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

Block Review of User:DIREKTOR

DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked, by me, under the terms of WP:ARBMAC. I invite a review of this block. He took it upon himself to begin redirecting old articles about the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the article on Serbia and Montenegro. He suggested a merge on January 4 but received no comments. On January 6 he began the mergers. His efforts were almost immediately met with resistance and several reverts were made in January and February. He declined to enter into discussion. I became aware of the problem and warned him and another user who is indef blocked, on March 1, 2010. Today he has made a similar revert at Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. DIREKTOR believes he is in the right but is not willing to discuss this on talk pages or to initiate the dispute resolution process. I blocked for 1 week up from a recent 48 hour block for edit waring. Your thoughts are appreciated. JodyB _talk 15:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good block. One week after a 48-hour block for edit warring is a fair period. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Good block. This is obvious POV pushing. We don't generally redirect or otherwise obliterate articles about former countries, e.g. GDR etc. Pcap ping 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Good block. I've supported DIREKTOR in a lot of disputes because he's under attack, unfairly, by a lot of editors with particular nationalist POVs. A lot. It's almost constant. But he's not perfect, I've given him warnings myself about some of his behavior (like labeling something as vandalism when it isn't). I have faith that a short block will turn him around, he's usually a good contributor. -- Atama頭 18:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• I can only see one recent revert here against an IP whose first two edits don't indicate a new user. Those reverts in February were against Иван Богданов (talk · contribs), who was indef-blocked for "personal attacks, harrassment, impersonation of other users".[1] If Direktor proposed a redirect and began to do so after receiving no comments, it's perfectly within the bounds of WP:BRD. You said he's "not willing to discuss this on talk pages", yet he's clearly done so at Talk:Serbia_and_Montenegro#Federal_Republic_Of_Yugoslavia. Based on this evidence, I'm not convinced this block is based on solid grounding. Spellcast (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The talk page section of the artile you mentioned showed an initial discussion which certainly produced no consensus for his moves [2]. But notice further down the page when someone suggests an RFC and DIREKTOR asks What's the point? [3]. It should have been clear to DIREKTOR that he was working without the support of the community.

It is correct that one of the editors was subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry and editing abuse. However other editors in good standing were also reverted. Furthermore, in an attempt to prevent this block I warned DIREKTOR on his talkpage [4] to take this to the talk page and further discuss these sorts of changes. Please bear in mind that these Balkans related articles which he is redirecting were in their original form for sometime before DIREKTOR begin his push to change them. There have been many reverts of this sort across many different articles. JodyB _talk 19:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

