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. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Current issues

What is the current policy on 'Secret Pages'?

I suspect this has come up before, and I don't normally care about such things, but looking at the autograph page above made me link to a couple of the signees, and I found many of them had text on their user page that say, 'Find my secret page!'. So I went to google, and got this result. While I realize a lot of these links are to user talk pages, congratulating them for finding it and things like people creating barnstars to congratulate each other, 10 and 20 pages down the search I'm still finding so-called secret pages. I *believe* that this has, in the past, been treated as silly but ignorable, but we're nearing 70,000 ghits on secret pages limited just to en-wiki. Is this something that can/should be dealt with, or is it just disk space use that we need (as in 'can't stop') to let slide? --Thespian 21:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MYSPACE balanced against WP:COMMUNITY. If these are proactive editors who want to enjoy the community then why not. Bandwidth et. al. is not our concern. I personally think secret pages, signature pages etc. are a waste of effort, but if the editors who create them for themselves also create meaningful content / revert vandalism / identify CSD stuff / generally contribute then on balance I'd prefer to keep the secret pages if we can keep the editors. Pedro :  Chat  21:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

These editors often don't make useful edits, though. I'm fine with allowing useful contributors to have autograph pages or whatever, but if someone is using Wikipedia as a webhost or a game, then I'd say nuke 'em. Natalie 21:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

At least one of the edits signing one of the pages is an administrator (@pple)! @pple does make useful edits.Miesbu 16:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(To clarify, I don't think the users should necessarily be blocked, but the time-wasting pages should be deleted and the user warned. Natalie 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

If they don't make useful edits, WP:MFD is what you are looking for. I would advise against a mass nomination of multiple users' pages - someone tried that with signature books I believe, it was a disaster. Mr.Z-man 21:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not commenting on individual issues. Autograph pages (as an example) may be contrary to WP:ENC but if the editor has made (arbitary figure) 200 good edits then let them keep it. If they've turned up and done nothing but work in their user space then that's an MFD issue. Per Mr.Z-Man wholesale deletion with or without warning will just irritate potentialy valuable future editors. Pedro :  Chat  21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm usually seen arguming for t olerance for editors expressing their individuality, but I think such pages and autograph books are expressions of jvenile lack of seriousness, and should be removed. expressing one's affiliation is fine; cultivating friendship related to WP is fine; obtrusive activities that have no conceivable relationship to the encyclopedia are quite another matter. Let's start as Z-man suggests, and go slowly, beginning with the worst of them. DGG (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless the secret pages are the only thing an editor has worked on, I don't see a problem with it. I've certainly got a plethora of private pages in my userspace (though they're generally only private because I'm the only one that would find use for them). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the correct figure is about 300 pages not 70,000. Addhoc 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, though it gives 350+, not 300. It's not as bad as I thought, but I still think that's excessive (and won't count variant names and the ones I saw labelled 'Page of Secrets!' and such). The user pages that I peeked at that had these links were....messy, and it might also be my RL (I do user interface design engineering for software and web sites) that's adding to my reaction, since my first reaction to several pages was 'Dude, I can't find *anything* on your pages, let alone a secret link!' ;-) --Thespian 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Results 1 - 10 of about 71,000 from en.wikipedia.org for secret page. (0.13 seconds)⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

May be, but a lot of those pages are just pages which contain the words "secret pages" – only about 350+ are actual secret pages. ~ Sebi 10:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There are entire clusters of users who spend time doing their own secret pages and finding other users' secret pages and autograph books. I agree that the disk space and resource usage isn't a big concern, but it definitely seems like users come together in clusters. And there's a difference between private pages used for article development versus private pages being advertised with, "Find my secret page and sign it!" I've never asked anyone to sign User:Elkman/Cook County NRHP, for example. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Its also really easy to find such pages if you know a user has one. Mr.Z-man 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that if users want to have them, let them have them. If it keeps them in a good mood and excited to get on Wikipedia every so often, that's great. Even if they only make a few edits while they're on, they're making a difference. нмŵוτнτ 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Secret" pages? What the eff is the point? They must not know about Special:Prefixindex. Delete the stupid nonsense as a violation of WP:USER. We should've done this awhile ago with the signature books: now the cancer is metastasizing. --Cyde Weys 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care that much, but just an FYI: the good ones I've seen hide them well enough so that they don't show up using the prefix index. нмŵוτнτ 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, that's not possible...unless it's in someone else's userspace. — H₂O —  09:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, a page of relating to secret pages that isn't a secret page, strictly speaking. ~ Sebi 10:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind people having secret pages, as long as they can be coaxed to contribute to the encyclopedia and not just each other's talk pages, etc. Perhaps there are some people who will join Wikipedia because of the opportunity to make a secret or autograph page, and then become productive editors. I do object to people treating Wikipedia as if it is nothing more than a game, and I think the secret pages of such users should be deleted. I don't know what the cutoff point for productive vs. nonproductive editor should be, though. People have different standards. --Kyoko 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone provide an example of these "secret spaces"? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't provide you with an example of a secret page because it wouldn't be a secret any more. (Ha ha.) Actually, though, here are a couple example: User:Uchiha23/Secret Page, User:Penubag/Secret page, User:Efansay/Secret Page, User:Zenlax/Sandbox2, and anyone who's credited at User:Vic93/HiddenLinkAwards. Or, better yet, anything that links to Image:Missing barnstarPn.png. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with Pedro. The problem is, no one is going to police this (I mean, check to make sure that people who create or spend their time finding secret pages are also making quality edits). I agree that the activity as such is harmless .... but nevertheless i think it ought to be discouraged if not outright banned because it sends the wrong message. I think Wikipedia needs to tlerate if not cultivate a freedom of expression, but I think that that stops on the user-page itself. I think all other pages should have some relevance to the objective of Wikipedia, which is to build an encyclopedia. This includes sandbox pages and talk pages which yes, build community, but community organized around the common goal of building an encyclopedia by working on articles. Secret pages are just a game and one that trivializes Wikipedia. Surely Wikipedians who happen to like these sorts of things can join facebook or some other internet forum to support their pleasures. Let Wikipedia be Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you define Wikipedia community? Just for curiosity. @pple complain 08:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Many talk pages, including those of adminstrators, are similarly guilty of idle talk, thanks, hellos, etc. The main difference is that they are not called "secret pages". Lighten up! Even one of the signers of a secret page is an administrator who has made useful edits. Miesbu 16:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I saw my name brought up in this discussion, I want to have a few words. Miesbu, I think you misunderstand what people are talking about. Secret pages are acceptable, as long as their owners make useful edits to the encyclopedia other than just strolling around and advertising "Finding my pages, plz". As I recalled, Deskana used to make massive nominations of autographbook for deletion but he still signed his adoptee's. I personally favor these kinds of subpages, since they bring excitement and promote friendliness among editors, but there should be a limit. @pple complain 08:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Secret page is a valid use of userspace, helps strengthen the community spirit and encourage mutual acquaintance. PeaceNT 12:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocks and Unblocks

I'd like to propose two ideas that might need to be communicated to the admin community:

• When placing a potentially controversial block, announce it and invite discussion. State in advance the conditions on which you would approve unblocking. This can save a lot of drama in case you are unavailable to discuss your block.

• Before undoing another administrator's actions, except for blatant mistakes or bad faith actions, try to contact the other admin, and if that fails, let the discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI run long enough that you get a WP:SNOW consensus before doing what you want to do.

