of the process isn't controversial enough - but I think later parts of the process are likely to be controversial enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"you guys"? I don't see any arbitrators around here. The point is that ArbCom appointed people to oversee the Macedonia process and to oversee the Ireland naming discussion/polls (I was an arbitrator at the time, but I'm not now). A moratorium on move discussions in the Ireland case was put in place for two years and largely seems to have worked. The same process could be repeated. Why switch from the previous ArbCom-initiated process to an ad hoc triumvirate system? I'm not saying that a triumvirate system doesn't have its place, but I don't think it would have helped with the Macedonia case or the Ireland case. Sometimes you need structured and lengthy, supervised discussions that actually get somewhere, rather than a single, possibly not well-publicised or well-attended discussion closed by a triumvirate, the result of which may not actually last as long as you think. Using the example of the China discussion close to push triumvirates as the solution to all move discussion ills is naive. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately ArbCom are very hands-off at the moment and are engaged in a watching brief. Fmph (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the project have two ArbCom-appointed moderators? There are two listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. If they are no longer active, then perhaps others should be appointed? DrKiernan (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think those admins see themselves as being 'in-charge' anymore. I do agree that having a triumvirate would be nice, but actually at this point in time a single admin would be a huge help. Fmph (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is clear the initial poll on extending the ban does not have support. However the second poll which asked about support for the status quo shows an overwhelming majority support the present setup. There is therefore no justification for making any page moves, and the second poll should be closed. and we can come back to this matter in a couple of months time if the same small group of people opposed to the setup for years wish to carry on with the dispute. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the china move, there was a clear split over what the community supported, so 3 admins came to an agreement and a change was implemented. that is not the situation we are in with the Ireland article. 2 years ago, a massive poll was conducted by the community, which involved many who had never been involved in the dispute before and came from non Ireland related articles. The ban was imposed by arbcom and the situation has been stable for those 2 years. Now there has been a new debate, and a new survey conducted which clearly shows by more than 2:1, support for the status quo. It would be totally unreasonable and unfair, for 3 admins to be treated as some sort of Gods to come along and overrule the very very clear view of the majority, the status quo and the commonsense option. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Need help on my essay

Hi. I would like some help covering Wikipedia-related topics on my Essay, which is intended to discuss current issues and the future of Wikipedia. I ask the admins' desk mainly because this page is accessed by some of the most experienced editors on the project who can suggest possible areas of focus. The essay will mostly focus on general issues, WP:FAIL vs. WP:LOVE and the recent decline in new editors and the focus on "civility, maturity, responsibility", rather than any specific past scandals or problems.

To clarify:

• I am asking for help on possible topics, rather than direct assistance in writing the content
• This is to be a userspace essay for the moment being

Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Try the village pump as well. And try and write the essay before asking for comments on it. Also, look around and use the search function to find how other people organise themselves and pick up ideas from them. My advice would be to find the right balance between organisation and action. Too many people spend time writing long 'to do' lists they never start let alone finish. Sometimes you have to just get on and do things, and take time out occasionally to assess, set targets, and try and set your efforts within a larger picture. i.e. Don't overplan, but don't underplan as well. Different people balance this in different ways. Carcharoth (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Full protected deleted page duplicated... and stuff

The article Shawn Chrystopher (rapper) was created April of this year by apparently a suspected sock puppet, probably because Shawn Chrystopher was full protected in 2008 for CSD (full log here [19]). I'm not sure full protection was necessary for 2 spaced out CSD deletions. I noticed this though when NPP and finding Silent Films For The Blind, a new album page.

Long story short... we should at least unprotected Shawn Chrystopher and move Shawn Chrystopher (rapper) to there, and then perhaps do some evaulation of if this page meets notability criteria, and if there's any sock puppetry involved. That would also weigh on the propriety of Silent Films For The Blind, which itself isn't all that great at the moment. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I moved Shawn Chrystopher (rapper) to Shawn Chrystopher; since the page is clearly not an A7 candidate any more, it was rather a no-brainer. Feel free to PROD/AfD the article as necessary, of course. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Help needed to avoid constant reverts

The article Hitler's Pope containes the following text "Some commentators have characterized the book as having since been "debunked".[2][3][4][5]" There is no doubt that particular points of the book had been subject criticism (most obviously the very title) and these are included in the article. I cannot find in the cited text that the whole book has "been debunked" so I deleted the text with the reasons given in the edit summary. This was reverted and following an unproductive exchange with the editor who reverted I placed an appeal on the article talk page asking if anyone would please paste the text on the talk which substantiates that the book has been "debunked"[20]. On receiving no reply I proceeded to delete the text once again but user Mammalujo has reinserted it on the basis that "Deletion of well sourced text did not fail verification and is against consensus"[21]. In terms of bias I am no defender of Cornwell's book and particular dislike it's title but it seems to be stretching it to say that Ronald Rychlak who is cited as having debunked the book himself uses Cornwell as a reliable source on numerous occasions in his own book (at least seventy times) even though he has a separate chapter detailing his objections to those issues he disagrees with in Cornwell's book. The editor in question appears to have had a number of accusations relating to his use of sources but these have been deleted from his user talk page. I don't know how to proceed and any help would be appreciated to break a cycle of reverts.Yt95 (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Try WP:RSN. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you know?

Good morning :)!

I would like to speak with you about an app' that i created yet. It is an animated gif that i posted on commons.

You write into the box ( 1) the name of an article (target) in wikipedia and (2) a question about this article.

