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

Special:Contributions/Hartlepool_College

Could an image expert please take a look at this user's contributions, mainly with regard to his copyright statement? I would do it myself but there are meatspace issues (hence writing while logged out). 79.68.170.99 (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left a message about their image upload copyrights - they appear to be contraindicatory (releasing under CC 3.0 while simultaneously asserting copyright and implying image use permission is required.) Exxolon (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As the account in question has not edited in nearly a year this may require administrative intervention to ascertain whether the images should be deleted forthwith for not complying with our policies. Exxolon (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the account was blocked indefinitely, so it's unlikely that he/she will reply. Some pro-active admin action is required. Note, some of those images have been automatically uploaded to Commons. 79.68.160.150 (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, is it too much to ask for admins to put block notices on talkpages so we don't end up asking questions of someone who can't respond and looking like idiots?? Exxolon (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Request removal of rollback privileges?

It's been a while since I was granted this, so I've forgotten how it used to work for me, but I think to be able to "revert an edit identified as vandalism" one needs rollback privileges, correct? Well, User:Catterick appears to be abusing this privilege [1]. I believe it should be revoked for him. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The reversions made by Catterick appear to have been done by means of the automated editing tool Twinkle. The user does not have the built-in rollback enabled. Nakon 23:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh OK. Thankyou for checking, anyway. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick: If this user was misusing twinkle with his reverts, what were you doing with this revert? — Aitias // discussion 23:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, I did not identify it as "vandalism". This editor is a known trouble maker, by the way. A glimpse into his tendencies can be found with his most recent garbled rant on the talk page [2] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This editor is abusing my edits to appease Ghymrtle and to be "taken seriously" by his ilk, for he fears their prejudicial hatred of anything percieved as Anglo-British will offend them and then they won't listen to him. This is old fighting and I wish they would leave me alone. Check out Talk:English_people#Trying_again_doesn.27t_help. Apparently, this editor is trying to get rid of my by getting you all involved. Don't take the bait. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

They are ganging up on me as usual, the same old suspects. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, despite the request to stop doing this from Nakon, he has made the same edit a third time, for the third time labelling it as reverting vandalism. [3] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem revert warring can be interpreted as vandalism. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And a fourth revert. Do I need to waste my time posting a 3RR report or can an admin take action? [4] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey hey, the same harrassers are back in play. When will they stop their filibustering of all my edits and just leave me alone? A Merry Old Soul (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This user could be placed on the twinkle blacklist. Triplestop x3 23:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's good to know that a blacklist now exists, thanks. Nakon 23:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have both blocked the user for edit warring and revoked his twinkle access. — Aitias // discussion 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think something stronger is called for with this user. Despite being asked to leave the block notice on his talk page, he has repeatedly removed it. And now look at the language used in their latest post [5] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 08:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please help with CSD

severe backlog Enigma^msg 20:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Call that a backlog? Pfft! --Stephen 09:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The message is several hours old, I guess some admins heeded the call and cleared it. Regards SoWhy 09:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Backlogged once again. Well over a hundred pages/images. Enigma^msg 07:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just sayin', but 100 is hardly a severe backlog for CAT:CSD. Time to go "nuke" some articles. lifebaka++ 14:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool heads requested

Hello. I am currently engaged in a dispute with Simon Dodd (talk · contribs) at Talk:Clarence Thomas. I won't belabor it; you can read it there, but long story short: Simon accused me of violating WP:BLP. I disagreed. It went to the BLP noticeboard, in what I considered a somewhat inconclusive thread. Simon chose a contributor to the thread who agreed with him and pronounced the matter "settled" by his comments. I'm now told that if I won't "accept it", Simon "supposes we're going to have an ongoing edit war until you do." Apparently I am "desperate", have "dug in" despite the "round rejection" of my position, and have "rejected compromise" ([6]).

I am now, apparently, edit-warring "to include my defamatory claim". Simon has filed a Mediation request which I view as, simply, a series of personal attacks, imputations of malice, and abuse. I realize this is a content dispute, sort of, but I don't like how heated it's becoming. Let me be clear that I'm not asking for anyone to block anybody. I'm wondering if we can get more eyes on this situation with the goal of de-escalating and defusing it, reducing the level of personal invective, and heading off the edit-war that Simon has promised. MastCell ^Talk 03:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the worst pages to post a request for cool heads. This is not the place to post a request for participation in a content dispute. We have the Village Pump and probably more than one WikiProject talk page for that, and WP:CANVASS also gives you some leeway in contacting others. This is the place for some editor who was slyly trying to get hotheads who are on that editor's side to get the consensus that editor doesn't yet have, so (without assuming bad faith of someone I respect) it does Wikipedia no good, nor your reputation, MastCell, to post this kind of message at this spot. I suggested yesterday that you take a little time to think about just what it is that you're trying so hard to get in the article: You want to quote an ostensibly neutral report/analysis that calls a U.S. Supreme Court justice someone who is "far right" on the court. You're not asking that someone's opinion that he's "far right" be mentioned, but that Wikipedia cite that statement the same way we would cite any neutral report, and you want an extensive quote. To oversimplify just a bit, you want Wikipedia's endorsement of the idea that Thomas is "far right". And you want that without having proven that this is the kind of description that neutral sources would commonly use, when in fact they wouldn't.