From 24 February to today, the only people to participate in the discussion were those that supported a redirect. Without any feedback for about 10 days from users who initially opposed it, it's perfectly reasonable to redirect and if reverted, continue discussion per WP:BRD, which is what Direktor was doing. (Also, the user who suggested an RFC supported Direktor's edits by saying that having 2 very similar articles is "impractical"). So basically, today's block comes down to this one revert against a suspicious IP that made no attempt at discussion, which is not good grounds for a block. If reverts were being done today against users who are actively engaged in the discussion, I'd definitely support a block, but that's not the case here. Apart from the user who was indef-blocked for harassment, where are these "many reverts" across "many articles"? Spellcast (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been a redirect since 2 March with no reverts or replies at the centralised discussion at Talk:Serbia_and_Montenegro#Federal_Republic_Of_Yugoslavia. Yet when he redirects Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia today for the sake of consistency, there's suddenly a block. There weren't even any reverts on that article since last month (and the other user has since been indef-blocked). I'm really not seeing the logic here. Spellcast (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• In the history of Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), DIREKTOR can be seen participating in an edit war about the redirect from 13 January 2010 to today, without engaging in any discussion on the article talk page, and without even making reference to any discussion taking place elsewhere. This is a violation of our normal editorial process as described in WP:ARBMAC#Editorial process, which mandates building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The block, therefore, is a reasonable exercise of administrator discretion under WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, which allows discretionary sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the normal editorial process. Accordingly, I see no reason to lift the block.  Sandstein  21:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was centralised at Talk:Serbia_and_Montenegro, where he was discussing before and after the RFC suggestion. For about 10 days, those who initially opposed his edits didn't respond to the new arguments, so it was reasonable for Direktor to redirect to see if consensus had changed. Now if, at this point, he reverted without discussion, a block would be justified, but that's not what happened. Spellcast (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Per Atama, I have also taken DIREKTOR's side when he has been targeted by other editors as regards nationalist sentiment but believe he acted outside of proper process here. Although he may have initiated a discussion regarding the moves, the lack of opposition then does not mean he has consensus sufficient to disregard subsequent raised concerns; WP:BRD applies in this case. I would be minded to lift the sanctions earlier if DIREKTOR agrees that the moves now require a new consensus (which, per the comments here, is unlikely under existing practice relating to former nations). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to address a couple of issues raised here. First my reading of WP:BRD is that DIREKTOR would be bold, which he was, someone would revert, which they did, and then he would go to the talk page to discuss, which he did not. On the talk page of Serbia and Montenegro a discussion began involving eight editors and one ip (includes User:Иван Богданов who was indefed for socking). Although it was clear there was no consensus, DIREKTOR continued to revert and declare blatant violations of policies.. This is not what WP:BRD invisions.

This issue is not limited to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There were other related articles that DIREKTOR redirected to what he deemed was a more suitable article.[5] [6]. I don't think DIREKTOR will agree to anything that restricts his editing but I can be convinced. I would remind all that this is not just any article. It is part of a group of Balkans related articles which have been the target of much drama. Also, this is not just any editor. DIREKTOR is experienced and knows well what is expected of him. He has been blocked 5 times including twice this year. he certainly can be an effective editor but he has to work with others. A reduction in time is not out of the question if he agrees with a new consensus attempt. JodyB _talk 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The first edit was last month, which no-one even reverted since then. If today's block was based on that, it's obviously late and punitive. Exactly what edit was he blocked for today? Was it this? If so, then it's ridiculous because 1/ no-one else has edited that article since last month and 2/ the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia article has been redirected since 2 March without any challenge, so it's common sense to also redirect a subpage of that article as well, which no-one even reverted today. Spellcast (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is the slow-motion edit war. Articles that fall under WP:ARBMAC sanctions are given tighter control than other articles. If such a slow edit war were happening at, say, TCBY then I'd call the block unwarranted. -- Atama頭 22:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The block was the result of slow running edit war across Balkans articles which are specifically dealt with under WP:ARBMAC. I was not required to issue the warning that I did but after being warned and reminded he continued. JodyB _talk 22:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes and I challenged your warning on your talkpage as misrepresenting the issue. I did this because I thought your interpretation of slow edit war was wrong and I stated to you that I considered your warining would be used as an excuse to block DIREKTOR the next time he reverted a possible IP sock. Your issue of the warning sometime after the event and with the indef block already in place on one of the two users being warned struck me as being very poor (not the words I used on your talkpage). Polargeo (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No-one responded to Direktor or his other supporter(s) for 10 days on the talk page, so it's reasonable for him to make his edits to see if there was a new implicit consensus. That is not edit-warring. The FRY article has been an unchallenged redirect since 2 March. When he redirects subpages of that article today for consistency (and out of common sense), why is there suddenly a block? If anyone reverted him today and he reverted back without discussion over a long period, there would be a slow edit war and a block would be justified, but that's not what happened. Spellcast (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Bad Block. A week! When the majority of DIREKTOR's actions which this block is for involve reverting a now indef blocked user who amongst other things was running a malicious sock User:DIREKTOR SPLIT against him. This block shows no common sense or flexibility in the rigid imposition of sanctions and penalises a genuinely constructive user who is very willing to use talkpages (as shown in this case) even when he is being maliciously socked against by extreme problem users. There is far more history than has been considered about in this merge, when the split was first made it was actually opposed and reverted (not by DIREKTOR) but it was made again in the meantime, hence DIREKTOR's merge proposal. There are very good Serb nationalist reasons for requiring the separate articles including possibly absolving Milosevic from responsibility for genocide but I won't go into that here. Polargeo (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I consider that in making this one week block JodyB has also come close to abusing or has even abused his admin position. Before the block I had raised serious concerns about his potential non-neutrality in the situation on his talkpage [7],[8]. I consider that making this block appears to be equivanlent to saying I don't care what you think I'm an admin and I can do what I like because I'm enforcing sanctions and you just have to lump it because other admins will back me up. Polargeo (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo is just wrong here. Prior to these events I was not in any way involved with any person in this dispute nor was I involved in editing any of these articles. To suggest I was non-neutral because he doesn't agree with my action is way over the top, inaccurate and just plain false. As I told Polargeo then, I stand by my decision. Does that make me non-neutral? JodyB _talk 10:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I considered you non-neutral because I thought your warning looked highly vindictive to me. You gave a warning to two users who had a short edit war. Their edit war was not "slow" in any way. You imposed the warning sometime after the edit war was over and some time after one of the two users had been indef blocked anyway. DIREKETOR had been using the talkpages and the other user had miliciously socked against DIREKTOR. Why did you feel right to impose an official warning after the events were clearly over then a 1 week block for a single reversion of an IP (as I had predicted that you would). The whole thing appears highly vindictive, unnecessary for the running of wikipedia in any way and a misuse of admin powers weakly justified by your own warning. I had already said before the block just based on your previous actions that I thought that they were wrong. One thing that is not needed in sensitive areas of wikipedia is admins who have no idea what they are doing stomping around and imposing blocks based on misconceptions. Polargeo (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• This block looks justified to me. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question: Can anyone explain the logic in blocking someone who redirects a subpage whose main article has been an unchallenged redirect for nearly a week? There was no "slow" edit war because the other participant was indef-blocked last month and no-one responded to Direktor's comments on the talk page for 10 days, so he was entitled to make his edit. Spellcast (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

