Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Can anyone help at WP:SSP?

I know it looks daunting, but even a little bit can go a long way. We lost User:Shalom Yechiel and a few others who used to look at sockpuppet cases. Now it gets very little attention from admins, or anyone, actually. Enigma ^message 06:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I took care of 9 of them... Still 50+ left to deal with. SQL^{Query me!} 08:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Enigma ^message 09:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a look there but was dissuaded by the lack of instructions. Is there anything non-admins can do there? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You do not have to be an administrator, although it helps. If you're not an administrator, you can look through the evidence and give your opinion, so that when an admin comes, there's less work for them to do. That's what User:Shalom Yechiel used to do, even though he wasn't an admin. Enigma ^message 19:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked User:VigilancePrime.

I have unblocked User:VigilancePrime. He has given me assurances that the issues that led to his indefinite block will not recur. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have concerns about this Morven. I've been in email contact with him because he asked me to help him get unblocked. I said I wasn't prepared to do that without an assurance that he stayed well away from the pedophile article topic. His editing there was less than helpful, and I suspect he would have been swiftly blocked solely for his POV pushing on those articles not to long after he created the userboxes. He made no such assurance to me, and made it clear he was to continue his battles with the anti-pedophilia group of editors - he said he'd never agree to edit under such terms. Personally - I think this unblock is going to increase the problems on those articles and will lead to a lot more work, for very little gain. If this unblock is to stay, I'd like to suggest a community restriction banning him from any pedophile related articles or pedophile topic discussions on Wikipedia. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely uncomfortable with this as well. "he has given me assurances..." They must be pretty darn good assurances then, because I'm not convinced yet. Wizardman 22:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

They were. If he returns and causes problems I have no problem with reblocking him, and no problem with anyone else doing so. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So clue us in: what, exactly, were those assurances? --Calton | Talk 23:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Primarily that he will avoid the pedophile articles completely. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In my Wikipedia experience, an editor who makes an undertaking to avoid a subject area or even specific articles does so publicly, by way of a personal statement on his/her User page or, if unable or unwilling to make such a statement, is given an article or topic ban. Enforcing something as nebulous as a statement of "primarily, he will avoid the pedophile articles completely" on this page that will be archived in just a few days would be problematical, to say the least. Perhaps Morwen can publish the unblock conditions on Prime's talk page for all to know and understand, including Prime himself. Clarity is useful to all. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done so. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think if he stays away from PAW then this is okay as a PAW member. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Support unblock, based on the topic restriction as posted on the user's talk page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I should add - Ryan is correct that pedophile topic discussions (talk pages and Wikipedia-space) are also of concern; I strongly support inclusion of those pages under the restriction. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this idea, seems to overly broad and could be misconstrued. Would he have been wrong to comment in that shameful bash-jeffpw thread that is happening on AN/I? I do not support allowing people back only to set them up to fail, not that I think he deserved to be banned in the first place.

On a side note, it is pleasing to see that ArbCom is trying to reform. I'm glad to see that open discussion and community input is no longer forbidden. Now if you would kindly vacate the secret trials bit, I think that would put everyone at ease. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Som,etimes I'm slow: Which "shameful bash-jeffpw thread that is happening on AN/I?" - brenneman 04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• As long as he does not make any edit or comment that is related to paedophilia or promoting a pro-paedophile agenda, there will be no problem. If he does, he gets blocked again, so the problem will be of limited duration. I remember VP as a tendentious editor, but that too can be watched. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Location articles

For some reason all of the articles about cities and towns are coming out malformatted. Check out Tenafly, NJ, Newark, NJ, etc... I thought it might have something to do with the template but I check out Template:Infobox Settlement which are used in these articles and don't see anything wrong.--Jersey Devil (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any malformation. Fixed already? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I still see it. Like the infoboxes for these articles are on the left and it brings down all the article content below it.--Jersey Devil (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks ok to me too. Try purging your cache. Synergy 13:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Did that and it still looked malformed. Then I just changed the skin and went back to the same articles and it looked fine. It seems that the articles only show up messed up for the "Modern" skin for some reason.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, about 15 hours ago, the site was updated, and the Modern and Simple skins were broken in the process (bugzilla:14954). The issue has been fixed internally and will go live sometime soon-ish. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for letting me know. I thought I was the only one that was seeing it and was crazy lol thanks I'll just keep a different skin until those skins get fixed.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motions for discretionary sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing two motions to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to three prior cases. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the areas of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The areas of conflicts have been defined as "articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted" for the Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Pseudoscience cases, and as "articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted" for the Digwuren case.