That is not what Wikipedia was set up to do.

Nor was Wikipedia set up to be a forum for ideological battling and political maneuvering over sensitive, controversial topics.

There is an open discussion at WP:BLPN#Clarence Thomas where I have made several points and asked you to consider them carefully. Now that 24 hours and more have passed, and you still haven't addressed those points, I suggest you re-engage in that discussion, regardless of the Mediation case. WP:CONSENSUS urges reasonable discussion, tending toward compromise, as the way to make content decisions.

That's what Wikipedia was set up to do.

Please support that process. -- Noroton (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a request to help defuse a conflict which I feel has become overly heated, and where various behavioral policies are being edged up against or violated. I don't see how appealing for help in defusing a dispute, in an open and non-partisan venue, constitutes some sort of abuse. If people feel this is a simple content dispute and want to direct me elsewhere, that's fine. I responded to your arguments at length on WP:BLP/N; I felt we'd reached the point where we were both restating our premises without convincing the other; so I made a conscious decision not to keep beating the horse, but to step back in hopes that some additional outside input would be forthcoming.

I will not litigate the content issue here. I think you're greivously misrepresenting both the content and the sourcing of my proposed edits, but that's an issue for the talk page. Neither will I participate in the edit war Simon has promised - I decided a little while ago to self-impose 1RR, at most, on the article for my own sanity. Nor do I think a mediation request - or any discussion - premised on the idea that I'm a biased ideologue bent at any cost on defaming a person I detest, and demanding a topic ban as the outcome of "mediation" - is worth my time. So I'm looking for other ways forward. I'm talking about the fact that things have devolved and personal attacks and accusations of malice are blocking the way forward, and I'm asking for help. I would certainly welcome additional input at the WP:BLP/N thread as well. MastCell ^Talk 05:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If diffusing the situation and improving the article is your goal, the most direct, efficient way of achieving it would be to broaden the discussion to include closely related areas where your position is stronger, achieve some good will with those you disagree with and then suggest alternatives that achieve your legitimate, broader goal of presenting an accurate picture of where Thomas stands ideologically on the court. Offer alternative sourcing and wording that amounts to a win-win. That can be done without including one particular sentence that offends both me and the other editor, and by obstinantly clinging to that one sentence, you are the one raising the heat and dimming the light. Because you're clinging to something offensive, and without a believable justification, you're hurting your own credibility with the other editor and me, and that's why he brought you to mediation. You say you want to settle this on the talk page, but it's your insistance on this point, which should be insignificant to your side (you haven't shown why it should even be important to you), that has brought the matter to BLPN, Mediation and now here. Really, you and everybody else knows that when something your doing doesn't matter much to you but offends others (and its offensiveness has been explained reasonably and at length) that the best thing to do is to give in on the small point as you try to succeed on larger points. I think it should be clear to anyone that a Wikipedia-endorsed statement that Thomas is "far right" is offensive to a number of editors and should not be part of a consensus result. You could make a good case that parts of that article are too favorable to Thomas. So please change your approach so that this doesn't have to bother other editors at so many different forums. -- Noroton (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The dispute arises from Mastcell's insistence that the description "far right" stay in a BLP about someone who isn't on the far right, and that it be presented (as Noroton notes) as neutral analysis rather than opinion. He has rebuffed all attempts to compromise and ignored all attempts to explain to him the BLP problems inherent in using so inflammatory a term, especially when it's unnecessary and inaccurate.

That's the story so far. This chapter opens with this AN posting by Mastcell. It is forum shopping, and should not be entertained. After his position was rejected at the BLP noticeboard, Mastcell continued to revert any attempt to remove the disputed material, whether by outright exclusion or by finding alternative sources that made a nearly identical points without the "far right" language. His claim to want "more eyes on this situation" is thus posture rather than reality: more eyes have already looked at this situation, through BLPN. He didn't like and thus ignored the result.

I then filed a medcab request and notified him of it, explaining why I was skipping the RFC step: [7]. He brought the issue here instead. And that action, too, belies his claim to simply want "more eyes on this situation" and "cooler heads" ([8]): he would get that at medcab, so if that was his goal, he could simply participate in the medcab dispute. That he came here instead - to the admin noticeboard - is telling. It's not hard to read between the lines. What he wants is an admin who agrees with him to stamp their imprimatur on his position. What else could he hope to get here, as opposed to elsewhere - the content noticeboard, for example, or the medcab dispute? If his intent was otherwise, he could simply have stayed in the medcab framework, or compromised in the first place.