Does this make sense? This advice may seem obvious, but a lot of administrators seem to have missed these two points. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'd certainly support that. CBD's unblock of Privatemusings, for example, was absolutely not supported by anythign like consensus, and most of those opposing the block don't actually know the identity of the aother account. Everyone I've spoken to who does, appears to support the block. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Why should a block made without such discussion stand if consensus is split and policy does not support the stated reasons for the block? I'm all for discussion. Rather than an involved party placing a controversial block a discussion can allow comment from others and then any needed action can be taken by a neutral admin. However, if a block is placed without discussion, the stated reason for the block is not supported by policy, and extensive subsequent discussion shows the existence of strong opposition to the block then no... I do not believe that consensus for unblocking need be found before that action can be taken. Someone acting without consensus or any clear policy support, without discussion, and without even any prior warning does not get their controversial action 'certified' as the default case. --CBD 13:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I am with CBDunkerson; in cases of immediate disruption, then blocks should be placed without delay. But where there is an underlying and longrunning problem, there is no harm from suggesting a course of action and waiting until consensus has emerged. Indeed it is far more disruptive to have a controversial block placed, and then to have a long debate over whether it should be overturned, and whether an overturning was premature, and a meta-debate about whether policies were followed. A considered and debated block is far more likely to stick even if there is discontent with it. Sam Blacketer 14:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't look for a snowstorm to undo a block. If the block is not well supported, it possibly should be undone (or just allowed to expire if it's short.) Blocks are a blunt tool; we should sometimes try less drastic measures first. Friday (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I was just about to post something like this. This seems OK for long-term blocks, but for short blocks like 3RR, it seems that something different is needed. Discussions can sometimes take longer than 24 hours (though they shouldn't really be so protracted), so the length of discussion should be somehow proportional to the block length. I strongly support the idea of making clear under what conditions the blocking admin would agree to an unblock, though in some cases this might be obvious. An important point is to mention (and if possible, link to) any such discussion in the blocking/unblocking log. Being around to discuss things is important. If you are not around, there should be no complaint if a discussion overturns an action in your absence. Admins don't own their actions. User talk:NoSeptember/admin policy seems relevant here. Carcharoth 14:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree with the above; as I often take up 3RR reports I am always willing to unblock if it seems likely that they will not be disruptive, and there can be no objection to another admin undoing a block for the same reason. The blocks are for the benefit of the project and not for my ego. Sam Blacketer 15:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• "potentially controversial" is the stumbling block here; what can be obviously "in the right" to one person can easily be seen as dickish by another. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • When undoing another admin's block (except for obvious mistakes or ABF) then you should ALWAYS contact that administrator prior to removing the block. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No argument here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Not sure what ABF means, but what if the blocking admin is unavailable? How long do you wait? I still maintain that discussion among other admins can overturn another admin's actions. WP:WHEEL uses the term "unilaterally" (I thought I did...) for a reason. Always requiring discussion gives the impression of ownership of admin actions. I'm not advocating overturning for no reason, but discussion and a good reason can lead to a good faith overturn in the absence of the blocking admin. Maybe the blocking admin will return and explain further, but unless the blocking admin had left notes behind, the unblocking admins would not have been aware of these further reasons. This all depends on the timescale of course. Blocking someone for a week before you go on holiday for a week is not a good idea. Blocking someone just before you go to sleep for 9 hours might be unavoidable, but things don't stop until you wake up/get back. It also depends on the urgency of course, and this should be weighed against the urgency of the original block. If the block prevented ongoing disruption, undoing it may restart that disruption. Other considerations can come into play as well. It is a complex judgment sometimes, with many aspects needing to be weighed against each other. You should still notify the blocking admin, and discuss if they are around, but no need to wait until they get back. But, as always, have a good reason for blocking and unblocking - and except people to object if you don't provide a good reason. Carcharoth 16:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting advice when you are in doubt is essential, but I would draw the line at "doubt", not "controversial". As for unblocking, it is current policy that you should not undo another admins block without first getting their agreement or a greater consensus from the community to do so. 1 != 2 16:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the "don't revert an admin action" sentiment comes from inappropriate feelings of ownership. Admins, we should not own our admin actions. It's sometimes reasonable to undo one, even without "permission" from the person you're reverting. It shouldn't be common, and we should tread carefully, but undoing an admin action without persmission is not automatically unreasonable. Friday (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's generally something we should be careful about, but admin actions are hardly sacred -- I figure it's mainly the sudden actions, or the repeated reversals of administrative actions back and forth, that can set a bad example and potentially reflect poorly on the community, in the few cases where such arguments are prominent enough to garner some media attention. We do need some stability to keep good people around. Sanity checks and group discussion are useful, and if it's better off for a blunt action to be done or undone to allow a discussion to continue, or a situation to calm down, then timely response may be of particular importance. "Ignore all rules" shouldn't be taken as a "license to kill," but as a "license to think." Take a few moments to consider any administrative action, whether deleting, protecting, blocking, or reversing any such action, not only in terms of how it may affect the people involved, but also the project as a whole. Mistakes will be made, from time to time, let's all just try and improve situations when and where we can. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have always seen it more as "Don't revert an admin action without discussion and/or consensus". It is not about OWN, it is about not edit warring with admin actions. It is about setting a good example for the editors that instead of reverting back and forth a consensus can be formed. 1 != 2 16:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's try again. Read the following:

"I trust that my fellow admins' actions are done for the good of Wikipedia. So if any of my admin actions are overturned I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Wikipedia. If I disagree with your action, I will try to discuss it with you or with the admin community, but I absolve you in advance of any presumption of acting improperly. We should all extend the same benefit of the doubt to our fellow admins, until they repeatedly prove that they are unworthy of such a presumption."

After reading that, can you explain what is wrong with a good-faith revert of an admin action? Continuous reversion, when discussion has shown the matter is not clear, would be wheel-warring, but a single, reasoned overturn is not. It is balance between not letting the first admin to act to be the one to set the status quo, and avoiding admin warring. Carcharoth 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think 1=2 agrees with me - sorry! Carcharoth 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of AGF can result in "Good faith" edit wars where one user reverts in good faith and another reverts in good faith, ad infinitum. AGF doesn't exist in a vacuum as a policy, You also need to discuss changes that might be controversial before making them. Undoing another admins actions when they aren't clearly a mistake almost always causes controversy and dispute and thus shouldn't be done. Talk about it first and if a agreement can't be met between the two parties then take it somewhere for further discussions and consensus. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That fails to recognise that sometimes urgent action is needed before discussion can take place (eg. reblocking for a new reason after the unblock - which wouldn't be a wheel-war anyway), or that sometimes discussions can take longer than the block length. It also opens the door for wikilawyering over blocks while the blocked person's sense of injustice increases. In all cases, some common sense should help, recognising that while there are exceptions, you need a good reason for the exception, and that continual action back and forth is harmful. Again, it is a balance and there aren't really bright-line rules that help. If someone thought one of my actions was wrong, I would prefer they undid it rather than wait for me to get back. The caveat is that if I disagree, I will discuss it with them! :-) Carcharoth 17:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If you block a trouble maker another admin unblocks them and the person continues to cause problems then you can simply re-block per the problems caused since the unblock. No big deal there and no need to discuss. If someone is blocked and you want them unblocked and want to discuss it and the discussions occur longer then the block, so what? The person is unblocked anyway and maybe a note can be left in their block log notifying of the decision from the discussion. Wikilawyering doesn't work and it never should, ever. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree that we need a SNOW consensus situation to overturn a controversial block. A block (or any admin action) should only be upheld with consensus. A lack of consensus should be enough to reverse. Often, I feel like Wikipedia favors inertia a little too much. Sometimes a lack of consensus is enough to merit some sort of action. In fact, I was inspired enough to write my first essay. -Chunky Rice 18:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• If there is a consensus to overturn one of my blocks, please, go right ahead. Bearian 19:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• OK, so leave the discussion open for a few days, or until it snows, whichever comes first. Given the traffic on this board, that's like 30 minutes - 48 hours depending on how interesting and important a case it is. Avoid unblocking without agreement of the blocking admin, or else a reasonable amount of discussion and a consensus. We all need to respect each other more. Wikipedia is not an anarchy. We look like a madhouse when admins run around unblocking each other without any discussion whatsoever, and the chaos encourages trolling. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Per the original proposal; am I right in presuming that a "potentially controversial" block is one where there isn't a series of escalating warnings, or discussion, regarding some behaviour or other, on the talkpage, and isn't otherwise obvious vandalism and disruption? If so, I would believe that an invitation to review such an action would be most wise. If then consensus appears split, or against the block, then another admin might unblock, but should always give a clear reason to the original blocker. The block/unblock might then be discussed until a final consenus is concluded. Thems my thoughts on the matter. LessHeard vanU 22:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that the second point is already covered in the blocking policy, in the part about unblocking. --bainer (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, nice timing, Jehochman. El_C 08:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Did You Know?

Did you know... that Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, placed on its front page DYK section an article about Dave Teo, a Singaporean conscript whose court case has not yet even started, let alone furnished a conviction? "We will laugh at your calamity: we will mock you when your fear cometh" (Wikiproverbs 1:26) Guy (Help!) 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, please note, this is not a dig at anyone, updating DYK is dull handle-turning and nobody loves a dull job, I was just thinking that perhaps we should all have a look at some of the DYK noms from time to time and decline some of the more contentious ones. Including election candidates in current elections. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • More screeners are always welcome at T:TDYK, a reasonable objection usually keeps a nom from reaching the main page. Anyone can make comments there, even IPs... screening is a pretty dull process though, as you say, but if no comments there in the 5-day period... it's hard for admins to catch everything, unopposed nominations are added by default unless there's a backlog. In this case, no one objected, although interestingly the original nom didn't mention the conscript's name. It's now off DYK altogether. --W.marsh 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Sadly, DYK has joined WSS as the hive of instruction creep here in the last year. Both processes, when I last used them in 2006, were simple "post a line here, work done by others there, output to be seen here" things. A year later, both require their blocks lined up in a neat row and fuck the rest of the 'pedia, both are effectively being run by a tiny community with nothing better to do, both have huge hurdles to climb to get anywhere, both slap down anyone who complains with the crappy and creepy "well, other people manage okay so there isn't a problem (except with you)" rubric, and both make egregious errors that it is impossible to challenge safely.

The result is a process so in love with the process itself that awful rubbish is given priority without review because someone active in the clique in question has given it the nod without really thinking about it.

Root and branch reform is needed in DYK and WSS, but the clear fallout deters many people, myself included.