Look :

[[:File:Did you know.gif|right|120px|thumb| [[Human Torch (android) (1) |What is the first Marvel Comics-owned superhero appeared in Marvel Comics #1 (Ocober 1939)? (2) ] ]

I am sure that wikipedia would be more insteresting with it. Don't you? : )

[[:File:Did you know.gif|right|120px|thumb| What is the first Marvel Comics-owned superhero appeared in Marvel Comics #1 (Ocober 1939)? ]]

Thank you very mutch.

Best reguards and have fun ! : )

Bastien Sens-Méyé (discuss) 12:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest starting a new topic here at the Village Pump. The Administrators' Noticeboard is not the right place for it. Until you get some agreement from others in this animation, I strongly suggest that you DON'T use it any more in articles. As far as I can see it hasn't been welcomed in articles where you have placed it, and I agree with other editors that it's distracting. Please do wait for feedback from others before implementing it further. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, my friend! I hope you will participate to this discuss on the link that you send to me. Best reguards! Bastien Sens-Méyé discuss 13:55, 3 october 2011 (CEST)

deletion log interpretation

Resolved

Can someone tell me if the deletion log for Kevin Lowe (lacrosse) is from a speedy, prod or something else?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy. It was a test page that said Kevin Lowe is cool. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that was the case, but the edit summary was not clear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Suspected IP sock of banned user

Resolved

An anon editor is making edits similar to those of a banned user. I rollback: he undoes my rollback again. Where should I report it? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

86.181.184.224 (talk · contribs), an obvious IP of Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs), has been blocked and a couple semi-protections have been laid. Redrose64, take this guy straight to WP:AIV and you should get quick results. — Scientizzle 16:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that --Redrose64 (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please delete File:Bill2.png

Please delete File:Bill2.png, see history, thanks--Musamies (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Old AfD

Hey, could someone close this overdue AfD? Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that this AfD was ever transcluded properly. I'm going to relist it and post it. — Scientizzle 19:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Danke.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Two biographies joined like siamese twins: please help separate them

I need an admin to do a history split of Ángel Chávez. At one point it was an article about a baseball player but then came a very odd twist and it became an article about a painter who's a completely different person. So I'm asking for an admin to delete the article and then to restore the new half to a new title and restore the old half to the current title. Cloveapple (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I put the article about the painter at Ángel Chávez (painter) and left Ángel Chávez with its old content plus a hatnote. Feel free to move the pages to other titles, if necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Cloveapple (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Native HTTPS support enabled on Wikipedia

Just passing this on. URLs like https://en.wikipedia.org now work. Existing external links to Wikipedia such as [22] are automatically substituted -- even though you paste an insecure diff link, MW will change it to https if that's what you are using. Don't forget to update your bookmarks, user scripts, stylesheets, bots, bot frameworks and tools accordingly.

Discuss this at WP:VPT#Native HTTPS support enabled. MER-C 05:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Now all I have to do is wait for the Firefox addons to be updated. →Σ ⚑  ☭  05:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Treasury Tag

I regret to say that I have utterly failed at the first hurdle in my attempts to mentor Treasury Tag. Apologies for wasting everyone's time. Perhaps a more skilled mentor would have more success. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So what shall we do? Propose a topic ban for all deletion nominations? No nominations for deletion for AFD or prod permitted. But permit copyright violation and attack and vandalism speedy delete nominations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame, but perhaps not a surprise. I thought your proposed beginning editing restrictions during mentorship were fine - apart from "Don't write any whole words in edit summaries" which I just didn't understand. But I suspect this is because I didn't get the background problem which this is supposed to address. However TT flatly declined all the other proposed temporary restrictions (which would have left the vast majority of article space free to edit in) and as such I think no more skilled mentor could have achieved anything better. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

While it may have left the majority of article-space free for me to edit, I don't edit the majority of pages. Nobody does. We all have specific interests. While I wouldn't be banned from writing about the music of Argentina or God in Hinduism or cricket in Zimbabwe, I have no inclination and no competence to do so. ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 10:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This idea of "there is a whole wiki to edit" always strikes me as missing the point (not to jump on you specifically Kim). I have zero interest in most of Wikipedia - and if the community stopped me editing pages I was interested in my response would just be to stop editing... --Errant ^(chat!) 11:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a moment, these restrictions were designed to be temporary and allow Dweller the manouverability to focus on the areas that were shown to be problematic. That TT dealt in absolutes and refused to even discuss them - even attacking the only editor who came forward to put himself out to help TT has actually disappointed me. If you don't understand a reason for a restriction then the best way to deal with that is not through sarcasm.

I know that discussions regarding sanctions were largely postponed due to the fact that there was a mentor available, if TT does not appear willing to try, then I do not see any other option. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I could be a "start being a little nicer to people in words and actions" half of a two person mentoring team (if acceptable to TT). It would be limited to analysis, commentary and suggestions on behavior just in that area. Would be slower motion I have a 9 day period coming up when I'll be off the grid. The other person / half would would be more attuned to understanding/watching and dealing with their complex range of activities. Just an idea, don't know if it's viable. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have a mentor that I could trust, thanks, North8000. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 12:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, with that declination (and that mis-characterization which ignores the outcome) I'm bowing out. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you would be willing to work with a mentor? Your comments on your talk page look to me like you are not willing to compromise, to limit yourself even in the early stages of the mentoring process. If you would like a mentoring team, perhaps I could help. You know my history and would you believe, I'm quite knowledgable on Doctor Who too. I do think you need to stop dealing in absolutes though and finding a solution that's acceptable to all Worm^TT · (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said repeatedly on my talkpage, I'm happy to work with a mentor provided that a compromise can be reached that doesn't involve an outright prohibition on all my normal Wikipedia activities. ╟─TreasuryTag►Odelsting─╢ 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)