The final text of the motions can be found at the case pages linked above.

— Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted" is an "area of conflict"? This means that anything associated with Eastern Europe is covered by the ruling? Everyking (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be how I would interpret it, although I would apply a bit of common sense; an edit war over Anna Kournikova's bust size is not likely to be a nationalism-based dispute, although she is from Eastern Europe. Horologium (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be applied only in cases where nationalism is involved? Everyking (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism was the underlying cause of the whole Digwuren case, and remedy 8 addresses that concern, although the arbcom did not use the incendiary term "nationalism". Horologium (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Broadly interpreted it would mean everything east of Switzerland and west of the Urals. Surely the committee can afford to tighten up the wording a bit. — CharlotteWebb 12:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:HighKing

Could someone please deal with this user. He is causing aggrovation and conflict all over the place, and has been for months now, in his relentless campaign to rid Wikipedia of British Isles. I'm concerned with GENUKI and similar articles, but his trolling is affecting a very wide area of this encyclopedia. Is there nothing than can be done to stop this user - apparently not, so far! 82.14.71.91 (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to back your claim up with some diffs, as I'm not seeing what the problem is. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just look at pretty much any article edit HighKing makes. All he ever does is remove "British Isles" from articles. This is getting out of hand, a look at his talk page archives shows this issue has been brought up with him time and time again. Chillum 16:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone notified the user of this thread? I don't see it on his talkpage. Perhaps there's some methodology here that is easily explained or workable? Keeper ǀ 76 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just did. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 16:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking deeper, this does seem like a problem. Maybe a possible block is in order. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I support a block at this point, perhaps 48 hours with a warning to stop or face longer blocks. Also, 82 did notify HighKing of this thread[4]. Chillum 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and if you look in the archives of WP:AN and WP:ANI you will see that this issue has come up a few times in the past both as HighKing and his old name Bardcom. Chillum 16:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Chillum (and IP), I don't know how I didn't see that diff, sorry for the redundancy. The frequency of "issues" doesn't have anything to do with the current post from IP 82 or the subsequent notification, but I should've still seen that diff, it was my error for not. Stepping out. Keeper ǀ 76 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In response specifically to the anon IP complainer above, the consensus on the GENUKI article was that because the primary source - the GENUKI website itself - described the top level as "Common to all of British Isles", then the article continued to use the term. The GENUKI website appears to have been updated and has corrected this anomalous usage. Since the consensus was to agree with the primary source, I've changed the article to now reflect "Common to all of the United Kingdom and Ireland". This has also been explained on the article Talk page. It's a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or most likely WP:IVECHANGEDMYMINDABOUTAGREEINGTOUSETHEPRIMARYSOURCEASTHEWAYTODECIDETHIS.

In response specifically to the suggestion of a block, I have spent most of the day discussing with User:DdStretch some of the edits, and I've provided references for each. @Julian, you say there seems to be a problem - please take the time to look closer at my edits, and the discussions. Each edit is correcting an incorrect use of the term "British Isles", with references. This takes a lot of time on my account, and I do not edit any article that takes my fancy, but only those that are incorrect. If you follow my discussion with User:Ddstretch (an admin) today, you will see this. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your reasons change as the situation changes, but the result is always the same, the removal of the term "British Isles". This speaks volumes to me. You seem to be on Wikipedia for one purpose only. Chillum 16:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

