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

Move assistance

Resolved

Can and admin move Academic All-American to Academic All-America.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I tagged Academic All-America with {{db-move}}. It was pointed at All-America, which is probably why the ESPN program article was created at Academic All-American (whoever started the article about the ESPN progeram really should have simply overwrote the redirect, but C'est la Vie). For future reference though, see WP:RM, as there is a Uncontroversial moves section on there for just this sort of thing. Oh, I hatnote'd the ESPN program article as well, by the way.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick question regarding "Attribution issues"

Resolved

Quick question (hopefully) here, since I am getting stuck in a mess about attribution issues and want to ensure I am grasping the idea correctly here:

If someone userfys an article via a copy and paste, and that article is later deleted, along with a redirect to it which had merged information in it, is there an attribution problem here? The page in question is User:TheChrisD/Ctrl+Alt+Del. The original article Ctrl+Alt+Del was effectively closed as "Delete and redirect", except the delete part was not performed. I ran into the entire scenario after deleting a redirect under G8, as the animated series was now pointing to the keyboard combination after the AfD close, thus I deleted the old revisions of Ctrl+Alt+Del and restored the redirect to allow the redirect to be deleted without GFDL issues, as it had no relevant target.

Thus I now have the scenario of that userfied copy representing over 2,400 revisions from two different pages, and am unsure what should be done here. Do the two pages need to be restored and moved somewhere to be GFDL compliant?

Sorry if this is a confusing messy message, but I am in a bit of a confused mess myself now over all this. Thanks for any help in advance, --Taelus (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Relevant links:

• Ctrl+Alt+Del: The Animated Series, the problematic redirect which was the merge source.
• Ctrl+Alt+Del, the article and merge target which was redirected to the keyboard combination Control Alt Delete.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del, relevant AfD which I interpreted as "Delete and redirect" in a slightly different shape.
• User_talk:Patar_knight#Note_about_Ctrl.2BAlt.2BDel, note I left and reply from closing admin of AfD.
• User_talk:Taelus#Ctrl.2BAlt.2BDel_revisions_deletion, user raising query about the deletion on my talk page.

--Taelus (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• The history needs to visible if the content is, yeah. Delete the userfied version, undelete the deleted mainspace version, move the mainspace version to the userspace location, then undelete the deleted revisions that were in the userspace (if necessary). Probably, you then want to delete the automagically made redirect from the mainspace to the userspace. WilyD 18:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thought so, should I histmerge both the "Animated Series" and main article into one place in their userspace then? That way all the revisions are there in one place. --Taelus (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll go ahead and perform the undeletes/moves/re-deletes/other mess then, so that all the history is visible. :) Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• The histmerge was required to fix the unattributed user copy. However, I think it would have been better to userfy the two articles separately. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at TFD

Could someone close or relist this one from February 20? I can take care of any closing issues (e.g., orphan, modification, redirection, ...), once it has been closed. If that one is already closed, it would be great if someone could look at March 3, which is about 3 days overdue. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Copylinks needing removal from Scientology talk page history

On the talk page for The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, I placed links to illegally-hosted Scientology publications without realizing they were illegal. I've since removed them, but they remain in the page history. There's about 4 revisions between when I posted them and when I removed them. here is a diff between the first revision containing the links and the first one in which they are removed. Should you delete the intermediate revisions? MutantPlatypus (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fine that the links were removed, per WP:COPYLINKS, but not really necessary to delete the revisions. Will of course defer to others on action on this. -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is indeed necessary to delete revisions, I'd like to know why. I've reverted copyright violations a number of times (I did so today in fact) and if we have to delete copyvios from page histories that is something that should be publicized a bit more than it is (and should definitely be mentioned in WP:LINKVIO). -- Atama頭 18:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The only reason copyright violations are sometimes removed from article histories is to prevent them being restored to the article in the future. It's not normal procedure and happens even less for talk pages; I can't imagine it being necessary to remove linkvios from a talk page history. – Toon