On January 6, 2010, DIREKTOR made his first redirect of the article. This was after a merge suggestion 2 days before with no response either way. On January 21 at Talk:Serbia and Montenegro User:Craigzomack asked for two separate article instead of the one. On January 29 DIREKTOR was reverted by User:Cjdh and then DIREKTOR revert him with the edit summary "Rv vandalism..." An ip reverted on February 16 and that was reverted User:Mladifilozof. User:PANONIAN reverted on February 17, DIREKTOR on February 17 and then the sock and DIREKTOR went back and forth from February 17 until February 26 when the sock was blocked. During that period there was frequent discussion on the talk page and there was clearly no consensus for the reverts/redirects that DIREKTOR was making. Now we can quibble over whether this was a fast or slow edit war or whether this should be simply called tendentious editing. But given the discussion it should have been clear that there was still work to be done. Further, given that this is an area which has been so conflicted in recent years one would think that any editor would tread carefully especially after being reminded of the ARBMAC case. I am truly sorry that DIREKTOR is blocked because I think, as I said to him, that he is a passionate editor with a knowledge of this area. However as he acknowledged, he has a difficult time with his temper and is angered by other editors sometimes. That is not unique to DIREKTOR. The problem here is that he simply overstepped. I have no problem lessening the block duration if he will give assurances to be more aware of the need for consensus - I have said that before and stand by it. JodyB _talk 20:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't need an outright statement of support from the other side. You're presumed to have consensus if no-one responds for days on the talk page or article. Just because there was initial opposition to Direktor in January and early February, it doesn't mean it remained the same throughout the rest of the month and March. The discussion shows no opposing users responded to him from 25 February to the end of the discussion on 2 March. Although a suspicious IP restored the article on 1 March, he reverted once the next day with an explanation on the talk page, which is perfectly fine per the WP:BRD cycle. (If he kept reverting without discussing, a block would be warranted, but he didn't do that). Since then, no-one still challenged his edit, so a few days later he redirected a subpage for consistency, and was blocked for that. It's just common sense: If a main article has been a redirect for almost a week (with no-one challenging it), it makes sense to also redirect a subpage (which again, no-one challenged). The block was good-faith yet misguided because I think you perceived this to be a continuation of a mass edit war without discussion, but the talk page shows that he (and another user who in the end supported him) were the only ones engaged in consensus-building for quite some time. Spellcast (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer 1: I was at Direktor's side at Talk:Serbia and Montenegro concerning the merge/split proposal.