@Chillum, you have taken an interest in this for quiet some time, always making loose and foggy accusations and generally just adding to the background noise. Please be specific. What reasons have changed? What specific edits do you object to? Where did you discuss them? This speaks more to me as at least I can have a stab at responding to the accusations. --HighKing (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but there was no consensus on the GENUKI Talk page, you just left it alone in the face of contra arguments. But then, presumably not wanting to be defeated, you've come back for another go at getting rid of British Isles. You say you do not edit any article that takes your fancy - no, it appears that you look at articles linked to British Isles and then knock them off, one after another. 82.14.71.91 (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but there was no consensus on the GENUKI Talk page, you just left it alone in the face of contra arguments. But then, presumably not wanting to be defeated, you've come back for another go at getting rid of British Isles. You say you do not edit any article that takes your fancy - no, it appears that you look at articles linked to British Isles and then knock them off, one after another. 82.14.71.91 (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the article Talk page for the discussion and agreement. --HighKing (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally, there are a lot of British editors on Wikipedia that simply give a knee-jerk reaction when they see an accusation that someone is removing the term "British Isles" - I expect this reaction at this stage. The previous WP:AN and WP:ANI were rejected because it is seen as a content dispute. I respectfully request any admins looking at this to consider if this is a case of some editors over-reacting when they see this accusation, and not looking beyond this to see if my edits are making the encyclopedia better and more accurate. I am always civil, and always AGF, and always am happy to discuss and am very responsive. I always welcome collaboration on articles. Last night, I disagreed with User:CarterBar over some articles, and we agreed to take some time to think about it and we'd talk later today - the articles are remaining with the phrase "British Isles" in the meantime. If you check out my edits and comments and general behaviour over the past couple of days or longer, I believe you will see for yourselves that once again there appears to be an over-reaction taking place. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"I do not edit any article that takes my fancy, but only those that are incorrect" falsely alleges Bardcom. Challenge Cup was right until Bardcom went near it (source). He does not edit articles that are "incorrect", but ones he thinks are incorrect based on usually nothing more than his ill-informed opinion. EmpireForever (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a different competition and a different cup. Your recent edits have now added incorrect facts to the article. You might want to revert yourself. (Kinda proves the theory that it's a lot easier to use the term "British Isles" incorrectly that correcting the articles after you...) Also, another SPA focused on my edits, the editor who brought the failed ANI. Checkuser anyone? --HighKing (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, as anyone with a basic knowledge of rugby league knows. There is only one rugby league Challenge Cup in the British Isles, see this for some information to show it is the correct one (source). My edit was right, yours was not. EmpireForever (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For an account that seems to have only one purpose, I find it surprising you would be pointing out a SPA. Chillum 17:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe you only see what you set out to look for.... I've edited on many technology articles, on Irish articles, on local Dublin articles, on whiskey and sport related articles. And I've never denied my interest in housekeeping on the term British Isles either, but makes me an SPA in the same way that WMC is a global warming SPA. Different than EmpireForever. Checkuser anyone?  :-) I think it would be enlightening... --HighKing (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I will be honest, I only checked your last dozen or so contribs each time you ended up on this noticeboard, about 3 or so times, and each time your edits were pretty much just that. If you are doing other things then I guess I would have to sift deeper to find them. Chillum 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - most of the time attention is drawn only when activity on the subject is more than normal. BTW, it's pretty hard to put up with attitudes like this though. --HighKing (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And this --HighKing (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. And now it's gone all quiet again. Huh. The diffs above are pretty racist. Anybody want to do something about them? --HighKing (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A block on User:HighKing is not necessary. When looking at his edits in detail you can see he does a bit of other stuff as well, but not much. What's needed here is something to stop him editing articles to remove the usage of British Isles. That's where all the aggravation is caused, and there's a lot of it. He really does cause a problem and it looks like it has been going on since about March. He must stop this provocative editing. 82.14.71.91 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom/HighKing's crusade against Britishness is continuing. He is removing sources that use British Isles, for no apparent reason. This really should be stopped. EmpireForever (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are edit-warring on many articles. You refuse to discuss on the article Talk page. You refuse to discuss on any Talk page. You're up to your maximum edits on several pages, and now you're trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people here. Also, comments referring to Irish as terrorists (and I hope you weren't aiming that at me personally) is frowned upon and deserves to get you a block. --HighKing (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"You are edit-warring on many articles" - pot, meet kettle. At least my edits have reliable sources, the ones you remove because they contain British Isles. EmpireForever (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE: Both HighKing and EmpireForever have been blocked for edit warring over the addition and removal of the term "British Isles". Chillum 03:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting images

Does any admin find that when they delete images and choose the "Reason for deletion" dropdown menu, they couldn't find most of the CSD criteria (e.g. CSD I8) but instead presented with a dropdown normally for deleting articles? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd noticed that it's poorly equipped to handle deletions under CSD other than the general and article ones. I could add support for images in a jiffy, if you'd like. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got my personal suggestions at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox#Image delete reasons, but some might be able to be left out or combined. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You can always add User:AuburnPilot/csd.js to your monobook. It's a copy of ^demon's old script and contains all of the speedy criteria. - auburnpilot talk 19:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Script works great, but... if the image has an existing talk page, the script fails to work. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for adding more options to the list, but it should probably be put up for discussion at WP:VPP or somewhere else larger than here. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