Nod, there is also no disruption or edit-warring going on with this particular page, so it is unlikely the links in question will be restored. -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My guess, then, is that MutantPlatypus made a mistake and wants to make it right, and is trying to go the extra mile in doing so. That's commendable, but I'd venture to say that removing them is good enough. -- Atama頭 19:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I have no opinion on what needs to be done, but the article of the very talk page I did this on taught me about the litigious tendencies of Scientology, so I just wanted to make sure it was brought to administrative attention. (I didn't realize Cirt was an admin and that it had already been evaluated by an admin) -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages to be created

Please assist Talk:...& Nobody Else, Talk:....The Answer to Both Your Questions, and Talk:Adults!!!: Smart!!! Shithammered!!! And Excited by Nothing!!!!!!! need to have {{Album}} added. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

While you're about it how about remedying the lack of sources in the parent article, which has been tagged as unsourced since 2008. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting an edit to a fully protected template.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I found a difference between these two maintenance templates:

As you can see, the difference is that the "related reading" bit of the {{morefootnotes}} template isn't seen. Could someone who is an admin add that in please? Minimac (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, you should go tot he talk page of the template you want edited and add {{editprotected}}, followed by your request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I was about to do that, but it's a template and not an article, so I don't know what to do to be specific. Actually, I have an idea, but I'll do it later, because I'm a little busy today. Minimac (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting addition to bad images list

• file:Caucasian man masturbating.jpg with a possible exception for masturbation (used in other wikipedias but not here) (P.S. Sorry if this is not the right place, I'm lost here!) --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 14:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Deletion would be more appropriate, it's not like we actually need yet another picture of someone wanking. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Of course, since it's on Commons, WP doesn't have the ability to actually delete it- a deletion discussion would have to be held over there. More on topic, the usual place for such requests is MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• I think the term of art there is "yapp" - yet another penis picture. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Come on Guy don't be bashful, you know you really want to upload a picture of your cock to Commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.195.47 (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Help wanted: Copyright work

I cobbled together this sad specimen of the Lolcat breed solely to demonstrate the dire need.

Copyright work on Wikipedia is perpetually backlogged, and more people are desperately needed to help. I know the image side needs help, too, especially as we’ve lost some good, active image admins over the past year. But I’m here to appeal for assistance with text.

Some of the work is rote (as at WP:CP and WP:SCV, comparing an article to a tagged source to make sure it does not copy or closely paraphrase). Some of it is more investigative (as at WP:CCI, doing source checks and google searches of articles created by known infringers). Occasionally, it is confrontational, as some contributors object to the policies regarding importing content and/or your application of it.

I’ve been doing this work pretty much full time for over a year and a half, and I would like to transition my attention more to WP:CCIs, where we have literally thousands of articles waiting for review. I can’t, though, without more help at WP:CP and WP:SCV. We’ve managed to avoid significant backlog at CP for a long time, and I wouldn’t want to see that change. Backlog at SCV is not critical, but it is typically chronic. Of course, even if you would rather work CCIs yourself, there’s plenty to go around. We have something in the neighborhood of 30 open investigations.

I bring this here because admin tools are a big plus, as deletion (selective or entire) is a frequent requirement of the job and blocking is required for persistent violators. However, non-admins also have plenty to do here. On the job training would be cheerfully provided.