Disclaimer 2: I do think that Direktor tends to be stubborn and, having defended the Balkan articles from nationalist POVs, tends to automatically assume himself right and jump to edit wars.

Having said that, it's a terrible block. The centralized discussion was held at Talk:Serbia and Montenegro#Federal_Republic_Of_Yugoslavia and its outcome, at least temporarily, was to merge all the articles related with Serbia and Montenegro and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the main opponent, Ivan Bogdanov, being indef-blocked. Direktor merged all the articles Military of Serbia and Montenegro, Prime Minister of Serbia and Montenegro and all of that went unchallenged. Several days after the discussion ended, Jody appeared out of nowhere and dealt several WP:ARBMAC warnings around. I found it odd but ok, no big deal. Now, Direktor gets blocked out of the blue sky out for purported "edit war". No one had edited Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for seven (7) days, and Direktor's edit was for consistency with other articles.

If you're unable to follow what is going on on related pages, please do not involve yourself in administrative actions. I'm not a "strangle the administrator" guy, but your engagement was as graceful as a bull in a china shop. No such user (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocks are meant to be preventative and this isn't preventing anything except productive edits. Jody, when you were asked to explain the logic in blocking someone who redirects a subpage whose main page has been an unchallenged redirect for almost a week (and where no-one opposed or responded on the talk page since late February), bringing up the older discussions and reverts in January/early February is invalid. What matters is the latest consensus on the talk page. If your explanation doesn't substantiate your block, it should be lifted, but since that's unlikely to happen, an ArbCom review would be the useful next step. WP:ARBMAC says it "will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations". On that note, I'll end this thread which seems to be close to archiving. Spellcast (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My watchlist

My watchlist is pretty boring. What are some interesting things I can add to it? Interesting things, mind you, not dramatic things. harej 02:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure this should be here, but I recently added some of the reference desks to mine which are very interesting--Jac16888^Talk 02:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Intentionally blank page Paradoctor (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Find the unprotected articles that use images from MediaWiki:Bad image list. Alternatively, I imagine watchlisting DYKs could be interesting. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

When I felt that way, I picked several random high traffic articles in areas that I was interested in but haven't edited much. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I expect Intentionally blank page gets a lot of ironic vandalism, you might think. SGGH ^ping! 22:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Grundle2600, topic ban inquiry

• Grundle2600 (talk · contribs)
• Per WP:RESTRICT entry; "...is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians."