They were there, but removed like 1 or 2 days ago for some reason that I don't know. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet

User:Rebafan11 is a known sockpuppet who continues to insert false info in articles. Please check into the edits this sockpupper has made. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A "known sockpuppet" in this case meaning: someone with a "suspected sockpuppet" tag on their user page, added by User:Neutralhomer. Hmm. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that User:Tanthalas39 has blocked this account. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Nanshu and 2channel attacks again

• Note:I repaste this, because it was manually archived by User:Ncmvocalist along with its parent thread Archive455#Comfort_women. The matter is not even touched yet. And Nanshu (talk · contribs)'s problematic attitude continues like this.[5][6]

• Past ANI Archive38 on 2channel and Nanshu

I've noticed that editors deeply associated with 2channel, Japanese biggest internet forum resume their systematic meat/sockpuppetry again. I predict this same disruption would repeat again because Checkuser system does not hold info more than 4 months and they know it and discuss about it.

Among them, User:Nanshu, being deeply associated with the Korean bashing forum also falsely accused me of abusing RFCU system to ANI to to evade much attention to them. I found his plot on one of 2channal pages. After this, Nanshu scarcely appeared to Wikipedia. Anyway, whatever article he has edited has been strongly opposed by Korean editors because of his tendency of exaggerating and distorting information to minimize Korean culture and history.[7] His view is always same as follows. Korea had been a tributary state of China but luckily saved and modernized by Japanese colonial rule. "Koreans always cook up with new theories to make themselves superior than Japan regardless of their Inferiority". He claims that Korean influence on ancient Japanese history is minor, so removes such information. Whoever objects to his tilted point of view, he accuses them of doing vandalism, even thought those accusation are actually content disputes cuased by him[8][9][10] This can be recently seen at Talk:Kangnido and Talk:Yeongeunmun Gate. At Kangnido, he deliberately has repeatedly removed Korean geographer's credit in the lead and claims it as a mere Mongol's copy or tried to merge the article into other articles.

He also frequently makes personal attacks against me like "harmful to Wikepedia", "useless hard worker"[11], "doing things in unconstructive ways", "nuisance" and "obstruct" of Wikepedia[12], because I don't agree with his crooked point of views. Also his edit on Yeongeunmun Gate has been disputed by several editors, and 2channel people ridicule the gate and article as a symbol of Korea's humiliating diplomacy. So I put {{NPOV}} tag and he has tried to remove it as calling me "vandal" as his usual.[13][14] He also accused me of not improving the article. On the other hand, I have a lot of interests aside from Korean history, and he disappeared so often. Therefore, I don't feel urgent to edit Yeongeunmun Gate. He suddenly reappears again today and make a threat of accusing me again. I think this user's behaviors are totally not acceptable in Wikipedia. Earlier his such behaviors were watched and pointed by several admins too. He also creates articles by hearsay to denounce Korea such as Samurang which has been up for AFD. I believe his reappearance is just as same as the last case. Japanese editors are recently being blocked for their violation of policies, so try to remove their common enemy like me out of Wikipedia. They consult about how effectively to remove me like RFC or Arbcom files. They regard Wikipedia as places for their political propagandas or battlefield. Unlike Nanshu's accusation of "useless harmful editor", during their absent time, I've created or edited many "useful articles", so got more than 10 DYKs. Therefore, I believe their disruptive behaviors make editors unable to article in a peaceful and constructive way.

Moreover, they said they would move their forum to other places, but still retain the bashing forum within 2channel. According to their page, their meatpuppetry plots are evident. They still stalk me and other editors and record every move related to Korean history or Japanese, Chinese history. You can find my name mentioned there so many times, including even today and yesterday's my activities[15][16]2channel meatpuppeting 1

Japan-Korea related articles are really necessary to being brought from more adminins' attentions. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I also implemented Yeongeunmun Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with two reliable sources (Korean encyclopedia) yesterday. However, today, he continues his habitual false accusation against me like vandalism again.[17] Even if I would want to agree with his biased edit, that would mean I conducted vandalism which is totally false and unwarranted. Nanshu should apologize his disruptive behaviors to me. He removed not only two respectable sources, but also insists that his original research version is valid.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:Yeongeunmun Gate#Please consider if this article should be deleted admins, EdJohnston intervened in this[18], but still there is no answer from Nanshu.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

List of articles I've created?