I'm hoping to make some real headway in the CCI backlog and also to stave off my own burnout. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As an offhand comment, while I can appreciate your willingness for taking on this task, and the fact that it can be a very important issue to address at times, I have to say that if the rote work is preventing yourself and others from going on "seek and destroy" missions then that's actually good thing. If you'd really like help here though, I'm sure that there are numerous volunteers available at places such as WP:NPP and WP:RCP. There's plenty of testosterone available, if you're willing to look for it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I find that a very curious comment. Did I once speedy delete something of yours that I don't remember? Or do you just generally assume that the people who do copyright work are rampant deletionists? In any event, I appreciate the alternative forum suggestion, but I'm really hoping to find some volunteers here. As I said, admin tools are a big plus in this work. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, as far as I know we've never interacted. The above was, as I indicated, merely an offhand comment. I'd like to clarify that I wasn't accusing, or even discussing, yourself or anyone else of deleting anything (although I'm certain that is an end result in (many?) instances). I was commenting more about the willingness of "editors" to act as "policemen", and the collateral issues that causes (at least occasionally).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, thanks for explaining. It sounded rather as though you were saying that I personally (and my cohort) needed to be kept busy so I don't tear the place up. :) Copyright work is not always about deleting articles, although that does happen quite a lot. It's also about identifying reverse infringement, trying to help good faith contributors work within our Terms of Use and, on occasion, even rewriting articles that were built from material we can't legally use. Abuse of power can certainly happen in most (maybe all) administrative areas, but the administrative work still needs to be done, and in the copyright area we have tons of it to do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban between SkagitRiverQueen and Wildhartlivie