A two-part question; does the "US politics or politicians" restriction apply to articles involving the First Lady, Michelle Obama, and does this restriction extend to XfD disussions? Grundle2600 has, IMO unwisely, opened an old can of worms by bringing WP:DRV#Michelle Obama's arms to DRV. This article, deleted almost a year ago, was one of the larger nails in the coffin that led to Grundle's original Obama-related topic ban, since extended as noted above. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Part 1 of your question seems easy: an article involving the First Lady is clearly related to "US politics or politicians". Part 2 is a bit murkier, since WP:DRV isn't inherently a page about such topics. Since just making the request isn't disruptive and he hasn't edited on the DRV request since making it almost two days ago, I'd be inclined to leave it be. --RL0919 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a mostly friendly relationship with Grundle, and have scolded him about this on his talk page. No harm, no foul, de minimus non curat wikipediex. PhGustaf (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This user has initiated a deletion review of an article that is IMO within the topic ban, on an article that he created, and the subsequent mess that ensued from said creation led to the topic ban before us now. Let's not be so quick to write this off as an innocent act, just because Grundle is nicer than others, i.e. ChildofMidnight, about the POV-pushing. Tarc (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I see Tarc is still making scurrilous attacks. It's unfortunate that Arbcom didn't do more to squash his belligerent and destructive behavior when they had the chance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I filed a report here asking for clarification of the topic ban, and that clarification has been received. I'd be more than curious to hear just what policy or rule you feel that I have broken by doing this. But really, it is a bit surreal that even though you are on the cusp of a 1-year ban from the project for among other things making personal attacks (see accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence at WP:NPA), you are here now doing it again. You have a lot of chutzpah though, I'll grant you that. Tarc (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone who engages in aggressive bullying tactics and incivilities to go after those they disagree with should be cautious about using Yiddish words unless you're deliberately trying to be ironic. There was no reason for you to smear me in this discussion that doesn't relate to me in any way, and even if you have support from some of the sleazy politicians that hold administrative positions here you still have to face yourself in the mirror. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oy veh PhGustaf (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's oy vey, and for you and Tarc I think the terms schlemiel and schlimazel might be more appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It disambiguates. Going from from one alphabet to another can be hard. PhGustaf (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Schlemiel and schlimazel? Isn't that just something from the Laverne & Shirley theme song? :) Tarc (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The schlemeil is the one who spills the soup; the schlemazl is the one whose lap the soup winds up upon. I'm not good enough at metaphor to make this relevant to the discussion. PhGustaf (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, PhGustaf -- what's the purpose of imposing a community editing ban if it's not going to be enforced? RESTRICT states "any pages", not "any articles", so this is definitely covered. The most recent block was 48 hours, so I'd say this calls for an escalation to 1 week. I'm not imposing it myself because I have some history with Grundle: I'd prefer someone less involved to impose the actual block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't disagree strongly with either Tarc or SoV. But see how he responds to my rather strong[9] scolding first. Annoying though he be, he hasn't posted many unkind words. PhGustaf (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for 1 week, for a clear and recurrent violation of his topic ban. The inability to stop beating this particular dead horse and the failure to get the point are aggravating factors. I will leave the DRV to run its course. MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm waiting with bated breath to see who will unblock him and start the drama fest. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll make the popcorn. Woogee (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bagna cauda might be better in this sophisticated company. PhGustaf (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we watch Daffy Duck cartoons to go with the Bagna Cauda?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much wiggle room for an overturn here, esp as the blockee has not even requested one. have faith, the process around here does work sometimes. :) Tarc (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator inactivity

I've just posted this proposal up; comments (there, not here) would be appreciated. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"RfC" needs closing

This "RfC" has been open for more than one year and it's used by FOSS advocates to argue that WP:N is not an established guideline for FOSS whenever an article they really like is up for deletion. As far as I can tell this "RfC" was never advertised as such anywhere except on one village pump entry. Anyway, it's been open for a year, so it needs a determination of consensus and closing. In the mean time there have been a couple of (policy-compliant) attempts to write guidelines for software notability, one of which has outright failed, and the other still ongoing. Pcap ping 03:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I tagged it as {{rejected}} since it clearly doesn't have consensus and, in as much as it appears to repudiate core policies on sourcing, probably never will. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• User:ChildofMidnight is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

• User:ChildofMidnight is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only. In all cases he is forbidden from discussing the behavior of other editors, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page. ChildofMidnight may apply to the Committee for exemptions to this restriction for the purposes of good faith dispute resolution on a case-by-case basis. This remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Get ready for a minor backlog