Unless Mastcell returns to edit warring (he has suspended fire, for now), we should let the dispute resolution process run its course. The issue is now at medcab, and if Mastcell is sincere in merely wanting more eyes and cooler heads on the situation, he can simply assent to medcab's jurisdiction.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I would reject a MedCab case myself, Simon. Your accusations of MastCell are the worst kind of ABF - you are clearly not attempting to work to resolve this amicably. I strongly suggest to you that you consider that MastCell is not only highly experienced, and an admin, but one of our best BLP editors. If he says BLP is one thing, and anyone else says another, I will admit to a strong predilection to simply stamp the issue with "Agree with MastCell" and move on. He's that right about BLP, that often. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A wise Wikipedian, KillerChihuahua, once wrote that "AGF is not a suicide pact. We assume good faith absent evidence to the contrary. Once that evidence appears, it is not a failure of AGF to point out failings or misdeeds; rather, it is a failing of common sense not to do so." [9] Quite so. With all due respect, you are mistaking arrival in media res as the beginning of the story.

I have attempted to work this out amicably with Mastcell - I have proposed compromises (e.g. [10]) and workarounds (e.g. [11]); they have been ignored, rebuffed or reverted. I solicited third party opinions at the relevant noticeboard, and when the analyses offered there differed from Mstcell (with one exception that misunderstood the situation), he dismissed it as "[un]convincing" ([12]), ignored it, and accused me of dishonesty ([13] (edit summary)). When I took the issue to medcab, he went forum shopping and brought the issue here instead. And this, by the way, might be thought to be canvassing ("Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion[, and] ... encouraging them to participate in the discussion"). He notified one participant from the BLPN thread that the discussion was ongoing at the article talk page, and did so in the belief (I think mistaken, but that's irrelevant) that s/he supports Mastcell's position ([14]). And let's not even get into posting links to disputes that I have already linked to as if to imply that I'm misquoting or obscuring sources. I assumed good faith until Mastcell's edits and behavior demonstrated it was absent, and as that wise wikipedian said, "is not a failure of AGF to point out failings or misdeeds; rather, it is a failing of common sense not to do so." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the rest of your post, I repeat myself: if anyone ever suggests MedCab to me, I will reject it. No insult is intended to the good people who volunteer there; I have had several bad experiences. I will accept MedCom, but not MedCab. Its that simple. I suggest you stop suggesting MastCell should have accepted MedCab. MedCab is most helpful to those who really don't know WP policy. For more difficult disputes, it is often out of its depth. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that WP:RFM's requirement that "parties should attempt informal resolution prior to filing" a request for formal mediation made an attempt to resolve the dispute through medcab the gateway to medcom? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The beginning of dispute resolution is always to try to resolve things with the other editor. Other venues exist, such as Rfc, both article and individual; 3o; very informal mediation on a sub-page between several parties, etc. No specific venue is a prerequisite, and very few (I would even say almost none) of the MedCom cases come from MedCab. Generally, parties choose either MedCab or MedCom at that stage, not one then the other. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've explained on the talk page, I don't think that RFC will be helpful. My experience with RFCs is that it's a crapshoot whether you get any input and they can take weeks - which is useless without some kind of process for determining what the article looks like while the RFC is open (eventualism has no place whatsoever in the BLP context, see WP:BLPSTYLE; see also Wikipedia:Living People Patrol/Development; User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem). In most bilateral content disputes, both sides will always be happy to be patient while an RFC runs provided that the article reflects their desired status for the duration. I'm happy to punt it to medcom if medcab proves unhelpful; frankly, I anticipated going there anyway, in due course (that's why I said above that "we should let the dispute resolution process run its course" rather than "we should let medcab run its course").- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Simon, it would be easier to resolve this if you redacted some of the comments MastCell objected to. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that Wikipedia creates an environment where it's easy to get offended and offend on the basis of misunderstandings, innocent errors and minor breaches of various policies -- especially when discussions have turned hot, as they tend to do on sensitive topics. It's particularly easy to get offended and then look like a POV pusher, but MastCell has a good reputation for a reason. Better to tone it down, look the other way and assume you might have been mistaken, and do all this for a while longer than you think reasonable. It really is so much easier than going through dispute resolution (chewing glass is easier). I don't think we're dealing with a POV pusher here. Continued reasonable discussion would lead to a better result. I'm going to redact some of my own comments at BLPN as a start. -- Noroton (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

People with bad reputations can be right and people with good reputations can be wrong. I have no idea what MastCell's reputation is, but in this instance he's wrong, and he's insistent about it, as the history demonstrates. As to removing earlier comments, I'm generally opposed to doing that sort of thing, but if Mastcell has particular comments that he thinks it'll help cordiality to remove, I'll do so.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're serious, it might be worth starting with your Mediation Request - just look through it and strike anything that you think might be hampering cordiality, or successful mediation. For the sake of accuracy, it may also be worth correcting your erroneous assertions about the content of the BLP/N thread, now that the issue has been clarified. However, as your stated goal in entering mediation was to ensure that your edit "sticks", regardless of the details, consider your mission accomplished. Given your stated and demonstrated willingness to edit-war, and the value I place on my sanity and enjoyment of Wikipedia, I'm not interested in editing the article at all in the environment currently sustained there. I don't see a lot of utility unless additional eyes and outside editors are willing to get involved. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) I didn't accept your characterization of the medcab request (or, respectfully, that advanced by KC). Nevertheless, I have edited the wording in an effort to comply with this request. (2) I have not edited the wording on the talk page regarding the BLPN thread because what I said there was neither "[in]accura[te]" nor "erroneous." (3) I have struck through and tentatively withdrawn the medcab request so far as it pertains to you, since it is mooted by your agreement here to cease inserting the disputed text.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, that answers all of my remaining questions about whether you were serious. MastCell ^Talk 05:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