And, random surfers, please note the lack of personal attacks here. I'm stating my opinion and naming no names (I don't even remember any names), so save yourselves the threatening emails. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I only became involved with DYK in the last three months or so and I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. As far as I can tell it's the least bureaucratic project on Wikipedia. I have no idea who the ruling community is. Maybe give DYK another chance? Whatever problems you have with it must have changed. --JayHenry 01:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And I don't mean to be dismissive of your concerns, I just don't know what DYK was like a year ago, so it's hard for a newcomer to see what the problem is. The whole reason I like DYK is (what I perceive to be) the complete lack of bureaucracy. There are no votes, although certain lengths of hooks and articles are suggested, anyone can do the updates and ignore the suggestions. I've frequently updated articles that are shorter than suggested, have too long of hooks, were written too long ago, or whatever, and nobody has ever given me any grief for it. --JayHenry 01:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dave Teo ... article was created by an administrator and there had been a comment/suggestion from a known DYK participant, so it was reasonable to assume it was up-to-snuff. As a side note, I don't do much DYK updating these days, but it had been 17 hours (!!!) since the last update and I'd had enough spare time to get that done. howcheng {chat} 22:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I might be considered part of the DYK Cabal. I would have more time for checking items like Dave Teo if I could get any interest in automating some simpler edits I do routinely, most of which aren't even in the instructions but draw complaints if they aren't done. My main contribution to instruction creep is User:Art LaPella/Long hook, but that's good instruction creep - it doesn't pop up unless it's needed, you usually don't have to read beyond the first couple sentences, and it's better than the previous un-system of constant complaining that selecting administrators should edit more for brevity. I'm puzzled by "egregious errors that it is impossible to challenge safely" - I've never worried about anything other than accuracy when challenging an error, so come on in, the water's fine. Art LaPella 01:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. At the risk of more instruction creep, though, I think we should strongly discourage DYKs about people actively running for office, people with legal cases in process, anything where there is even a faint whiff of WP:BLP issues. My own view is also that allt hose cases where ten possible hooks are suggested by a single editor looking to get his own article on some wrestler or college baseball player on the front page should be speedily rejected, but that's just me :o) Guy (Help!) 12:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

whats wrong with having dave teo on dyk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.19.150 (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please lock my userpage and talk page.

Resolved

User page and talk page protected. Hut 8.5 10:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've grown tired of this fighting. Maybe i'll be back in 2008. If ever. thanks for everything. muchas gracias. YoSoyGuapo 00:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm back!

Hey everyone, I'm back from a wayyyyy long wikibreak (over a year!). I'm going to get back into the swing of things and hopefully be editing on a somewhat regular basis again as well as doing RfA promotions and name changes and the like.

Could someone be so kind as to inform me of any major changes that have occurred during the year that I was gone? Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 01:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. There's always a need for active admin and crats... WjBscribe 01:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Um. Do you want to read 52 issues of the Wikipedia:Signpost? :-) I can't actually think of what the major things were that happened. As always, check the CSD wordings and policies, as subtle changes might have happened that could trip someone up. Oh, there was a Community Sanctions Noticeboard that opened and then closed. There was an Essjay controversy. Something called WikiScanner caught loads of people, including the US Congress, editing their bios to make themselves look good. I'm sure others will add some of the more important stuff I've forgotten. Oh, RfA is (still) "broken", but managing to function OK despite perennial calls for reform. There were a few controversial RfAs. Oh, and the first adminbot got approved a few weeks ago. There was a big kerfuffle about something called Wikipedia:Attribution. There were also ArbCom Elections nearly a year ago, and you are back just in time for this year's elections. Jimbo also pulled a few rabbits out of hats every now and again, to keep everyone on their toes. What else happened? Did Esperanza close this year, or was that last year? Ooh. Need to start keeping a diary! :-) Carcharoth 21:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia Yearbook, anyone?

You guys forgot Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales. Welcome back! Neranei (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh look! Another adminbot RFA! Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TempDeletionBot. And anonymous page creation is about to be turned back on in a few days, so people are gearing up for a big flood that might never arrive. Carcharoth 21:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Welcome back indeed. Your reputation precedes you :) It's hard to know where to start on the news, though. WP:SIGNPOST and its archives? - Alison ^❤ 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, we need to start hiring historians. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 22:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

They are currently busy writing our encyclopedic content on history... Carcharoth 23:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Claps! Keegan^talk 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Merkin POTD

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Michelle Merkin POTD over concern over proper forum for discussion. Please move to a better location if there is one. - Wikidemo 01:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Further move - have moved to WP:POTD, as this is something relating to POTD. This is not an admin concern. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

All this fuss over a rather scrappily Photoshopped composite! What joy. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that Guy's response to this discovery has been to go around deleting the image from all relevant (and admittedly irrelevant) articles. See my note on Guy's talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, actually my response has been to review the articles in which it's used and see if it's appropriate. We don't just include an image because the caption says (without benefit of a source) that this person embodies the ideals of physical beauty, that's POV. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We have ideals of physical beauty? looks appropriately shocked at such news I wish people would tell me about these new fangled inventions sooner.--Alf ^melmac 14:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I had set up User talk:Howcheng/MerkinPOTD for discussion exactly for this purpose... howcheng {chat} 17:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with persistent copyright abusers

Friends, I direct your attention to the upload log and talk page of someone I think we can all agree is a problem user. As you can see, he continued uploading copyrighted images long after his talk page was riddled with copyright notices, and long after the images started to be deleted en masse. Now that Shell Kinney, who pointed him out at PUI, and I (and you) have our eye on him, obviously he'll be monitored if he continues to upload images, and blocked if need be. But I think we need to have a conversation about how we deal with such users in general. Is there an easy way to track the people who Orphanbot and the others are hitting most frequently? Should they be blocked on sight? It's pretty obvious they're not paying much attention to their talk pages, so it becomes hard to reason with them. Thoughts? Chick Bowen 02:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say use one of the 'Uploading inappropriate images' templates, probably, for this excess, at level three, and then follow up on it the next upload. The copyright notices only work, as you know, when someone actually pays attention, so warn him, block him (or have him blocked) despite the fact he's ignoring the page , and then force him to have nowhere to talk except his page. None of his current (excessive) warnings mention being blocked, so he has no reason to pay the slightest attention to them. The tools are there, but they're not clear, and perhaps we need some more (severe) image warnings for users like this (the image warnings are sparse at WP:UTM) --Thespian 02:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, it would be more effective to talk to the editor without using templates... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.244.249 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It usually is, and I prefer it, but if the editor has persistantly ignored posts to his talk page, and it is unsure that they are even *looking* at it, it does lend itself to becoming time to get his attention more forcibly. There are 53 warnings on his page, almost all of them about this issue, and almost all of them about images that were deleted because the user didn't respond to them (to save them or otherwise). If the user doesn't respond to talk pages (and in this case, they haven't ever posted to a talk page for any of the articles they write for, either), it does call for a stronger way of getting their attention. I am unsure, in this case, if the user will pay attention and work with the project (which would be nice, as they're obviously very enthusiastic, though they don't grasp/pay attention to copyright law) or simply create a new account. --Thespian 03:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

ETA: I wonder if it might be worth looking into adding 'blocked from uploading' to Help:Block_and_unblock#Blocking_options the blocking options, as this user doesn't seem to have any real problems with content, just images. I'm also going to post a note letting them know of this discussion, on the off chance they'll see it and respond. --Thespian 03:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet, the only way that we can effectively stop the uploads is by blocking the user from doing anything on Wikipedia. I knew it was mentioned before that we can block for this, but we just need to dig it out saying where it can be done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

right. I know that we currently can't, I was just wondering if it could be made into an option. I didn't mean just adding it to the page, I meant to the blocking options as a whole; this is a tech musing, and it will certainly not happen in time to deal with this user! --Thespian 03:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have thought about it several times; that would make things a lot easier if we could just turn off uploads for users without having to block them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps, but in this case the problem is simpler than that: the user does not seem to be reading or heeding the messages. This is a good reason to block him, in my view - he will then have to engage in dialogue, at which point we can find out if he is one of those who rejects the whole idea of copyright, or whether he simply doesn't get why it's important. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah; that's why I made the suggestion as above (and indeed, why I notified him, to see if he was just ignoring warnings or the whole page), so his attention could be grabbed. But I suspect him not having upload privs, since that seems to be most of his work, would do the same. --Thespian 09:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And what Guy said before worked in one case; I blocked a user over the images and I got an email from him months later. I agree a block should be done now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the user. In cases like these, all of those messages serve as warnings. In a recent case, the user agreed not to work at all in the Image space as a condition of his unblocking.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And I have put Template:Indefblockeduser on his user page. Greg Jones II 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Request review of WP:U block on User:Sexybeast6989

Resolved

This username was reported at WP:UAA. I regarded it as borderline, but ultimately judged it to nominally violate #3, bullet 5 at Wp:u#Detailed_examples. User:I, who created the account as a legitimate sock and has since created User:Sbfw for the same purpose, asked that I have some other admins review the block. I don't have strong feelings about it, so if someone would like to unblock it, please go right ahead and let I know. Thanks! Dppowell 04:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not create the Sexybeast account, actually. I created the sbfw one, and was trying to figure something out with the html tags using this account's preferences, and forgot to restore this signature. Just to clear that up. i (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; I was drawing an inference from your objections on my talk page and from your new account name, which appeared to be an abbreviation/variation on the blocked account. Dppowell 05:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't unblock it. The username is marginally in violation of the username policy but it's one deleted contribution was a nonsense article [1] so I don't hold out too much hope for useful edits.--Sandahl 05:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Sandahl. If it were just the "Sexybeast" I could probably see it as okay, but with that edit and "69" in the name, it's a violation in my view. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also 89 is synonymous with titty fuck, (pardon the expression). Combined with 69 and sexybeast is an obvious reference to sexual slang. Jackaranga 12:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! It's ... ummm ... amazing what you can learn on Wikipedia - Alison ^❤ 21:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. Dppowell 13:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be that 89 is the user's birth year? Lemon martini 14:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Gene Nygaard