Hey guys,

A while ago I was disgusted at the size of Category:Non-free_Wikipedia_file_size_reduction_request. So, I built a bot to go through and rescale some elligable files. It is just about to run, so just a heads up that we may need some sysops at Category:Rescaled_fairuse_images in a bit. Thanks! Tim1357 (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Double AfD creation

Resolved

Sorry I accidentally created both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lombard Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lombard Wikipedia (2nd nomination) in short order. I initially applied {{db-reason}} to the latter, but then reverted not knowing what was the best option. Sorry for the headache. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No prob. I deleted the duplicate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, the correct tag is {{db-author}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mythdon's block is up

Resolved

 – UP blanked, TP unprotected. –xeno^talk 17:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mythdon (talk · contribs)
He should be notified, and the ban notice removed from his page Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Tan | 39 17:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no actual need to notify a user that their block has expired; if you want the page unprotected to remove the notice, that's a separate matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mythdon user page

• User:Mythdon

Please unprotect my userpage as the protection is no longer needed. Thank you. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done, although generally such requests should go to WP:RFPP--Jac16888^Talk 02:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Help tagging a page

Resolved

 – Created. Bencherlite^Talk 20:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please assist I would like to add {{Song}} to Talk:Zawa...Zawa...Za..Zawa......Zawa, but I am not authorized to do as much. Please add this tag and make that talk page editable. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Help with a redirect

All I want to do is request moving a page (namely, I think "The Holy Bible" should redirect to the Christian Scriptures, not a rock album, which should be renamed "The Holy Bible (album)". I have been through several different pages, both help-type and adminiatrator pages, and can't figure out where I should go. Thank you. Squad51 (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that it should redirect to Bible. Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd need to visit WP:Requested Moves to invite discussion of The Holy Bible moving to The Holy Bible (album), with the redirect that such a move would create being pointed instead to Bible. Your proposal would move a page and break all links to it by retargeting the redirect (so all incoming links would need to be fixed, no laughing matter). This would be for the sake of making life slightly easier for people who type "The Holy Bible" into the search bar rather than "Bible" so that they don't have to click on "Bible" at the very top of the article about the album. I anticipate opposition to your suggestion. Note that Holy Bible (i.e. without the "The") already redirects to "Bible". Bencherlite^Talk 21:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Redirecting straight to Bible would actually be a bad idea because you'd have to have a hatnote at the top of Bible advising where the album article is situated (this might not be such of a problem for a minor rock album, but this one regularly appears near the top of "The Best n Albums of all time" type listings - it's a major work). I'd say either leave it where it is (there's already a hatnote pointing to Bible) or convert to a dab page, though someone would still have to fix a hell of a lot of links. Black Kite 21:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving of 'Request topic ban of User:Steaphen'

It seems like Request for topic ban of User:Steaphen got automatically archived. There was general agreement that some sort of topic ban would be appropriate, and the discussion faded out. But the case was never officially closed or resolved.

Is this standard procedure, to leave it unresolved once it get archived, even if there is agreement, or does it mean we need to wait for User:Steaphen to return, and resuscitate the discussion on what to do then? Ansgarf (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If a matter is unresolved when it is archived - and it is archived because there is no comment for 48 hours - then unresolved is what it is; consensus has not been achieved. The fact that Steaphen account is inactive, as noted, means there is no pressing need for a resolution. As you say, should the account reactivate and the issues resume, then bring up the matter again, link to the previous discussion, and note they appear to have resumed once attention had drifted away. A resolution is then more likely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There was consensus, but since Steaphen left there was no urgency, and the debate fizzled out. But if this means we'll have to do go over this again when he returns, then that is what we'll have to do. Thanks. Ansgarf (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If a new problem arises with the editor, anyone can link to the archived discussion to show what the community's feelings on the matter are, without necessarily having to start a new discussion from scratch. Archived doesn't mean deleted, and doesn't necessarily mean forgotten. -- Atama頭 18:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for lifting ban

Categories Last year, User:Hiding gave me a sanction on adding and removing categories from a page under a "topic ban." In December, he told me that we would discuss lifting said ban in the new year. Since then, he has retired. I would like to get an admin to discuss this matter with me. Please post on my talk at your earliest convenience to settle this matter. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No ban on adding/removing categories is listed at WP:RESTRICT, where the following is listed

• Koavf subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages.
• Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.
• Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morrocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages and other related discussions.