Since it does not appear that SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) and Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) are able to communicate without things spinning out of control, as shown most recently here, I'd like to propose an interaction ban, where neither of them is allowed to comment to or about the other, short of an RFC/U or Arbitration case. Further thoughts? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support I also agree with this as long as RFC/U or arbcom is still allowed to be pursued. The problems have been going on way too long. While we are at it, I would also like to request that this be removed. Thanks for making this suggestion to get it official. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, definitely warranted and perhaps overdue. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:17, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - I'm essentially fine with an interaction ban because I'm tired of everything I do and everything I say being construed by Wildhartlivie as being about her and against her and some kind of planned plot to make her Wikipedia-life miserable (even when I've never said a word about her). I'm tired of the backstabbing that goes on between her and her closest Wikipedia-buddies. That being said, I would like to see a "clause" in the ban to include a few editors who I have seen make snide, behind the back remarks about me to WHL in order to make a point and show some kind of childish anti-SkagitRiverQueen comraderie. These editors would include User:Doc9871, User:Crohnie, User:Vidor, User:Equazcion, and User:Pinkadelica. I'm not asking for a formal interaction ban, just something that keeps them from egging things on and adding fuel to anyone's fire. IOW, once this is done, I would like to see it over with. I don't want to see clever, coded, or middle-school-type comments on article talk pages or WHL's talk page or in edit summaries that have anything to do with past history between WHL and I. IMO, comments from these people in the past have only made matters worse (for both WHL and I) and have been unhelpful and unproductive in general. I'm not asking for an interaction ban (formal or informal) between them and I, but I am asking that once this is done, that they let everything between WHL and I go and move on. If they want to kibbutz and backbite through email, fine. But if they plan on carrying this on publically in the manner they have in the past, I say no - put a stop to it now. One last thing...I am not okay with this ban if it means I will have to stop editing articles that WHL does. She edits too many of the same articles I care about and, with her editing thousands of articles (and likely having many of the same ones on her watchlist that I do), she and I are bound to bump into each other at some point. Asking me to stop editing the articles WHL does would be unfair - the deck would be already stacked in her favor. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am not interested in interacting with SRQ or talking about her except in the context of her edits to articles, which, in the case of the Bundy article I interacted with her on, were generally her holding on to a solitary point of view long after a consensus developed against her edits. Vidor (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Question How far does an "interaction" ban go? If the two editors revise each others' edits, does that count as "interaction", or does it depend on whether it's normal editing or edit-warring? CoM and I were interaction-banned, but the article question never needed resolution, since we had very little crossover on articles. But how would it work if both are editing the same articles frequently? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I was quite happy during the period of time that Lar imposed an informal interaction ban, except, perhaps for the multiple times SkagitRiverQueen violated that ban and nothing was done about it. Just for the record, I have approached or emailed 6 different administrators and some posts to WP:AN/I, who either ignored my requests or said they would help amd did nothing, save SarekOfVulcan, who proposed this ban. In that regard, this is the first constructive thing that any administrators have done since Lar imposed the informal ban, to help the situation, although no one would take any action when it was violated. Having said that, I want to stress that I do not support a ban on filing a WP:RfC/U, WP:AN/I, WP:AN, or ArbCom case regarding SRQ. That is basically jerking my dispute resolution remedies away from me. I also do not support any sort of ban extending to other editors. SRQ was blocked recently for personal attacks or harassment against Crohnie, who is one of her cherrypicked list of editors she wants to drag into this. There is no support for extending this to User:Doc9871, User:Crohnie, User:Vidor, User:Equazcion, and User:Pinkadelica. Including Doc9871 and Equazcion who challenge her behaviors toward other editors, not just me, would effectively remove vocal editors who do not condone her behavior. I have no clue why she would single out Vidor who stays out of it, and including Crohnie, whom she harasses about her friendship with me, and Pinkadelica is totally unsupported. That list is effectively her clearing a path in front of her and is unfounded and unsupported. She basically picked a list of names, all apparently who have been critical of her conduct and this is an attempt to get rid of her opponents, none of which have ever been chastized or blocked for thier conduct toward her. I suggest if she has individual complaints about those editors, that she address each specifically, and not try to drag them into this. As for her statement that she not be banned from articles where she has an "interest", I have a list of 26 articles, to which she followed after her initial dispute with me in December, none of which she had ever shown even a modicum of interest prior to that. The most recent article was last night, where she reverted an edit on her first visit to the article Herculaneum], an article where I first edited on May 29, 2008, and her first was March 13, 2010, my last edit there was March 12, 2010. This history of stalking my edits is completely unacceptable and totally improper. That would include her futile attempt to "insert" herself into a discussion with another editor on an article (Kate Winslet) that I had just taken through WP:GA nomination, and which Lar questioned her motives. It isn't acceptable to stalk another editor to not one or two, but at least 26 different articles upon several of which she stirred the waters and escalated a dispute. How easy is it to follow someone else's edits and appear to edit and dispute? That is clearly what she has done and to reserve her right to edit those articles and talk pages where she has instigated issues is blatantly self-serving and contentious. Each new article where she pops up would become another article upon which I cannot protest her taking over and "helping" the page. Please take a look at her contributions history to see the pattern of disputes in which she is involved. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I've seen this clogging up several dispute resolution boards and talk pages for the last few months. Enough is enough. Either stop mentioning each other, or get banned. --Rschen7754 20:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support: This is becoming very disruptive. I'm glad an admin has finally initiated a response to this escalating disaster. Long overdue and much needed. —Mike Allen 20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Both sides have agreed, this seems like a good way to end some of the drama. I would not extend the ban to any of the other editors SRQ has named unless either they're willing, or she's willing to file RfCs and provide diffs. Dayewalker (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support As is evidenced within this very section, this is needed so the accusations and counter accusations can be put to rest. I would address both SRQ and W now; very few people now care who is right and who is wrong - if you will not comply with this proposal then both will be banned, and editors can get on with other issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• A damn fine idea which will save a lot of people a lot of time and effort.   pablo_hablo. 23:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: An irrelevant exchange was moved to the talk page. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:36, 15 Mar 2010 (UTC)

And it needs to be returned immediately - because others are continuing it here with my prior comments now located somewhere else. Not fair. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Either that or move the continuation there too, which I've done. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:12, 15 Mar 2010 (UTC)