Resolved

I am extending the block of Gene Nygaard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to indefinite duration, given his long track record of WP:POINT violations and disruptive incivility. My feeling is that the project can survive perfectly well without his contributions, and that he has been sufficiently warned to have enabled him to change his manner should he have so desired. To clarify matters before any accusations of wheel-warring, my decision is revesible by any administrator. Physchim62 (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I considered that myself at the time. Nothing personal, I think Gene's personality is simply too combative to be conducive to consensus-based editing. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I object to the indefinite block. I don't see evidence of consensus for a community ban. Gene is frequently uncivil and overly-stubborn, and I have been on the receiving end of his sarcasm, but he has (and is, up until his block) been doing some fine work on the encyclopedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the block, but I believe that the admins involved need to look very closely at the various IP's and users (I specifically refer to User:Greg L) who have been baiting Gene. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• The man has 50k mainspace contributions, the great majority of which are just fine. Until this week he had a total of three unreversed blocks, the longest of which was 48 hours. I feel that going straight to an indefinite block at this point is not called for. The weeklong block, straight on the heels of a 72 hour block was already a very substantial action. Haukur 14:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus for a community ban is not needed before an indef block. I have noted the above comments, I'm now going out for a coffee :) As I mentioned above, if an administrator feels that I have been too bold, especially following the discussion above and any further discussion here, then they should replace the original 7-day ban. Otherwise, I stand by my action, at the same time opening it for calm discussion. Physchim62 (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Can you prove a small selection of diffs to illustrate the WP:POINT behavior? There is nothing wrong with an indefinite block because it can be refactored if the user admits mistakes and expresses a sincere desire to improve. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

FOR BACKGROUND ON THIS: See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_of_Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts_by_Rlevse — Rlevse • Talk • 15:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• My contribution to the calm discussion is that there is no need for an indefinite block at this stage. Apart from the incivility, the contributions are good. And to be frank, some of the incivility is stuff that could be shrugged off if people looked past the incivilty and saw the point being raised. If someone says something relevant to me, while being incivil, I try to look past the incivility and learn from the advice that is being given. I try not to ignore the advice and, hackles raised, get all upset about the incivility. Also, the escalating lengths of the blocks has only been 24 hours, 48 hours, 74 hours, 1 week (not yet served) and then suddenly a move to indefinite. I would suggest reblocking at the one week level, and then escalating further to a month and so on, if the incivility continues. Carcharoth 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• How hard would it be for the user to apologize and promise not to repeat the same mistake? I think that's a very easy condition for an unblock or reduction. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Many users react to a long block with an outburst of outrage. So far, as far as I know, Gene has been silent. We can't really hold that against him. Not to mention that for all we know he went camping after his last edit yesterday and doesn't know about the block bidding-war since then. Haukur 15:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Noting that I'm the person who issued the 72-hr block, I think the block should be reduced back to the 1 week block, per Carcharoth. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• "How hard would it be for the user to apologize and promise not to repeat the same mistake?" - by that argument, all blocks should be indefinite until the person who is blocked apologises for whatever behaviour allegedly caused the block. That sort of system would soon collapse as it would actually promote wheel-warring ("because he hasn't apologised!") or would promote bad-faith apologies. It also presumes that all blocks are correct, and makes blocking a more humiliating experience than it is at the moment, and brings up the disturbing image of some admins dangling a carrot of "apologise before I unblock you". Apologising should be natural, not forced. Carcharoth 15:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Physchim, I feel an indefinite block at this point is counterproductive to building encyclopedic content, and have restored the seven-day block. It is very clear that Gene has been uncivil and has made personal attacks, per this. However, comments on the administrator's noticeboard indicate that several users feel that the method of prevention of disturbance to the encyclopedia in this case (an indefinite block) is excessive. As Phychim has indicated he does not object to undoing the indefinite block, I have done so. It is my hope that Gene can reform his habits and return to building the encyclopedia when his block expires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firsfron (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• When a pattern of behavior has been long term, I think it makes sense that the block should last until the user expresses a desire to change. The apology thing, Carcharoth, wouldn't be necessary on the first or maybe second incident. This user was given several short blocks, so he was clearly on notice that the behavior needed to change, yet he continued. We're sending a message, but he's not getting it. Thus, there is a logic in blocking him until we have evidence that the message is received and understood. It's no big deal that the block was refactor to 7 days, either, because P62 invited that. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Carcharoth, actually that would be a good idea. If we never unblocked anyone until we were sure that they appreciated what they'd done wrong and were determined not to do it again, life might be a lot quieter. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• That depends on how you define "we" and "sure". I don't think it would be workable. The real trolls would always show enough contrition to get someone to unblock them, and there would be arguments over the detail of apologies that would be too lame for words. Carcharoth 18:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think making unblocks conditional on contrition is a good idea. We're encyclopedists here, not confessors. Their moral state of mind should be none of our business. It's not hard to issue escalating blocks over behavior without once considering motivations. That way lies... complications. It's a simple cause-and-effect thing: "Act this way, and you'll be blocked; if you wish not to be blocked, don't act that way." -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As a long time editor Gene is serious, rational, competent and hard working. He has always shown the best intentions for this project. The problems with his manor are small compared to all that, in my opinion.

An indefinite ban of this type of editor is rare. I'd like to ask that any off-wiki conversations on this topic be noted here now. --Duk 16:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am against an indefinite block but would support the case to be taken to arbitration. Some kind of parole could be an option. I have had clashes with him in the past over trivial issues that he stubbornly blew out of proportion. His campaign against anything with diacritics on has made him no friends in many occassions. Nonetheless, I agree that he is a hardworking contributor and it would be particularly cruel to impose a community ban. Regards, Asterion^talk 17:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Block reduction noted. In the light of the above comments, the restoration of the original block has my support. Physchim62 (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I think this thread can be wrapped up. Any philosophical discussions can be continued elsewhere. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • See new section below: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Targeted sanctions for Gene Nygaard?. Carcharoth 11:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Targeted sanctions for Gene Nygaard?

Header added and new section split off by Carcharoth 11:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a long history of conflicts with Gene Nygaard, although none is currently active (phew). Most of Gene's contributions to the project have been positive, but when it comes to diacritics things get ugly. I think that a probation against incivility and diacritics-warring would be the best way to deal with Gene's bad temper. A permanent ban should be issued by the arbcom, which I find unlikely. Húsönd 01:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"A permanent ban should be issued by the arbcom"? I think you've got it backwards. The ArbCom issues one year bans and various probations and paroles, but rarely indefinite bans. The community is largely the other way around. Picaroon (t) 01:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a community-imposed ban on page moves be the obvious solution? From what I can see (looking at his logs), he moves pages from spellings with diacritics to those without. He is right to ask people to find references to support the spellings with diacritics. What I can see is mainly a tendency to assume he is right and move things without sufficient (or any) discussion, and (to varying extents) to be incivil about it at the same time. He is quite right to insist on lack of diacritics in category and DEFAULTSORT keys, as diacritics (and lower case letters) do mess up the sorting. That is in the category sorting guidelines. So, again, a targeted community sanction based on page moves and incivility is probably what arbcom would come up with, so why don't we just do that now? He should still be part of the discussions on the topic, if he can be civil in those discussions. This is also complicated by the fact that he does lots of perfectly good page moves as well. It seems that the diacritics is really the bone of contention here. All this would only work, though, if he agreed to it, so maybe this discussion should reconvene when the block expires? If the community can't agree on a targeted solution like this, then take it to arbcom. Carcharoth 11:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to pile on but I've also had a couple run-ins with Gene Nygaard where civility has gone out the window from his first edit - and those run-ins go back years! Blocks of escalating lengths should have begun a long time ago IMHO. I can think of a few editors - Tecmobowl (talk · contribs) comes to mind - who were permabanned for similar levels of incivility over far smaller ranges of time (months instead of years). And Tecmobowl/Jmfangio was creating GA and FA-level articles during his tumultuous time here. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Tecmobowl decision is here. It seems that was more for the sockpuppeting (not a consideration here, obviously). Before the sockpuppeting, it seems that a topic ban was being considered, though I haven't read the whole debate. Talking of escalating blocks, it would help if people clarified where the jump-off point to indefinite is. Tecmobowl seems to have been another case of various 24 and 48 hour blocks, followed by a one week block that turned into an indefinite one, in his case when he carried on his edits using sockpuppets during the CSN discussion (I think). Carcharoth 15:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Gene took a five month break. Since returning in September, he's made about 5,000 edits. Of those, 59 are page moves, and of those 26 involve diacritics or oriental characters - this includes talk pages - usually with good edit summaries. So in 5,000 edits, he's moved about 14 pages with diacritics (approximate counting). The dispute that spawned this section had nothing to do with diacritics (I think it was the kilogram page and Wikiquette). Husond comes here and asks for a community imposed diacritic-related sanction - and offers not a shred of evidence why it is needed. There is no need for any diacritic-related page move sanction. --Duk 00:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Gene Nygaard ALREADY HAS A MOVE BAN: Wikipedia:Community_sanction/Log#Gene_Nygaard_is_banned_from_non_consensual_article_moves_until_further_notice. For additional info, see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Is_this_disruption.3F, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Implementation_of_Gene_Nygaard_article_move_ban, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive130#User:Gene_Nygaard_pages_moves, Wikipedia:Community_sanction/Log#Gene_Nygaard_is_banned_from_non_consensual_article_moves_until_further_notice, User_talk:Gene_Nygaard/2006Aug-2006Oct#You_are_banned_from_non_consensual_article_moves_until_further_notice, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive210#User:Gene_Nygaard, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive227#Blocking_User:Gene_Nygaard. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, I see that now. All I was working from was his block log, which has no mention of being blocked per such a sanction. Is there a place to check for such community sanctions (I see there is a Log subpage - is that easy to search?), or did they all go out of the window when the noticeboard was closed down? I also see that the previous discussions didn't mention the CSN discussions. Did you only just find them? And why, oh why, did no one actual enforce those previous sanctions?? I still think that escalating enforcement is a good idea, but that jumping from one week to indefinite is too soon. Is there a scale somewhere that people use? Can you block for a month, two months, a year? I know Arbcom use (or have used) such lengths, so why does the community seem to jump from 48 hours to a week, and then straight to indefinite? Carcharoth 15:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