CAT:RFU being overrun

The unblock requests category has been rather backlogged for several days now; if you've made a recent block, please stop by to see if it's been appealed; if not, stop by anyway to see if some of these requests can be handled. Please remember to check Category:Unblock on hold as well, those sometimes get forgotten. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno, the size of the category is down by half now. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Review of community ban: Igorberger

Resolved

 – Igorberger provisionally unblocked pending mentoring program with User:Franamax - unblocking dealt with by User:John Vandenberg --VS ^talk 10:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm entirely unfamiliar with this case, but I was clearing out CAT:RFU per Hersfold's prompting above and noticed this user is requesting a review of the ban enacted a year ago. See discussion. User's unblock request reproduced below for ease of reference. –xenotalk 14:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC) “ I have been away from editing Wikipedia for over a year. I took time off to think about what has happened and not to have the same situation repeat itself. I was disruptive to the project and I wish to apologize for my behavior. I spoke to admin Barneca, and he recommended that I put in the unblock request. He is not currently editing Wikipedia actively, but he said if the unblocking admin needs to communicate with him, he should email him. Thank you for considering my request. Igor Berger (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC) ” Igor emailed me with an unblock request earlier today, and since I'm not here anymore, I suggested the {{unblock}} template approach. Since this probably counts as one of the "unresolved issues" I mentioned on my talk page, I'll unretire in order to comment. I'd be inclined to unblock. I'm cautiously hopeful that nothing like his previous problems are going to return. The following disorganized points may (or may not) be useful: He and I never got around to the mentorship. At the time, Igor said he didn't feel a need to rush back to Wikipedia (which I took as a good sign) and wanted to wait, I said I would be happy to wait for him to start it up, but heard nothing. Eventually I retired. We did, for some months, exchange occasional emails about miscellanea, much of it Wikipedia related. He didn't exhibit any of the combativeness that marked his last few days of editing here. I seem to recall in the first few weeks someone saying on his talk page that this delay meant that he had "refused" mentorship, or that he was refusing to do things I was suggesting he do. That is not the case. Someone should dig up the old AN or ANI thread and look at the external sites mentioned, and see if the attacks were taken down. I seem to recall they were, but haven't looked in ages. 90% of the problem, I think, was Igor going into bunker-mentality mode, and acting as if anyone who criticized him was "out to get him", and an enemy to be vanquished. I think a lot of it was editing under the influence of adrenaline, and being unable to drop things and move on. A year's break seems likely to have cured that. I note that, for (I think) the first time ever, he's admitted his previous behavior was disruptive. I'm pretty sure he hasn't been socking (at least until February, when I stopped keeping an eye out. No way to guarantee, of course, but for one thing I don't think he'd be any good at it, and would have been found out), which bodes well. While I'm not sure it should be a condition for an unblock, I strongly urge Igor to find an established editor as a mentor, and promise to check in with the mentor for advice if he starts feeling stressed, or if people begin to complain about his behavior. I think this is better than some kind of pre-unblock mentoring. In short, why not? We've given much more disruptive people another chance, even when they'd been socking to evade their ban. Easy to reblock if problems recur, and we've gained an editor if they don't. If the unblock does go through, Just relax and take it easy, OK Igor? --barneca (ret.) (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I'm a fan of 2nd chances, so if there's no objections raised in the next little while, I will unblock based on barneca's assessment of the situation. –xenotalk 16:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I remember him from last time round and he was an absolute pain and seems completely oblivious to this. I kinda got the impression that he was either completely incapable of change or playing around with some breaching experiment of some kind. I'm very cautious of an unblock since neither of the factors bodes well for his future editing. I'd only be inclined to endorse an unblock if there was a clear plan to manage his behaviour and perhaps some indications that his return was going to add some value on the content side. Otherwise it might be a case of just adding to the drama round here. Wikipedia already has enough editors who wilfully don't get it and who are unnecessarily disruptive as a result. Spartaz Humbug! 16:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I would support the unblock as any disruption can be quickly and easily mitigated by a reinstatement of the indef block. In cases like this one does not have to go through the full set of warnings and dozens of paragraphs of discussion before blocking the user as one has to with a new user (or as seems to be the case with disruptive users, whether or not one has to), so any drama which might be caused by unblocking this user can be immediately eliminated by re-blocking on the first offense. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC) As the blocking admin I will/have sent a few other messages to persons closely involved in the original block for their consideration of the matter also. I will also consider this matter and make my own view on unblocking known sometime later today (after I get through a few RL issues).--VS talk 22:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I don't see any harm in this, since a reblock will be swift if anything untowards happens, so I'd like to leave it up to VirtualSteve along with any input he might want from Barneca. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Not sure a guy who calls himself "Igor the Troll" and runs this website (somewhat NSFW - and I recommend the blog) can be trusted to contribute productively. Skinwalker (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I'd forgotten about that website. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I think Gwen Gale has the wisdom on this. Listen to her. Crafty (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I do not have a final view on this as yet but I wonder what others think about sites such as this one which reinforces the troll theme and details that his contributions to WipiPedia include being a wikipedia stalker - and a comment You fuck with me, I will Troll you for life!. Whilst I appreciate they are off-wiki sites they are the same sites that were listed and argued about during the last ANI diffed by xeno above, and link to another lengthy AN discussion here one month earlier and they are still maintained by Igor. Given that Igorberger did not finalise his mentorship with Barneca and we have nothing but his relative silence over the past year (he has edited slightly at his talk page from time to time) our question should be is there enough here to see Igor unblocked or should he still go through a mentorship program as concluded at the last ANI, and offered by Barneca but not finalised by Igor?--VS talk 23:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Further to my points above - Skinwalker's link to here is most apt - scrolling down the blog one notice's that Igor has been blocked and banned from other sites and clearly continues at this time to have a strong POV on issues that landed him in trouble here earlier. Thoughts on these points anyone?--VS talk 23:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I am not currently very active in editing Wikipedia, but did have some communication with user:Igor Berger at the time of blocking about a year ago. I would think that as a general rule, we would give a second chance to any user who has the intention of contributing to this project in a positive way. That would seem to apply here. Although there is no indication that the user has any special area of expertise, they did seem to wish for positive things, although there was a tendency to go overboard with opposition to perceived problems. I hope that is no longer the case. I am not in a position to examine the material from other sites which might have the effect of raising doubts about this user; regarding such material, I wonder if there has been any recent or current activity there which is questionable, or whether there is only the old stuff there. If there is a question of specific offence being given to any particular user, then I feel that user:Igor Berger ought to address that matter in a courteous way. If there is no current problem there then, as I said, I would be inclined to extend our customary second chance in this case, and hope that user:Igor Berger is in a position to appreciate such consideration and act accordingly. Cheers, NewbyG ( talk) 02:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC) How about giving Igor a chance to copy an article to his userspace and work on it there. If he demonstrates the ability to contribute productively, he could be allowed to edit freely subject to a condition that he may be blocked indefinitely by any uninvolved administrator if he returns to prior disruptive style editing. Jehochman Talk 02:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Whilst I still have concerns that Igor will return to disruptive editing at places like ANI etc I do agree with and support Jonathan's suggestion above - although I would suggest a time frame of say a few weeks of editing at his userspace is set at first as this would allow him to interact with others who came to his userspace to copy edit, assist etc with the article he was working on. Perhaps if Igor indicated at his talk page now what article (new?) he would like to work on then Xeno can act as they see fit given that they are considering the unblock request.--VS talk 03:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC) VS pointed me to this discussion. I think a year is quite a lot of opportunity to mature and reflect on things, so I'd have no problem with Igor getting another chance. However I'd like to see a mentor per Barneca and some indication of his intetion to work on content per Spartaz. And I hope we don't see anything more about "Social engineering internet" and the somewhat COI interest in articles about various malwares (if I recall correctly). As far as external sites, if it doesn't spill over to en:wiki, I don't really care. You can have a site advocating poison gas attacks on whales and pandas for all I care, so long as you're making good edits to our articles on flowers and bumblebees. I'm not too enthused about JEH's idea though, little edits may be a better way to start over, rather than trying something overly ambitious. If there's a willing mentor, I say go for it. Franamax (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks Franamax - I note that Igor is now asking for mentoring/support at his talk page also.--VS talk 03:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC) If we're going to unblock him, unblock him and see what he does. If he reoffends, block him for another year. In other words, "What Gwen Gale said". Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Request for provisional unblock of Igorberger I'm in discussion with User:Igorberger about pursuing Jehochman's idea for "2nd chance" editing (+whatever) and created a /Sandbox page for him, which he seems unable to edit. I'll formally ask now for an unblock, conditional on his only editing pages within his userspace for xx days. The unblocking admin can set the quantity xx, and I would suggest a further condition that Igor and I reach a satisfactory mentoring arrangement, and that consensus for a full unblock is reached here. I'm willing to give it a shot, but the first step will be to give Igorberger further access to their userspace. The further reading is at the unblock request thread at the bottom of Igor's utalk. Thanks for the consideration! Franamax (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Y'know, Ivor is (as far as I can tell) an adult. He will either do the right thing by the project and himself or he won't. The whole temp unblock and restricting him to his sandbox for a brief period thing seems a bit pointless. He should either be blocked or unblocked. If he does good, all will be well. If he does bad then I've got no doubts he'll be consigned to WikiHell once again and we'll move on without him. Crafty (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC) OK fine. So unblock then please. :) At least give him a chance to start trying to start trying. I've laid out conditions, pointless or not. I just need an unblock. Franamax (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I have provisionally unblocked in order to give the user a second chance. If there are any problems with the mentoring, yell out. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Spam blacklist preventing me from listing a mirror

I am trying to list a mirror site at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Stu, but the spam filter is blocking me from doing so. How do I get around this? -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• try adding nowiki tags to the link. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, that worked. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 17:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu: close requested