(OD) As above, I think this ban is a good idea, and the above discussion illustrates that. Can an admin go ahead and wrap this one up, since both parties have agreed in principle to it? Dayewalker (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Preferably, an admin-not-being-me, since I proposed it in the first place. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(OD) As a general notice to everyone involved, Equazcion has moved all of the infighting and personal discussion to the talk page. Any further comments about anything other than the topic ban should be taken there. Trust me when I say this, no one is listening to any of you right now. This isn't the time or place for a discussion and details about who did what to whom. Please take it to the talk page, or better yet, just table the matter until the ban is in place and it may not even be relevant any more. Dayewalker (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely relevant to a ban as to whether I am able to file a report here, at WP:RfC/U or an ArbCom case and whether SRQ can continue to stalk my editing and stir up trouble to which I am not allowed to respond. Will someone please address these concerns and not remove my questions, please. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A message was left on Sarek's page, to request that he clarify the terms of the proposed ban. Let's see what he has to say on that. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:19, 15 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Given some of the recent comments here, I've gone ahead and logged the interaction ban at WP:RESTRICT. It's essentially the TheSerialComma/Koalorka ban with added language reserving the right to file and participate in RFC/U and arbitration discussions. The noticeboards are specifically prohibited.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:FuturamaRocks caught in an autoblock?

FuturamaRocks (talk · contribs) has posted a request for unblock on their Talk page, apparently they're caught in an autoblock. Woogee (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Tip of the day help

Tip of the day says I need Admin help: I would like to display totd beneath my common sence moto and between my thumb and my clock. Thanks for your help Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Motions regarding Trusilver and Arbitration Enforcement

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

1) The unblock of User:Brews ohare by User:Trusilver was done without the explicit written consent of the Arbitration Committee, or a full and active community discussion as required. The Arbitration Committee explicitly rejects Trusilver's defense of WP:IAR in this situation. However, since the block has since expired, it will not be reapplied. For misuse of his administrator tools, User:Trusilver's administrator rights are revoked. He may regain them through a new WP:RfA or through a request to the Arbitration Committee.

2) The Arbitration Committee modifies the Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity as follows:

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or

(b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page.

Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.

Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Since this decision is so important for Admins, I think all Admins should be notified by email about this. Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If admins can't or won't keep up with Wikipedia:AN#Motions_regarding_Trusilver_and_Arbitration_Enforcement, they should be desysoped, not coddled. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This resolution on prohibition of overturning is long on brutal enforcement, and very short on any explanation about arbitration of a proposed overturn. The emphasis upon forced support for an action instead of reasoned arbitration of a considered overturn is poor practice. Brews ohare (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A bit of an explanation on this issue (without taking sides in the case):

Arbitration is the final resort on dispute resolution (Jimbo Wales almost never changes rulings). RFAR is intended to end the conduct issues in a dispute. Cases come to RFAR because neither the community can resolve them, nor the admin team. Sometimes matters get to RFAR because admins are unilaterally acting to overturn each other already. Allowing RFAR overturns as a norm would allow the same kind of actions that prevented dispute resolution in the first place, and changes AC rulings from a final resort into a mere loop-around into the same old mêlée. Given the effort everyone goes to to get a matter resolved, and fails before hitting RFAR, that's very rarely a good idea. If overturning AE were something any admin might to do freely, then the entire wishes of those seeking Arbcom's help to end a dispute, and the entire structure of dispute resolution that says we aim to end disputes not enact them perennially, would fail.

AE back-stops the entire of dispute resolution, and cases reaching AE have inevitably already had wikilawyering, gaming and attempts at unilateral action. So AE is itself backstopped with rigid measures. Administrators may respect AC rulings or let others deal with them, but they should not disrupt them. The method of review is by proper conduct not unilateral decision: review by Arbcom, or a very clear, cogent, consensus, for those reasons. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise I have no opinion on the original issue, but I welcome the strong action by arbcom which is fully justified from the simple observation that there has to be an ultimate appeal process that must be respected (the alternative would be to replace the encyclopedia with an open-door forum). If admin X claims to be acting for AE and admin Y disagrees, Y must take up the matter with arbcom or the community, rather than contributing another chapter to the original dispute. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Motion regarding Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday

This request has been closed and the final motion is available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday.