Are you now appealing any or all of those? Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh No, just this. It might be nice to update the moribund status of Western Sahara articles (I was the primary contributor on the topic), but I don't want to get into that now. I just want to be able to add categories, as it's frankly very frustrating to refrain from all of the things I want to do (e.g. add Category:George Orwell to 11020 Orwell; that's been a bookmark in my browser for months.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, that topic ban was imposed by a single admin, and not as the result of a community discussion. I'm minded to rescind that, but would like to hear from other admins first. The restrictions logged at WP:RESTRICT would naturally remain in place until such time as an appeal is heard and granted. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-certified RfCs that need closing

The following three user conduct RfCs were open for 48 hours without being seconded. May I request that they be deleted per policy?

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Avraham
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Debresser
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK3

Thank you, -- Avi (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. First time handling these, so feel free to revert if I made a mistake. MLauba (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

little heart?

Is there a pecific reason the little "W" on my browser tab is now replaced by a heart icon? Was wondering if anyone knew if this was vandalism or or are we promoting something? Wasn't sure where to post this, so leaving it here. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, this is awkward. Mr. Rowe, it's just...it's just that, well, w- we uh....we love you. <3 <3 <3 Sorry you had to find out this way, bu- but you're intimidatingly pretty to approach directly you see xxxx 86.41.87.146 (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, weeellll, bats eyes bashfully.. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That little W is a favicon. Favicons are sometimes cached in your browser, which means that if the icon is changed on the site it may not change for you. It also means that the favicon in the cache for that site might get replaced with the favicon for another site through some glitch, that has happened to me before. If you happen to be using Firefox, some advice on fixing the icons can be found here. -- Atama頭 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Could someone please close the re-opened move discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Requested move? The arguments have been made and the discussion is now revolving around the closure rather than the article title. If the page is moved then the suggestions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Elizabeth II will be defunct. If the page is not moved, then we can move ahead with the next phase of discussion. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock-en-l

A few volunteers who are willing and able to answer requests on the unblock-en-l mailing list are needed:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l

In addition to asking to subscribing please send a Wikipedia e-mail to User:Unblock-en-l. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Bauder (talk • contribs) 15:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday at RfAr

Since it strongly appears the Arbcom refuses to shine any sunlight on this, I will not be returning to Wikipedia. It's clear that any other process is likely to be met with the same abuse of oversight that hit the recent ANI thread, and made discussion impossible.

If anyone wants to attempt to sort out the situation, my e-mail is available on my user page. I may be unable to resist, and peek at the Arbcom page tomorrow, but I have been away from Wikipedia for five months, returned this week to give Wikipedia a final chance to deal with the situation, and, having it been made clear that Durova - who represents the Wikipedia Foundation to several museums, including the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam and the New York Public Library - will be held to no conduct requirements. I will not be returning to editing, no images will be uploaded, and, brief flirtations with temptation aside, will not be monitoring any Wikipedia pages.

Goodbye. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 19:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully you will return one day. Best of luck. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration is the wrong forum. I think you need mediation. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good. Your persistent arrogant edit-warring on WP:PLOT and other issues showed that you'd succesfully converted yourself from a productive editor into a disruptive time sink for everyone else. And I'm absultely no friend of Durova. Don't let the door hit yourself on the way out. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Here here.  f o x  (formerly garden) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)