I'm requesting an uninvolved admin to close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu, which has been running for 35 days now. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Will someone who has not participated in this discussion come and evaluate it and close it? It's now been active for a little over a month. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Exploding Boy beat me to it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Combined threads under a single descriptive header. –xeno^talk 20:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody? Anybody? We're now on day 36. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it. This'll take some time, if someone else is handling this, please tell me. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that 99% of RFCs are never really "closed", they just kinda stop then get archived. Not the way it should work, but that's how it is. Wizardman 18:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Guineapiglarcomuseum.jpg

Could an admin please check File:Guineapiglarcomuseum.jpg to see if it has an actual source? I worry that the uploader may have not realized that photos of PD 3d art are still considered copyrighted, and there is no indication of the photographer. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a several-hundreds year old artifact. I don't think there's a copyright on it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The question is not the copyright on the artifact, but on the photograph of the artifact. I don't know anything about Peruvian law but in most places photos of 3d objects are considered creative works. The now-deleted local version of the file said only "Moche Guinea Pig. 200 A.D. Larco Museum Collection. Lima, Peru. Free Use. {{GFDL}}" so it's far from clear who took the photo or whether the uploader had the right to upload it. It was uploaded by Lyndsayruell (talk · contribs) who has also uploaded many other similar images. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guineapiglarcomuseum.jpg. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of this page

Traditionally, this noticeboard is used for things of general interest to administrators (and experienced users), often worth leaving up for a while.

The aim for Incidents and help requests on specific issues (user problems etc) is to get help, and archive as soon as the matter goes quiet for a couple of days.

If this page gets used for transient help and incident requests, notices that need wider awareness get lost and removed quickly, and their audience misses them.

Notices posted here that would be better on WP:ANI, might be moved there so that users who check this page for "matters of general interest" can do so.

I've added a simple explanatory editnotice to this page pending consensus.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• ":seems a logical way to go. DGG (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely sure I agree with the editnotice in its current form. As I understand it, AN is for complex disputes and such, while ANI is for incidents requiring immediate administrator intervention. Announcements and general information should go at a relevant village pump. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, even complex disputes are routinely discussed as "incidents" at ANI. What tends to happen is as they get complex, a subpage is created (see ANI example subpages). AN is not for "more complex cases", it's specifically for actual announcements, information, notices, etc of general admin interest. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • What about ban discussions? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I think ban discussions belong on AN. Incidentally, this thread really belongs at WT:Administrators' noticeboard. I notice someone there complaining about the size of the edit notice, I've shrunk the font a bit. –xeno^talk 02:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
        • The archives and subpages of ANI include many discussions of bans and indefinite blocks. Ban discussions, whether simple or complex, seem to be able to get plenty of exposure there. Those are incidents too, as are many other ANI posts needing a good level of admin input. With 2000 or so admins, posts on ANI needing attention still tend to mostly get it. The distinction is notices vs. incidents, not simple vs. complex. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I just don't think it's a good idea. For whatever reason, discussions at WP:AN seem to be a little more calm and rational than ANI. Ban discussions belong here (especially unban ones). Most of the ban discussions on ANI are subthreads of incidents for users where the ANI thread highlights the fact that they have exhausted the community's patience. I'm not saying those conversations should have a venue change to AN if it evolves into a ban discussion. But if someone is proposing a ban as a thread-starter, or unban, I think this is the proper venue. –xeno^talk 02:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Agree with Xeno. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
            • This would imply that admins are less calm or less rational at ANI than here, or that calm rational admins preferentially avoid ANI. If that's in fact what's being said, there's a bit more of a serious problem; a wide range of other significant discussions (not just one kind) would be being affected by an implied poor discussion quality of ANI culture. Is that actually a visible problem? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Remeber it's not only admins that respond to these threads. ANI is a bit like throwing chum into a pool of sharks. It's just the mentality there (I actually wouldn't mind seeing ANI shut down altogether and forcing the threads to filter to the proper places, though that would probably run counter to your current proposal to move stuff off AN =) Ironically, someone a few months back was trying to do a similar relocation drive to keep stuff off ANI!). AN doesn't seem to attract as many drama seekers. So, while I believe that un/ban discussions belong here, I do see above a lot of threads that should've been posted elsewhere. –xeno^talk 03:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Then the needed step is to address standards where they happen, on ANI - a step that any admin who uses ANI can help or hinder. Improving calm thoughtful discussion is part of the admin role, so users who act like a shark pool or incite in a "chum-like" manner..... that's the issue you're raising, and if it's so then it'll affect any/all discussions on ANI, serious or localized, not just some. It needs fixing where it's happening, not just shutting down and watching it move. If they won't say it's not okay at ANI, then logically, there is no barrier ensuring they would anywhere else either. We had to shut down the sanctions noticeboard a year or two ago because that was a "shark pool" (so to speak)... at some point we have to realize that shutting down isn't the answer, facing poor behaviors by users, admins role modeling good conduct, and generally requiring good interaction standards, is whats needed, not mere running away from the problem if any. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • I agree, but easier said that done. As with any mob mentality it's hard to pinpoint the trouble source. –xeno^talk 03:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • Solution mirrors the source. It's trivially easy if a few people want it. Source is a critical proportion of experienced users being enabled, allowed, or encouraged to feel comfortable with it and considering "shark mentality" reasonable in some discussions, so much so that others can pick it up from them. Guess what the solution would look like. Hand-wringing and large scale debate isn't needed, it just needs individual users and admins that routinely will speak calmly and constructively, in enough numbers to dilute the disruptive behaviors, to resolve it. Often it only needs 2-4 such users deliberately acting to a good balanced standard in a dispute, to make poor conduct in the dispute less tenable. (And a user who rejects that many calm reasonable uninvolved users' requests to act better is a good candidate for evidenced dispute resolution/RFC/RFAR.) The problem is the "leave it to others"/"Meh" mindset; that doesn't work. Ultimately it's got to be faced. Shutting down or running away aren't an answer. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• This is along the same lines as a discussion we had on AN a few months ago, which resulted in a newfound willingness to migrate errant discussions to the proper boards as well as the AN/I edit notice. I'm not sure that I like the prospect of pushing more and more discussions to AN/I but we do have the problem of poor distinction between AN and AN/I. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Partly because of that discussion, and ones before it, I've been WikiGnoming discussions to more appopriate noticeboards both here (example) and at Incidents (example). It takes only a few of the "I agrees." above to do the same on occasion, and to support other people when they do it, to improve the situation yet further. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a thinktank of sorts