All one has to do is check "What links here" (what linked to Gene's userpage), and filtering to show only Wikipedia pages. Why no one has enforced this, I don't know. The community sanctions are still there and they are still in force. I only came across Gene recently. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Lar, who wrote up the CSN topic ban, can enlighten us? It is possible it was only a 6-month topic ban and has since expired, but the note doesn't mention that. Thanks for the tip about using what links here restricted to WP namespace - that will owrk well in some cases. We should still have a better record of these things - that is what block logs are meant to be used for! Carcharoth 18:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What was the question? (this is in response to a request to turn up here) It was a while ago but I think I was trying to capture the consensus that I think had formed, see wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Is_this_disruption.3F particularly toward the bottom. The ban was "from non consensual article moves until further notice". That seems to suggest that it's indefinite, not any particular time (in particular there was not support for a 6 month period) but that if a new consensus forms, it could be changed. It also seems to suggest that it is limited in scope, if there are other issues (civility or edit warring or whatever) those are to be addressed separately The enforcement mechanism was short blocks, escalating if they didn't work. So what's the question? Is it "whether that move ban is still in force?" I'd say it is, until consensus forms that it shouldn't be. Is such a consensus forming? I see Duk making some good and valid points about how this is an important issue and how we need editors who can work these technical matters, but not a consensus yet. Anything else I can't really speak to. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe why it took us so long to find the previous topic ban? :-) Do people really use that log page of the defunct noticeboard? I saw a mention in that thread you linked to where you said

"There has to be an exit strategy... does this ban last forever? That's why I suggested clear consensus. If he is absolutely banned we will never know if he has changed his ways. That said I'm not driving here, just supporting what I see consensus forming to be and I am, as we all are, open to discussion, I would think. Community bans or article bans are an area we are still feeling our way about, so I'm not sure where this would be recorded even... seems impolite to hang it on his userpage forever, but it will get lost here quickly. No idea what to suggest (maybe there already is a page and i forgot)" - Lar 18:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That was followed immediately by a suggestion of a 6 month probation. I find it ironic that you emphasised not having an open-ended ban, and then that was what resulted (though as you said, you were not driving the discussion), but the bit about not being sure where to record it, and it "getting lost here quickly" is ironic. The page it is on is now marked "This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest." It was found again, but it seems people did forget about it! Carcharoth 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(partly outdent) I supported the CSN and in particular the log subpage, when it was first created, as a way to not lose things. AN/I runs so fast it is very easy to lose track of long term probations, community topic bans and the like. What CSN mutated into is a different topic but to have a ban get lost as it seems this one did, just seems a bad outcome, so I do not support the marking of that page as historic. It logs bans that are still in force, in some cases, and the tag ought to be removed. I'm not sure what else you're asking though, if anything. If the community wants to change the terms of this particular move/topic ban around, they should feel free to do so, and this seems the place to discuss it and reach a consensus. I haven't thought deeply enough about this recently to have a strong opinion about what the right thing to do is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs) 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, things seem to have slowed down again with this discussion. Did the CSN discussions have a set time to run, or did they just reach a natural conclusion? The old CSN Log page should probably be moved, or the current logs copied, to a Log subpage at AN, or wherever AN keeps its records... There definitely needs to be somewhere for community bans to be logged. You mentioned not putting them on user talk pages - well, there is some logic in putting a notice there, like for warning templates, but then you will get people saying that users have the right to remove them, just like they can for warning templates. An argument could be made that community sanctions are more serious, and so the notice should stay for the duration of the topic ban. It could be controversial though. What do others think? Carcharoth 21:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall how long things ran for before consensus was called on the CSN. But I think that irrelevant in this case, as this particular move restriction was arrived at, as I recall, at AN/I and only documented on the CSN. This is water over the dam at this point but I favoured the CSN for documenting things. Not necessarily for the later elaboration of being a place to arrive at things to document. There needs to be somewhere for bans to be logged that is independent of the user's own talk page, I think that is a better approach than saying "we have this rule about talk page removals which applies here and here but not there warnings are OK but ban notices aren't, except as applied under paragraph 3C but not in subsection 41g " :) ... ++Lar: t/c 01:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking into this a bit more deeply, and Gene does have a point. Not many people are aware that redirects are needed from non-diacritic titles, and that category sorting keys need to use non-diacritic characters (please be honest and say whether you knew the latter point about sort keys before reading these threads). Gene's method of using page moves to draw more attention to this sort of thing is not good, but rather than block him and brush this under the carpet, we need to consider how to make more people aware of the need for non-diacritic redirects and non-diacritic sort keys. I know a bit about this, because I recently suggested a bot to fix the use of non-diacritic sort keys (the bot would also need to make lower case letters at the start of words, into upper case letters, an eliminate punctuation like apostrophes). I also read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Is this disruption?, and one point Gene raised there was not addressed. Does anyone know whether search engines ignore diacritics or not? Gene's point was: "Redirects don't solve all the problems; articles can still be hidden from many search engine searches as a result of these moves accompanied by spelling changes within the article itself." Could someone try and address that, please? I did a test search for Ramūnas Šiškauskas, by searching for "Ramunas Siskauskas", and the Wikipedia article still appeared at the top of the search results (Google). I think that if we get a bot correcting the sort keys, and make an effort to encourage creation of redirects (a thankless task, but one that is needed), then we might be able to get somewhere. A similar case is for redirects involving middle initials, or forename initials. These too are desperately needed to turn redlinks blue, and this should be separated out from the disputes over where exactly among a plethora of alternatives the article should reside. Carcharoth 16:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, Husond, you are mixing the civility dispute with the diacritics dispute. Separate the two, and focus on Gene's recent edits to make your case. Otherwise your request for a targeted sanction isn't credible. more comments to come... --Duk 17:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you're right that the diacritic indexing is little-known. But the correct way to educate people is not by calling them simplistic or calling them fools (that last talk page is a nice example of Gene Nygaard's diplomacy skills). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey I didn't start all this! :-) But be it, Gene's incivility comes from his views on diacritics so these issues can hardly be dissociated. I don't even think that there's much point in focusing much on recent events, as Gene's misbehavior has remained unchanged for years. Block after block, here we are. I think it's time for an effective remedy to be found. Húsönd 18:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It strikes me as odd that he mixes the two. How diacritics are sorted in a category hardly seems worth warring over and yet he has done so for years. I once suggested that he request a bot to take care of those but was met with yet another snippy response. If a bot could do something, it can't be worth getting uncivil for. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, Husond, that your remedy is to silence an editor with views different than your own. You are using argument B (incivility) to win argument A (the content dispute). Have you no shame? --Duk 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, Duk, that your comments will henceforth be largely ignored by me. Húsönd 18:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, can we concentrate on Gene, and not you two, please? :-) Carcharoth 18:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Some comments:

1. Gene's incivility - This is highly subjective. It has never bothered me in the least - even when directed at me. For others, it is highly upsetting, and I respect their feelings. Others probably don't really don't care. And still others play up the incivility because they didn't do well in a content debate with Gene, even if these people can't recognize or admit it. Since this is highly subjective, there needs to be many views heard. This is a case where it is not acceptable for off-wiki collusion among buddies to make these judgments. There seems to be a growing consensus here for simple blocks of varying duration every time Gene pisses off enough people.
3. Content disputes - In the past, I've seen people in content disputes with Gene who don't do to well debating him, so they switch to his incivility - trying to use argument B to win argument A. I hope we are all smart enough here not to accept this. Many of Gene's battles revolve around his familiar refrain "why the hell isn't the English Wikipedia written in English". Husond gets close to mixing these two in the first paragraph of this section. They need to be separate, and Gene has done well lately, I believe, in not revert warring over page name moves. Therefore, I don't agree with a diacritics-related ban. If Husond wants to make a case for this, he needs to separate the content dispute from the civility dispute, and to look at recent editing. It seems to me that Husond just wants to silence an editor who he has a content dispute with.
5. Making a place for technical editors - I've seen many editors that are detail orientated. They tend to work hard and specialize in a focused area, becoming highly skilled in that particular area. They shoot for project-wide consistency, which inevitably brings conflict. These editors are generally non-social. They don't hang out in irc or come to the project to make a lot of friends, which puts them at a natural disadvantage when disputes arise. These types of editors also tend to be stubborn as hell, but valuable to the project. They are immune to social pressure and only listen to logic. There is a lot to gain by finding ways to include these types of editors, but many people don't understand how to interact with them. In a few cases, I've seen editors like this become embroiled in ever growing conflicts over amazingly trivial stuff - and eventually leaving. The important thing to realize here that both sides of the dispute were being stubborn. The inability to get along wasn't one-sided.
7. All that being said - I support Guy's latest block of Gene and hope he comes back with better behavior. --Duk 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Duk's points here. I too see people (not specifically in this case, but it might apply), getting upset when they are shown that they have been doing something wrong. Wounded pride and that, but so unnecessary. It doesn't help if the person pointing out that you have done something wrong is being rude or uncivil, but words like "fool" and "simple" can be shrugged off if you take a philosophical view - though I can understand some people getting upset with that. The best response is to swallow your pride and thank the editor for pointing out the mistake. The next point is crucial (though it doesn't work well if no-one is watching): let someone else call the offending editor out on incivility (ironically, I think wikiquette alerts are meant to allow this, which is what started all this). As the person who has just been hurt, you won't be the best person to deal with the situation. If anyone then "uses argument B to win argument A", well, I agree with Duk, that is indefensible (note that I'm not saying anyone has specifically done this). Finally, Duk's point about technical editors is an excellent one. Good contributors are sometimes naturally cranky people, and not good at social interaction, preferring to call a spade a spade. If that spills over into incivility, it does need to be restrained, but, like Duk, I think technical editors are invaluable to the project. Strong warnings when they are incivil, rather than immediate blocks, might be best. A strong warning probably helps more than a block in some cases. Anyway, if anyone is interested in the bot proposal, it is linked from User talk:Gene Nygaard. Carcharoth 19:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that some people are cranky by nature, but that doesn't mean that others have to put up with their crankiness. Strong warnings have proved useless with Gene, as he never apologizes or makes the slightest effort to change his behavior. On Wikipedia, all users have the right to communicate with Gene Nygaard (or any other user) without being spit on. Húsönd 01:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Husond, I partially agree with you here. I've never shortened or unblocked Gene, nor have I condoned his incivility. He doesn't get passes, unlike some of our more high profile admins. As for his being able to change: in his last 5,000 edits he's moved 14 pages with diacritics - all apparently straight forward, with proper edit summaries and no warring involved (as far as I could tell). That's a change, wouldn't you admit? Yet you come here asking for diacritic-related community sanctions. Things like this makes it very difficult to take anything you say seriously when it concerns Gene. Mayby Gene isn't the only one who needs to change a little.

Now, back to that high profile admin I mentioned - not going to mention his name because he's a great guy and I've no desire to run him down. There was an ANI discussion a while back about when to block for "persistent personal attacks". I noted that it was never a part of the blocking policy until recently. I went and found out who added it, then looked at his recent edits. In a period of three days I see him making the following comments:calling someone's opinion "ass clownery", "delete nominator", "Shut up and quit being a disgrace", "Ah, I see you're a different attention-seeking pissant entirely. My mistake." Suffice it to say that he is a well connected and popular member of the administrator community with a spotless block record. Again, I'm not trying to legitimize this behavior, but rather to put it into perspective.

I think we should drop these outdated diacritic-page-move charges, they are currently being used as a bludgeon with no facts to back them up. His category/page sorting is fine too. Hunsond should stay away from Gene and stop filing complaints. An impartial admin should hand Gene blocks with a minimum of fuss and drama when merited - call it a community sanctioned civility parol if you like, but I don't think the pomp is necessary. --Duk 03:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Instruction creep issue

I invite all administrators and editors to examine Wikipedia:Translation, an area I used to frequent all of the time but can no longer understand (or do not have the attention span to go through all of it) for example, here is a (once) deleted revision of when the translation process was much simpler: User:RyanGerbil10/GermanOverhaul. If you can figure out our current system, kudos; I wish it would go back. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I used the system a year or so ago, I think. It was bad, but I got an article out of it at the end. Carcharoth 16:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Janitorial tasks from multiple accounts

An editor recently requested my assistance when Resurgent insurgent (talk · contribs) reviewed and declined WP:CSD taggings. [2] [3] [4] When asked why he noted "Well, I'm an admin." [5]. The editor noticed Resurgent insurgent was categorised in Category:Wikipedia administrators, but not listed at Special:Listusers/sysop, leading to the editor suspecting Resurgent insurgent was impersonating an admin. Anyway, turns out Resurgent insurgent is one of a number of declared socks of Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) which does have the tools. Both accounts are currently active and appear to be used interchangeably. While I don't think this set up is used with any intent to mislead, it nevertheless appears to be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia:Administrators: "Although multiple user accounts are allowed on Wikipedia in certain circumstances, only one account of a given person should have administrative tools." and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Administrative sock puppets: "The community has strongly rejected users having more than one username with admin powers... only one account with access greater than that of a normal user account should be operated." I asked Resurgent insurgent if he would consider restricting the janitorial tasks we ask of admins (such as declining CSDs, protection requests etc) to the account with sysop status, if only to stop this type of confusion happening again. He doesn't appear particularly amenable to this, suggesting his account is "policy-compliant". I thought wider opinion may be of value. Rockpocket 21:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the main issue that causes confusion is not appropriately labeling or declaring these sock accounts. For example, I have a secondary account that I use on public computers, but this account is clearly labeled (and even has the same signature), so any confusion should be short-lived if I chose to do admin-like tasks with this account. As long as the user does some kind of step like this to reduce ambiguity, I don't think occasionally using a secondary account for janitorial tasks should cause too many problems. Eric (EWS23) 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, he does list all his sock accounts on his Resurgent insurgent user page, and all accounts redirect there. The problem is this account is not the one with sysop status. I don't really have a problem with declared socks doing the odd non-controversial janitorial task, but I would expect the principal account, the puppeteer, to be the one with the tools. That isn't the case in this instance. Rockpocket 21:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

any user can remove CSD taggings, not only administrators, per WP:CSD. Thus he was technically not using the tools on the other account. I agree, though, that it is a little confusing. 00:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think there is any administrator action needed. The person has the tools at his disposal even if the account does not. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So, the tools are given to a person then, and not to an account? That surprises me. How do we find out enough about a person to decide about Adminship, then? It would mean that any admin could open up mutliple accounts and use them all as "pretend" admin accounts? That's going to be very confusing to the average editor, I think. RFAs seem to be very much focussed on a single account. Perhaps I am missing something basic here. Bielle 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the tools are given to the account that is owned by the person, that's why you can have multiple accounts, but not multiple accounts with sysop rights and why you can't have shared accounts. I have a sock account that I use for testing things that I need a second account or a non-admin account to do. Even if I made thousands of construtive edits on it, I could not get admin tools on it. You can't have pretend admin accounts because only the account with actual admin tools can do the admin actions, the rest can only do administrative tasks that any user, admin or not, can do. Mr.Z-man 20:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the simplest way to avoid this sort of confusion is to require admins with sockpuppets to have the account with the tools as their primary/default account and all socks directing towards that. This way anytime a sock claimed "I am an admin", when someone went to query it they would end up on the talkpage of an account that actually was an admin, rather than the page of someone who maintains an admin sock. Rockpocket 21:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Whenever anyone is operating a legitimate sock they realy should make it clear on each sock's page who it belongs to. This common-sense approach shouldn't be limited to admins. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If any editor claims to be an admin (that is, as in Rockpocket's diffs #4, above, says on the editor's user page "I am an admin") when it is not, to this unsophisticated editor, that is an impersonation. The fact that the editor making the claim is a sock of an editor who is an admin, and claims that makes it all right, borders on wikilawyering. While there may well be degrees of culpability that mean this sort of claim is not as bad as impersonating an admin when neither the puppetmaster nor any of its socks is an admin, is still unnecessarlly confusing. Any solution that makes it clear to any editor who checks just which account is an admin and what that admin has done has to be better than confusion. Rockpocket's solution would achieve this; perhaps there are others that will do the same. Bielle 22:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No one has done anything wrong, and the goals of the encyclopedia are being met in a good user who happens to use multiple accounts in a way that may sometimes be slightly confusing. I do not recall any limitations in process set up for admins and admins only to fulfill. Though I do not remember where I saw it, or if it has been removed, but something that is inherent or, at least should be, in the spirit of Wikipedia is that any user may act in a way befitting an administrator. Certain tasks in process usually fall only to administrators because they are the only ones with the tools to perform the task - you cannot fully close an AfD as delete without the mop, but anyone is allowed to close a discussion as keep if the consensus is clear (unclear nominations will be squabbled over because the point doesn't appear to have been arbitrated). Any user can and, in an ideal world, should behave in a way befitting an administrator.

That being said, I do think that it is a good idea for administrators who maintain alternate accounts to have the administrator account remain primary - people tend to anthropomorphize accounts as the presence of the person at the keyboard, and using a secondary one as a front to the powers of the primary does seem somewhat questionable if not actually a bad thing. Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it may help if I explain how I came to end up using 2 accounts in the first place.