Resolved

Quick question: is there a simple way of compiling a list of all the articles I've created? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Toolserver tool. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the future, questions like these should be directed to the help desk, which specializes in answering Wikipedia-related questions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary broken ?

Hi. Could someone please review this : WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Copying_to_Wiktionary and see if something is actually broken, or if we're just confused....or both :-) Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Pinged the bot operator at wikt:User talk:Connel MacKenzie#w:User:CopyToWiktionaryBot (spiffy link). So, we'll get somewhere on it as soon as possible. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is removing CSD tags vandalism?

I'm completley uninvolved, but I'm just asking the question because I can see myself doing the same thing and I want to get a good answer so I know what to do in the future. I have AIV on my watchlist and I noticed [[19]] where User:Fieldday-sunday reported another editor, User:Sdav, for removing {{db-bio}} tags from a page. User:Sdav removed the tag from an article 4 times, User:Fieldday-sunday kept reverting, and User:Fieldday-sunday's Huggle finally reported User:Sdav to AIV. User:PeterSymonds removed the vandalism report with an edit summary "please stop. this is not blatant vandalism." [20]

Disregarding the fact that CSD was eventually declined by another admin, is removing CSD tags without comment, by the article creator, sufficient for a report to AIV? After all, the CSD tags state very clearly that the tag should not be removed by article creators, which User:Sdav did several times. If an article creator keeps removing the CSD tag, doesn't that force the issue to AfD (assuming an editor who removes CSD tags will also remove PROD tags)? Doesn't this just reward editors for removing the tags, since a trip to AfD means the original article gets to stay up for 5 more days?

I would appreciate thoughts from other Admins both to probe the question, and to make sure I personally do the "right thing" when I run into this situation. Thanks. Livitup (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think when the author removes the tag it's vandalism, 'cuz it tells them they're not supposed to. When anyone else does it isn't, though. So, if the tag does actually apply, readd it and put a {{uw-speedy1}} (or higher) on the author's talk page. If they continuously ignore this, they should be blocked for it. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The only caveat I'd note is that the author is often not aware that removing the CSD tag on an article they wrote is technically vandalism, especially if they're new. So I'll usually give a mulligan for the first removal - "Hey, you can't remove that, use {{hangon}} instead, or explain why the article doesn't meet the criteria, etc..." or some such. If they pull it again, that's vandalism, and so on. WP:BITE should be minded, obviously, but only to a point. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is easiest to refer to the requirements for something to be WP:vandalism: is there a deliberate attempt to compromise (for which read: make worse) the encyclopedia? Clearly not in a good-faith removal of a CSD tag, even by the author. Not following instructions is not usually a wilful attempt to harm the project; assuming even that the small-type instruction got read at all in the mass of material and jargon now in CSD tags. So, tell them as UltraExactZZ says, to please not remove the tag anymore, and use hangon instead, etc. If they persist, then they can be blocked for repeatedly removing CSD tags despite being asked not to (i.e. for disrupting the CSD process). But not for vandalism, even so. However, it may be better to take the lower-impact approach and simply stick the article on AfD as that ends the issue. AfD is not a "reward", by any stretch, and sending someone's article there when they repeatedly object to other methods of deletion is usually just being reasonable to them as another human person — something which just might make them feel a bit better about their otherwise rather spiky intro to Wikipedia. (Of course, if the article itself is vandalism, then this is all rather obviously different). Splash - tk 12:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing CSD tags repeatedly is edit warring, not vandalism. Try not to WP:BITE. Splash's advice is also sound. Kusma (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. It's incidents like this which turns the "v" word into code for "I'm removing something that I disagree with". -- llywrch (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin but, my opinion is that removing the CSD tag from an article you created is disruptive behaviour at best and vandalism at worse (especially, if you've been previously warned that you shouldn't do it and you've been pointed in the direction of the proper process). The whole point of {{hangon}} is to give the author a chance to explain things. Deliberately ignoring the process is disruptive to the project as a whole. Yes, we shouldn't WP:BITE but, if you give someone the benefit of the doubt and try to help and they continously ignore this it undermines the project and the people working in good faith to help. We all make mistakes but, repeating the same "mistake" over and over again in most cases changes it from a mistake into a deliberate behaviour pattern. Just my two cents. And for transparency purposes I've recently been involved in this sort of case so have a "vested interested". Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a progressive warning series for removing CSD tags - uw-speedy1 through uw-speedy4. Corvus cornix_talk 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what has been said above, but I want to add that if the article creator blanks the page, one should not revert the edit. Instead one should see it as a good faith attempt to undo the damage he did, and replace the page with {{db-author}}, which will make clear to the author that page is being deleted as he requested. Jon513 (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not vandalism, not murder, and not terrorism. It's simply not following the rules. That may often be disruptive behavior, but sometimes it's an appropriate invocation of WP:IAR - a speedy nomination that is itself disruptive, or doesn't have a WP:SNOWBALL's chance in hell, is better off removed than going through unnecessary procedure. Wikidemo (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's either a coincidence or dissociative identity disorder