In reading the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development, it seems clear that users are generally in favour of some sort of focus group to examine issues facing Wikipedia and propose solutions, and are generally against this focus group being invite-only and/or appointed by ArbCom. To make any COI I have here clear: I agree such a group is needed (obviously), I do not agree that it shouldn't necessarily be appointed by ArbCom, I had put my name forward to ArbCom as a selfnom after the announcement, and in deference to community consensus I would not now accept such an appointment in the incredibly remote chance it were to be offered.

Accordingly, I have proposed a framework for creating such a group here (WP:DEVCOM), being mindful of concerns about power concentration, scope creep, and so on. Your input would be valuable. → ROUX ₪ 02:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban on User:Finneganw at Anna Anderson

I wish to request a topic ban on User:Finneganw (previous account: User:Aussiebrisguy) at Anna Anderson on three grounds:

• Civility. Finneganw has goaded other editors, e.g. [15][16][17][18], despite being advised against it [19]. Further warnings were issued: [20][21]. Nevertheless, another attack occurred [22], and another warning was issued [23].
• Verifiability. Finneganw insists on removing from the article or denying the validity of any source in the article when it disagrees with his own point of view. For example, he claims that a biography written by Robert K. Massie, a former Rhodes Scholar who studied history at Yale and Oxford and won the Pulitzer Prize for biography, cannot be used as a source because it's "wildly unverifiable rubbish" [24]. There are no sources supporting that viewpoint.
• Trolling. Finneganw's talk page contributions consist largely of repeating the same unvarying statements, e.g. accusing his opponents of being rabid: [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32].

Two years ago, Finneganw's previous accounts User:Greergarsony, User:Marrygracer, User:Elizabethcrane, User:Deustchman, User:Harrietbrown, User:Alexiacolby and User:Aussiebrisguy were blocked after disruption at Anna Anderson. While his behaviour has improved (I don't see any further instances of sockpuppetry), it is still concerning, and still contributes to a toxic atmosphere at the Anna Anderson page, which has meant that normal editing there is impossible. I do not see any evidence of disruption on other pages, consequently, I feel that a ban on any contribution at Anna Anderson or Talk:Anna Anderson or its sub-pages would be the best way to prevent further poor behaviour. DrKiernan (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As someone involved on Talk:Anna Anderson, I'm tired of Finneganw's incivility and dismission. He's so blinded by his disdain of Anastasia=AA supporters that he's gone ahead to accuse a well-intentioned administrator (John Kenney), who is trying to prevent this article from turning into The Skeptic's Dictionary, of being a AA supporter. Although Aggiebean has not engaged in the same level of incivility and otherwise disruptive behavior, she too is so blinded her biases that she refuses to accept the valid policy concerns raised by several administrators, including myself. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly support a topic ban on User:Finneganw, having been asked to look at this earlier as an uninvolved admin. One way or another, Anna Anderson is the unhelpful mess that it is owing mostly to the unencyclopedic sway Finneganw (under all those usernames) has had on it. All reliable sources clearly support the assertion that Anderson was an utter, straightforward fraud, but the article does nothing towards showing readers how she fell into it and pulled it off for so long, which very likely only leads some readers to thinking the article is so biased and lacking that maybe she was Anastasia, which is not on. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Completely disinterested observer checking in. Is there a possibility of introducing a mediation process and have the individuals involved in the content issue, vent there first? I realize that there is also an issue of temperament and decorum in respect to the heated discourse that has been engendered by the topic, but perhaps mediation may be of use. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC).