The Arbitration Committee notes and deplores the acrimonious nature of the dispute between Shoemaker's Holiday and Durova, and the way it has been needlessly prolonged and intensified on- and off-wiki by both parties, and resolves that:

a) While noting the provisions in paragraph (b):

i) Shoemaker's Holiday shall neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Durova on any page in the English Wikipedia.

ii) Durova shall neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Shoemaker's Holiday on any page in the English Wikipedia.

iii) Both parties are expressly prohibited from responding in kind to perceived violations of sections (i) and (ii) above and should instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email.

b) Both parties may, within reason, comment within the same pages (for example, in the Wikipedia:Featured Pictures topic area and similar) providing their comments do not relate directly or indirectly to the other party. They may also, within reason, revert blatant third-party vandalism to each others' or shared works.

c) Should either Shoemaker's Holiday or Durova violate the letter or spirit of these restrictions, they may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for short periods of up to one week; after the third such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year. All blocks shall be logged below. Appeals of any blocks may be made to the Arbitration Committee.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Starkey (artist)

Could somebody please delete Starkey (artist)? It's been sitting there with a db tag on it for two days. Woogee (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Category:Unreferenced BLPs

When this whole hoopla started, I didn't say a great deal. I figured everyone was too worked up to really listen anyways. I imagined that once everyone got into the category, got their hands dirty so to speak, they would realize what I had understood solely due to my experience wading through these backlogs: That the articles in this category are by and large innocuous. That everyone would come to understand that this category is not helping them find the problematic articles on living people that they initially believed it would and that everyone would move on to the real priorities. That didn't happen. Groupthink seems to have painted some irresistible illusion where this category is seen as the "must address" backlog for enforcing the policy on problematic articles about living people. This impression, however, is false. The fact is that the above category contains articles on living people which may or may not be accurate, which may or may not be neutral, yet have merely been tagged as lacking sources. I do understand why people are uneasy about this category being as old as it is. I do not understand why people prioritize it over the really problematic categories which have a similar age. I for one imagine that the priority would naturally fall on articles which are tagged as lacking accuracy or lacking neutrality rather than lacking sources. That the articles which may or may not be accurate or neutral would be dealt with after those which have been identified as inaccurate or non-neutral. We have amazing work being done on Category:Unreferenced BLPs. Yet people are threatening the work being done these with dis-heartening out-of-process deletions in the name of "prioritizing the BLP policy". The idea that Category:Unreferenced BLPs has anything to do "prioritizing the BLP policy" is utter hogwash. Prioritizing the BLP policy would mean addressing articles which may or may not contain sources, which may or may not be accurate, but are identified as lacking neutrality or else articles which may or may not contain sources, which may or may not be neutral, but are identified as lacking accuracy. Since these categories are not sorted by living people, I have made a partial list on a subpage of articles on living people I found within these categories. I only sorted out those backlogged from before March 2008, so remember there is another two years worth of backlog where these came from. If anyone foolishly pushes ahead with deleting those non-contentious articles in Category:Unreferenced BLPs outside of process while these contentious articles on living people are still sitting unresolved after years and years, I will personally dispute the deletions. If anyone wants to continue to hold the moral high ground, it stands over with the identified contentious articles. Once they are taken care of I will concede the the priority must then fall to those that are merely unsourced and I will not dispute such steps taken to deal with them at that time.--BirgitteSB 07:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just like I created the Unsourced BLP cat as a subcat of the (extremely large) unsourced articles cat, I am willing to create and populate BLPsubcats for other tag categories as well (well, those requiring more attention for BLPs than for other kinds of articles, not things like "wikify" or "orphan"). Fram (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support the creation of more specific categories to be used to sort articles according to more precise issues (and more important ones, too) as described by BirgitteSB. I think it's far more important to deal with articles that actually have urgent and important issues such as POV, accuracy, etc., than to spend so much time hand-wringing over articles which are basically innocuous but which happen to have no sources for the innocuous information in them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename of Wikipedia:User page

The user pages guideline has been moved from Wikipedia:User page to Wikipedia:User pages to clarify whether it covers the single user page only (as its old title suggested), the user page and subpages, or user space (as the contents said). All shortcuts still work as before.

Some cleanup, and poor wording refactor also took place - nothing substantive changed. Should help admins working with user page queries, and users who want to better understand community norms.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)