User:Viriditas brought me an interesting problem that has completely stumped me, so I wanted to get some outside opinions on how best to handle this (or if it needs handling at all). Basically, it seems likely that a minor sock farm has grown up around Talk:Father Damien, but rather than use the multiple accounts to push a POV/attack editors/stack deletion discussions/evade blocks/do all that other socky stuff that sockpuppets do, the farm appears to be arguing with itself. Extensively.

Viriditas' original post is here, and my attempt at a response is here. I'm not ruling out the possibility that it's simply a group of new editors with similar interests engaging in some intellectual discussion, but looking through their contributions I just can't help but feel that something is a little bit off. --jonny-mt 14:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Raising the signal to noise ratio is disruption in and of itself. –xeno (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Without looking in depth) If all they're doing is using the talk page, I'd ignore them until they get bored. Not doing any harm. —Giggy 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently it's been going on for a while now. I think a note on the article talk page might be sufficient enough to reduce the noise ratio, but I agree that there's no need to start moving to blocks or anything just yet. Let's see if this gets any results.... --jonny-mt 07:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama-related articles under article probation

Talk:Obama/Article_probation. Although this remedy should assist in taking effective action, whenever needed, it will still require uninvolved sysops to enforce them.

Individual uninvolved administrators are requested to intervene accordingly if and whenever concerns/issues are raised in relation to this area of editing (or certain users editing in this area). It is my understanding that this request has been echoed by several involved parties in this area, as well as members of the Arbitration Committee (in response to the recently rejected request for arbitration on this area). Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Pre-emptive request for administrative eyes on John Edwards

I'd like to ask your help. Yes, you. There has been a debate at John Edwards on whether, and how, to include recent allegations of infidelity published in the National Enquirer. In response to edit-warring and WP:BLP concerns, I protected the page yesterday. The protection will expire tomorrow. This issue has some real-world visibility - for instance, Gawker.com has criticized our handling of the situation :0 This is a WP:BLP hotspot and I don't want to be making unilateral decisions. I'd like to ask any and all editors to participate at Talk:John Edwards, and any and all admins to watchlist the article, provide a sanity check, and help figure out what, if anything, needs to happen when the protection expires tomorrow. Relevant threads:

• Notice of page protection in BLP-friendly version
• Ensuing AN/I thread

Please lend the issue some outside eyes. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats not really what this page is for, AN is not a step in dispute resoultion or content choice. That said the McCain allagations made it into his campaing article, but only in passing due to the timing, poorly sourced allegations by the times, and massive backlash among other media. If it is a noteworthy and sourced allegation it should be mentioned, but the context and wording is the key issue. --AdultSwim (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Will do any admin or non-admin stuff as necessary tomorrow when protection expires. Currently researching situation on talk page. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Struck my own earlier comments, as article is locked for dispute (an extrodinary measure in my book) and there are enough allegations to note that there are allegations a simple request for 'more eyes' is perfectly fine. Lets all read about oursleves. [21] --AdultSwim (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fun stuff, fun stuff. I've barely scratched what I ought to read to get a full picture here, but my first blush thought would be to extend the protection for another week or so and wait to see if reliable sources pick up or debunk the sources. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That probably explains Wikipedia:Help desk#Never using your site again. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That may not be a Bad Thing, to have editors who do not understand policy self-select themselves off the project because of their own misunderstanding. Makes it easier for the rest of us.