In August last year I asked to be renamed from "Kimchi.sg" to the more real name-ish "Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh". Very quickly I realised it is a mouthful and problematic for users passing messages. So I asked last November if I could swap the two accounts again, (I had created Kimchi.sg again, to prevent impersonation.) but the 'crats declined. So I've used an alternate account for much of the past year mainly to make my user name more readable. (I know people will just say "You could have signed as...", but how do you sign in the page history or move log?) I've never intended this to confuse other editors, thus I've asked again to usurp the Kimchi.sg account. Resurgent insurgent 08:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Necator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can post an {{unblock}} request on their talk page just like everybody else, rather than forum shopping in advance. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Guy have blamed user Necator for MPOV pushing without adducing any proof. [6] And did not even let the user go through WP:DR Just banned him when he tried to rise request for mediation.

I'm requesting to unban user Necator. 91.122.11.224 22:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Which is you, right? The block was for POV-pushing, WP:OWN, forum shopping, blaming everyone else for the fact that everyone else reverts your edits, and generally not getting it. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AWB requests to check

I'm supposed to nicely point out that there are requests at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage that are over 24 hours old. Thank you :) TheHYPO 22:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

みんなはこの”神との対話”を読む。いや、読まなくても良い。

Could an admin who reads the above language take a look at the deleted edits on User:Akanemoto. This user has requested the deletion of his/her user page nearly 50 times. Curious, I submitted some of the text to a translator, and Akanemoto appears to be using the page as a way to communicate with somebody. Interesting stuff (phrases such as "everyone is healthy", "I want to be free"), but this page may need to be protected from recreation or the user blocked. Comments welcome. - auburnpilot talk 22:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That "somebody" seems to be God (神). --BorgQueen 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Babelfish, always useless even between related European languages, suggests Everyone reads "the conversation with this God". Well, you do not read and also the [unknown character] is good. Which makes a certain gnomic sense. Personally, I'd undelete the entire page, then blank it, then protect the blank version. Most work, but least trouble and eliminates the problem in future. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Appears to be Japanese, as it usually makes more sense when spit through the Japanese translator than the Chinese option. Either way, I've protected the page. Akanemoto requested yet another deletion just minutes ago. - auburnpilot talk 23:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is somewhat non-sensical. It says, "Everyone is reading this sentence to God, or, you shouldn't read it." It is Japanese, using Kanji and Hiragana script. Cla68 00:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so put this down as someone who likes to talk to Kami-sama. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP backlog

This is starting to back up again. Can we get more admins involved? Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fuck SSP, check out the backlog here. It would be greatly appreciated if any admins who are even remotely versed in image policy could help out. east.718 at 05:27, 11/4/2007

that's not very appropriate language, esp for an admin. Pointing out other backlogs is fine, but disparging another admin task is hardly appropriate. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't disparaging anything; sometimes you can use profanity to humorously make a strong comparison. east.718 at 19:05, 11/4/2007 19:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate the use of foul vulgarity. Please refrain from it in the future. I am disappointed it came from an admin. Bstone 01:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce impending ban (and effects at AFD)

I am watching the Alkivar ArbCom case unfold and it appears that Burntsauce (talk · contribs) will soon be banned as a meatpuppet of JB196 (talk · contribs) (see ...#Burntsauce banned). I mention this because I see quite a few !votes by Burntsauce in open AFDs which I figure need to be disregarded as banned user edits. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Disregard away. Picaroon (t) 03:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:Copied with attribution to the Bureaucrat's noticeboard. Keegan^talk 05:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought he'd participated in RfA recently but I am wrong. Whoopsie. Keegan^talk 05:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

New user closing AfD Discussion after 2 hours

I was just looking at the AfD list for today, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Jones (author) has been closed as a Speedy Keep, after less than 2 hours, by User:Icestorm815, a user who had only been editing actively for about 2 months. I have no opinion on outcome of the AfD itself, but this nomination was made by an admin in good faith. Even if another admin had closed it so quickly it would have been suspect. Two of the four keep !voters have edited the article, so not exactly unbiased consensus either way.

The point is, a relatively new user should not be closing good faith AfDs after less than 2 hours. Could an admin deal with this and possibly let User:Icestorm815 how things work there? If this continues we'll be getting users closing any AfD they disagree after a couple of hours just because someone said "speedy keep". Crazysuit 05:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's a valid speedy keep, but as usual (frustratingly) the assertions of notability and the claim of many sources have not translated into edits to the article. This often happens with AfD, and means that it might all happen again. So if you'd like to encourage the keep advocates to improve the article, you'd be doing the project a service. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also note comments being made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker#Lee Jones.--Alf ^melmac 09:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no major problems with non-admins and even new users closing discussions as long as they follow policy. The main concern is the possibility of abuse, by closing discussions prematurely or closing with a COI. But we have Wikipedia:Deletion review for that, and users are warned or even blocked if they abuse the process. Apparently, this particular case warranted a Speedy Keep, so no harm was done. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 11:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but how exactly did this qualify as a speedy keep? It comes nowhere close, as far as I can see. There was nowhere near enough time for discussion whether the (admittedly many) web sources do indeed constitute non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Most web hits seem to be from either booksellers, or private blogs or commercial sites. Do any of these qualify as reliable sources? I'll have no problem if it should in fact be determined that they do, but it's not something about which a SNOW-like consensus can simply be assumed. Recommend overturning this invalid non-admin closure and waiting out the discussion period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's one of those where if you know who the subject is, the nomination appears ridiculous, but if you don't... ELIMINATORJR 12:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

...then knowledgeable folks should add information to provide context to the article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. ELIMINATORJR 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said apparently. (:-) - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the main topic here: has anyone determined whether or not this new user is actually an old user wearing a new coat? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A litle AGF is needed here. The bottom line is to determine whether the speedy closure in question was valid, which I think it is. If anything, we should be pleased that there are experienced non-administrators who are willing to help out with the AfD backlog. PeaceNT 12:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've overturned the closure. There's no harm in having this go through the full process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I support your action. If the Speedy Close rationale is contested by good-faith users, it should be overturned and relisted, but not just because of the user who closed it. However, I imagine further discussion on this issue is needed, maybe at a later period. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 21:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree, it was closed prematurely and incorrectly. But I do believe that this is a case that WILL snowball. Right now the !vote is at 8-1, and the 1 is a "conditional delete" asking for reliable sources---not realizing that Cardplayer Magazine is the magazine authority in Poker. Before closing this AIV, I would ask other admins to revisit the AFD to see if should be snowballed afterall. I believe that while it was closed early, that this is still a candidate for snowball.Balloonman 23:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Complicated cut and paste move needs fixing

Resolved

Bronx-Whitestone Bridge (old history) has the old history of Bronx-Whitestone Bridge, which does not appear in the current article. Bronx Whitestone Bridge has the history of what's now in Bronx-Whitestone Bridge. The two histories overlap in time. Can somebody fix this, and let me know if I could have handled it better? Thank you. --NE2 10:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll also need Queens-Midtown Tunnel deleted (no real history here, fortunately) so Queens Midtown Tunnel can be moved. --NE2 10:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Dang! That was indeed complicated. It's been fixed, anyway. :) PeaceNT 10:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Needing some Help

I want to request permission from WikiMedia to allow the use of a history written by someone else. A gentleman at the Newtown History Center in Stephens City, Virginia, wrote a very detailed, very well written history about the town of Stephens City and I would like to use it. The permission I sent (by email from NHC's Adminstrative Assistant) was not valid according to the rules. Could someone tell me if this is what I need them to fill out? I don't want to have to ask them a 3rd time for permission if this try doesn't work. I appericate any help I can get. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would work. Replace "LICENSE [choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_tags ]" with "GNU Free Documentation License (link)" (as the all textual content must be submitted to Wikipedia under this license). --Iamunknown 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Should today's Featured article be protected?

Since it has been protected and unprotected and protected again once already, i feel this should be decided by consesnus. Todays FA GameFAQshas revieved a bit of vandalisim due to the fact that its a) The FAOTD and b) the last day of the character tournement. Should it be protected or not? I oppose protecting it, but am open to disscusion to cahnge my mind. The Placebo Effect 01:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

TFAs are protected when they're subject to insane levels of vandalism... like now. There are currently several thousand teenagers wetting themselves because their home website is on Wikipedia's front page. Unprotect if you feel like reverting all of them. – Steel 01:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think all FAs on the main page should be protected, they're nothing but vandal magnets and it's ludicrous to proclaim it as wiki's best when they are vandalized so much. We sure want new comers to come see the main page FA as our best when it has profanity, porn, etc on it--NOT. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost one a minute. Ouch. I think this is appropriate. --Haemo 01:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Our policy is very clear. FA must not be protected unless there is reason beyond doubt to do so, like adding libel information. -- ReyBrujo 01:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to head off the inevitable admin who'll unprotect it with the summary "We never protect the main page FA", they should read Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection first. The old axiom isn't really true. --W.marsh 01:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be unprotected. We've had much worse hit FAs than this one. Vandalism was being reverted quickly and protection being determined in less that an hour seems very hasty. This is far from insane levels of vandalism - we could cope with this by watchlisting and reverting. WjBscribe 01:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, apparently my attempt didn't work because it's now been unprotected with pretty much the edit summary I predicted. --W.marsh 01:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you think Wii fare much better when it made it the home page? ;-) -- ReyBrujo 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If the article suffered, leaving it unprotected was probably a bad idea. Some people seem to enjoy leaving articles unprotected like they're the guy who stands in front of a cannonball at the state fair... we don't allow IP editing to show we can take a beating, we allow it (in theory at least) only because it usually tends to improve articles. In cases where improvement doesn't seem to be occurring... it's just masochism. --W.marsh 02:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, while I understand your position, I am one of those who still think a good anonymous contribution is worth the hassle. What I would change in the policy is that those who deface the page (replacing it with another text) should be warned just once and then blocked, or just blocked, depending on the administrator's judgment. This is because the user is vandalizing a very transited page in order to gain notoriety. -- ReyBrujo 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone name the last FAOTD that was semi-protected for more than an hour? The Placebo Effect 03:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Islam? Anyone who thinks "we never semi-protect the main page FA" should look at that one. --W.marsh 03:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, both the articles on Gerbils (I think?) and the article on Intelligent Design were protected a third of the day last month. We shouldn't do this; it is bad for the project long term. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What's bad for the project, protecting them or leaving them unprotected? Mr.Z-man 03:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection is bad. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