There have been mediations before, first one by User:Trusilver, then one by User:AlexiusHoratius, and one now. DrKiernan (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why should there be mediation on a user who has had numerous accounts blocked previously for the same behavior? It's obvious they're not interested in collegiality. (Unbiased observer). Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of my own wikipedia life, I am here try to right an injustice to plead his case. What happened to Finneganw was very unfair and biased. This man has fought tirelessly against POV vandalism, disruptive editing and discredited info being passed off as fact in the article for 3 years. In the past, it was never him who got in trouble, it was the outrageous Anderson supporters who attacked him. Now we seem to have a change of attitude due to one particular mod being swayed by his friend who espouses the pro Anderson point of view. This is not fair as Finneganw has done nothing wrong. ChatNoir24, on the other hand, has been very disruptive and quite over the top for years while touting his agenda which has long since been proven wrong. He has been banned, suspended and warned several times. Yet now, since a newcomer to the discussion agrees with this incorrect viewpoints, Chat is okay and sudddenly, after three years of it being the other way around, Finneganw is the bad guy? I do hope before anything is done to this kind person (Finneganw) that the entire history of the AA talk page even the archives and history be reviewed.

As for what is happening now, it is a strange anomaly that is not fair but being passed off as so. Due to wiki demanding everything be sourced, this falls right into the hands of the Anderson supporters since they have loads of pro Anderson propaganda to use, with much less being written after the DNA tests proved her a fraud. What has been written many times borrows from older sources, and doesn't say in so many words THIS STORY IS NOT TRUE. Because of this, a lot of really stupid stuff that could not possibly have really happened since we know Anderson wasn't Anastasia is being sneaked into the article using the excuse that we don't have a reliable source to say it isn't so, therefore it can stay. I believe this to be the wrong thing for the site, as wiki needs its articles to be up to date and accurate. With the final 2009 DNA tests proving all members of the Romanov family are now found and accounted for, Anderson is proved without a doubt to be a fraud, meaning some of the things she claimed are now impossible. We should use a little common sense and logical deduction here and leave out these things. The only real 'source' I can show you is the DNA, so far no one has written a book mentioning each AA incident one by one and specifically stating 'this couldn't have happened', but this does not mean they should be in the article. As one other admin told us before, wiki does not regard all opinions equally and are under no obligation to give equal time to a lopsidedly wrong and disproven POV. This is the case with AA. For 3 years now, it has been the Anderson supporters who have been stopped from doing this, but now thanks to the addition of the pro Anderson JohnK I(yes, he is, regardless of his denials, I've seen these arguments for years on many sites, NO ONE but NO ONE backs her that avidly, actively, prolifically and strongly if not a supporter) backed by Dr. Kiernan, it has completely turned the opposite way, which is the wrong thing for the article if it is to be fact based and verifiable and free of myths and allusions to a 'mystery' that no longer exists. If anyone has any comments or questions please answer here or on my talk page, I have much evidence to back myself up if anyone will please take the time to listen. Free Finneganw!Aggiebean (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Get ready for fireworks at New Atheism

Resolved

The article was noticed by a popular atheist blog when it was in this state, which frankly got the entire thing wrong and attempted to define New Atheism by quoting its critics. The article definitely had major pov problems, but now it is swinging wildly the other way due to PZ's ninja hordes. :) Needs some attention, maybe even partial protection, and probably an RfC eventually. --72.226.206.86 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Article was redirected to Atheism, which properly discusses the subject. Pretty much the best result possible. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Protect Mark Buehrle

Can someone go over and protect Mark Buehrle? He just threw a perfect game and the article is being slammed by vandalism. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a day. I do note that this is probably the funniest vandalism I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I got a kick out of that too. Simultaneously hilarious and deeply disturbing. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Perfect game could use watching for the same reason- it appears to be under control, so need for protection, but the editing rate is currently quite high. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

More eyes on killing copyvios

Could we get a bit of extra eyes on Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations? Entries are starting to hang around for well over a week; if we could cut the list in half or so, that'd be nice.

That's all. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction; the entries are two weeks old. It would be much appreciated indeed if fellow administrators could take a look; I'm going to try to take a weedwhacker myself to it in the morning. — madman bum and angel 05:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible highjacked account

See [33].

Adamv88 is a long time and seemingly well-behaved wikipedia account who, having not made an edit in a very long time, even longer since regular activity, has suddenly appeared and started adding hateful religious commentary on the BDSM article and a couple of other places. It doesn't smell like the original owner of the account. Zazaban (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[34] User page before being blanked. Almost certainly not the same person. Zazaban (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Above conclusion may be flawed. See Claude Allen. (Allen was a model citizen, lawyer, then federal appeals court clerk, then a Cabinet Officer in a state government, and presidential aide. Working for the president, he earned $160k/year. Then he shoplifted at Target and had to leave his White House job). The smell test isn't guaranteed. Gasp2009 (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest, if possible, a checkuser to see if the account is being operate by Adamv88 or someone else. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Per above, I put in a CU "quick request." See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Quick_CheckUser_requests --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

History help needed

So I was pulled in at the last moment to do a segment on the history of Wiki Governance at the conference in NYC this weekend. I have some basic ideas at User:MBisanz/Presentation, but I would be interested in some help filling in blanks, ideas, etc that might make the presentation more interesting. I know it's short notice, but I haven't found that magic page that explains everything yet, so I figured I would ask for help. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)