I have to say though that there does appear to be some progress on the talk page, which seems IMO to be moving in a reasonable direction. Perhaps an extension of the protection is not necessary. However, I note that after the original protection, several newish accounts appeared to argue in lieu of BLP policy, and there were very few editors who understood policy sticking around, perhaps because they thought as it was protected, they could move on to other things. I would not rule out a flurry of uninformed editing if the protection expires as currectly scheduled. So in any case a call to eyes is very prudent. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts. I think there is progress being made, and we'll see soon enough if more protection is warranted. A rapid influx of new users in response to off-site publicity is not always the best thing from a WP:BLP standpoint, and many experienced editors seem to have moved on. MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

autoblock collateral damage

Resolved

User_talk:TaborL#Please_unblock_my_account.

Can someone who knows how help with this? I'm not sure how fix that. This is the second time I've seen something like this. Can someone tell me how to fix it? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

First make sure they are autoblocked and not blocked directly, and then just unblock the autoblock -

Block ID: 1003024 (ipblocklist • unblock)

^^^ –xeno (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

192.138.70.245

This IP address is registered to a government military organization and appears to have been making some POV edits recently, but I don't have the time to look any more into it. Can someone else investigate these edits? --Chris (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The POV edit been resolved in the usual way, other people came and changed it and yet other people changed it, I changed it a bit, and likely someone else has changed it again since. The other edits were to articles such as Desilu Productions, which doesn't strike me as being something a military based user is going to get too pointy about. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem uploading image / re-direct to this page

Clueless. I tried uploading an image as usual and was re-directed here. I was trying to add an additional album cover to this article Sophisticated Beggar. What's this all about? Stephenjh (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

All I can assume is that one of the upload pages was redirected here for some reason, but I can't find it. I may have misunderstood- could you explain in a little more detail? J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Persistent abuse by Kevin J

Kevin J has quite a history of improper, POV, unsourced, and hasty edits (see User talk:Kevin j) and has recently gone wild on the Bill Clinton article, with 20 edits of questionable quality (and with very angry edit-summary comments) in a two-hour period on July 29th. I am requesting administrator attention to this user and his abuse of the site, stretching back for months. Please note that on his talk page he is apparently very aggressive and unrepentant whenever he has been reprimanded, and does not seem to have changed his behavior at all since his first edits.

Plushpuffin (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User requesting userpage deletion

Resolved

A user is requesting deletion of a userpage. The userpage is under their real name, and they claim that it is not theirs, but... I'm not sure, actually. But they want it so that it doesn't show up as a Google hit on their name.

Their request is at User talk:71.199.104.170. I promised them I'd draw attention to it when it was made. This is in no way an endorsement of the request - just the execution of a promise. The request, I think, speaks for itself. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted User:Herbert Elwood Gilliland III and the talk page per RTV, and protected the user's talk page owing to the disgusting incivility in the user's request. The IP is already blocked for 6 months from July 10th, the protection will expire around that time. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 19:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of AfD tags

Resolved

 – Blocked and warned by ST47

User:Seventy3 is removing the AfD tags from Political society and State of society, despite having been informed in edit summaries that this does not prevent the AfD from going forward and placing warnings on the user's talk page. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 19:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours, the user was ignoring warnings. I will review the users other contributions. Chillum 19:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Oops, another admin got there first with a 31 hour block. Chillum 19:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I blocked for 31, not realizing that someone else was on it. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 19:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Chillum 19:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia

• Please, any admin can take a look to the article nd its history, admin Rodhull, insists that's it's orignial study (look, at the article about the German Wikipedia, nd the Hebrew one) also, is the section about wikipedia blockings in Syria, not an original one? Regards. --Stayfi (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is only a couple of days out of full protection while consensus was sought on the talk page for content proposed by Stayfi; no such consensus was forthcoming, let alone any sources. This is soapboxing about censorship and some dispute on ar:wiki. Stayfi added this content earlier, again unsourced, and I removed it with a final warning for disruption. Again, he is forum-shopping, as he was a week ago here. Anyone care to deal? --Rodhullandemu 20:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Rodhull, how can u define he sections, about characteristics, of German wikipedia nd the hebrew? many without any reference. Also, what do think about the blocking in Syria (not Too original to you) though it's simple to see, the facts of my writings.

Can u delete, unsourced facts form the articles (german wiki, hebrew, french...and the blocking in Syria?) I'll glad to put: need citation, rather than delete all my writings.

it's not a soap, they are facts (nd i'll be happy if u understand Arabic, to view what they wrote about the second gulf war).

As i told u, a consensus on this subject, is hard to get (We're talking about sensitivities here)

regards --Stayfi (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)