W.marsh, let's not compare the vandalism an article like Islam, George W. Bush or similar could get with the one GameFAQs gets. This one is childish vandalism, by young people with a lot of free time to browse internet but little to think. The others border libel and racism. -- ReyBrujo 03:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I just object to people saying "we never semi-protect the FA" when we obviously do sometimes. --W.marsh 03:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured article is aways hit the hardest because it's the first thing the little bastards charming young souls see. HalfShadow 03:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I understand. And I used to think we should protect them (I even reported once that it should be protected before realizing there is a policy against it). You must excuse my behavior, I believe the perfect article must not be protected, and therefore vouch for the unprotection of featured articles, unless there is something more than childish vandalism. However, that is just my point of view, if vandalism reaches a high peak and cannot be controlled, it could be protected for a few minutes. We cannot know if they have posted a note at the boards pointing to this article (although I am almost sure they did). -- ReyBrujo 03:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, s'alright; I felt the same way for the same reason, once (first thing seen=hardest hit). Of course, it also means closest screened... HalfShadow 03:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for unprotecting during this discussion. I didn't realize this was going on. (I need to pare my watchlist down a bit). I haven't noticed that the vandalism level is particularly higher than usual main page FAs, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected - I'm a regular RFPP patroller and in all my time, I've not seen a mainpage article get so beaten up. As this is an extreme case and because we've had precedent before, I've upgraded protection to semi-prot, sysop move. Anyone can feel free to review and change this at any time but for the moment, give the article a chance. It's being vandalised faster than it can be reverted and the brakes need to go on, even if for just an hour or so - Alison ^❤ 04:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

sic transit gloria mundi. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And now here come the sleeper socks. When is the last time we needed full prot on a main page article? At that point, it might need to be taken down IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The more sleeper socks we block, the better IMO. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Zero tolerance on the sleepers. I would have prefered to keep the page unprotected longer though :(. Ah well, we can try unprotection again in a few hours... WjBscribe 04:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, they are likely creating accounts which become sleepers because they can't use them right now ;) -- ReyBrujo 04:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Normally, the main page isn't protected. But come on, this amount of vandalism is ridiculous. It should slow down once all the GameFAQs migrators get it out of their system. Leave it sprotected for 2-3 hours I'd say. Wizardman 04:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

well, if it is that bad, fine. But an hour or two is stretching it. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered‎ (talk · contribs)

I was under the impression that PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been placed under community mentorship. He was assigned Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as his mentor, but Zscout370 has since resigned from this role, leaving PalestineRemembered with no mentor. I'm a little concerned that he now seems to have chosen his own mentor (Kendrick7 (talk · contribs)) to replace Zscout370. If my memory serves me correct, I've seen Kendrick7 come out in support of Palestine remembered on a number of occasions, most notably his request for arbitration. I think it's best if a neutral mentor is assigned, and one chosen by the community - thoughts? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to do it as long as someone will familiarize me with the history of the dispute. east.718 at 02:06, 11/5/2007

Mm, I wonder where a nice, neutral mentor could be found **looks at Ryan** :] I Like To^Talk 02:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I volunteered. As far as support, I may have assumed good faith beyond what others were willing to assume at certain points. But having worked in the past in the same series of articles as PR, which are a uniquely troublesome area of the wikipedia to work in (involving an ongoing civil war), I had hoped I'd be uniquely qualified for the job. But, whatever is clever. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Kendrick7 volunteered when nobody else did; he wasn't selected from among multiple volunteers. See User talk:PalestineRemembered#Can I be your new mentor?. A dual mentorship might be best; Kendrick has more recent editing experience in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict areas than Ryan does, so he definitely brings an experience of what the mud in the trenches is like that Ryan doesn't have. Ryan is an admin, which Kendrick7 isn't. The combination could be good. We have one other dual mentorship in this dispute area; Isarig is being mentored by FayssalF and Avi. GRBerry 02:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I could not agree more with Ryan and I note that PR's suggestion that he's already got a mentor^[7] confuses me.
2. I have no qualms with Ryan's suggestion that he'd mentor PR or with East718 for that matter, however i fail to see how Kendrik7 is a qualified well established admin of the caliber of Avi and/or FayssalF. His initial statement that, he's "always taken a shine to (e.g. PR)"^[8] and that he does not understand the last block (intentional repetition of WP:NPA despite warnings from mentors and non-involved editors) was enough to illustrate a would be problem.
3. I still believe PR should be topic banned until some mentorship rules be established. as of now, he continues to soapbox and shows a strong disregard to context despite explanations [9][10].

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually and literally did not understand the last block; I hadn't been paying attention for a while, and was oblivious to the exact circumstances even after reviewing PR's talk page. I am paying attention now however and was meaning to mention to PR to be kinder in his edit summaries. Topic banning PR does little good, as he is a permitted WP:SPA which only edits in this area. (If I had such wisdom long ago, I'd be an probably be an admin by now.) -- Kendrick7^talk 03:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind that idea, GRBerry. Between myself and Ryan we could be the old carrot and stick. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the specifics, here, but I generally trust Ryan to be neutral, experienced, and even-handed. No disrespect intended to East, I'm just not as familiar with you, personally (yet!). Kendrick sounds willing and familiar with the matters at hand; it may not hurt to have a sympathetic mentor, provided there's also some balance to the mentoring. If everybody's open to trying a new way to solve problems, I'd say I could think of much worse arrangements. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Profanity and homophobic epithets at User_talk:Sir Crimson

Sir Crimson, who has a history of vandalism and vulgarity, reverted edits I made to his talk page which contain highly inflammatory and inappropriate language for this encyclopedia. I would ask an administrator to revert and/or protect the page so he's unable to replace it. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds 02:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've protected it for 24 hours and blocked the user for the same amount of time. Mr.Z-man 04:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, I thought WP:NOT censored? — Rickyrab | Talk 04:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That is only for articles, and when it has encyclopedic value. Those comments aren't really needed in a talk page. -- ReyBrujo 04:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

IN this I'd say of greater concern ist that Sir Crimson attributed the word to another editor [11] Gnangarra 04:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! That means Sir Crimson probably holds a grudge against The Wookieepedian (talk · contribs). -- ReyBrujo 04:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a note at Wookieepedian's talk page, to see if he can identify the user. If he is a sock of a vandal he can recognize, we can indef block Sir Crimson directly. I think he should receive a warning for signing an attack comment as if he were another wikipedian, unless he can point out when TW said that. -- ReyBrujo 05:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a concern... though even if Wookieepedian did say that, at some point in time, is it serving any productive purpose to blank one's talk page to post that sort of quote, accurate or not? I can't imagine any goal, there, except to agitate other user(s). There may be some history here that I'm not aware of, but obviously something is amiss. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Insignificant Ban

Hi there. I was banned for a reason that I don't think was justified. I clearly had a direct quote to correspond to the verifiability act, yet I was "overidden" by a mere "consensus". I thought that having verifiable sources outweighed the mere possibility of a group of people forming a consensus to edit and place unreliable sources. If I am wrong, then I will clearly adhere to this possible, yet unlogical, principle. Sincerely, InternetHero 03:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the ban was by RobertG (talk · contribs) due to this edit. --W.marsh 03:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is never a good way resolve anything, and the block has already expired. I did offer a suggestion to InternetHero about the painting so maybe that'll take some of the heat out of its inclusion in the article. Gnangarra 04:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to show me the part where "but I'm right!" is an exemption from WP:3RR. We know you think you're right, that's why you're edit warring -- problem is, everybody else thinks they're right, too, and we find ourselves at a bit of an impasse if people just revert back and forth to their own personal versions of rightness. Yes, talking and negotiating is a complete pain in the ass, sometimes, but it also happens to be one of the few ways to really accomplish any form of consensus. If your reasoning is really as good as you say it is, convince everybody else of the same thing with your conviction and persuasive ability, instead of edit warring and throwing up silly challenges, and then you won't have as many problems to put up with. It's not a battleground, it's a collaborative project. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote/fundraiser mess at the top

So what are we putting in our monobook.css to block that "Wikipedia itself is an outstanding achievement of humanity." — Anon [Hide this message] mess at the top now? If you click the "Hide this message", all it does it change it to the fundraising bar... -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the sections on WP:VPT has the new code. --NE2 05:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)