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

Sanctions on Tea Party movement

• Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alright, I've just placed the 6th full protection for this article. No one is outright violating 3RR, and blocks haven't been successful. I see no other alternative but asking ArbCom to intervene (an unnecessary lengthy and exhausting process) or placing our own probation. As such, I propose general sanctions. As a background, the article has had significant trouble with IP-hopping edit warriors as well. I ask for community input, and administrator to close the discussion. I'm going to propose two different alternatives; other editors can propose other alternatives of course.

Tea Party movement is placed on probation (option 1) :

1. Having new editors and IP editors who make contentious reverts and hop IPs/usernames on the article is disruptive. As such, the article is placed on indefinite semi-protection until such time as the community agrees it is no longer necessary. Editors who are not autoconfirmed may request changes on the talk page via the {{editprotected}} template.
2. No editor may make more than two (2) reverts in a seven (7) day period.

Tea Party movement is placed on probation (option 2) :

1. Having new editors and IP editors who make contentious reverts and hop IPs/usernames on the article is disruptive. As such, any new editor with few to no edits elsewhere or IP editor is limited to one revert per week. Administrators are encouraged to use semi-protection should sockpuppetry become an issue.
2. No longstanding editor may make more than two (2) reverts in a seven (7) day period, excluding new/IP editors (explained above).

While the above exception for new/IP editors may be contentious, please understand that the role of drive-by edit warriors with little to no knowledge of Wiki procedures is causing a lot of headaches (not to mention the sockpuppetry and goading- e.g., this type of edit summary which an editor from the 99.0.0.0/8 range has been using).

Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about the IP's as much as the problem we're having right now with one editor who keeps reverting against consensus. He's been uncivil to editors, with a very confrontational tone, he's taken up over a week of our time on this without providing any legitimate reliable sources to back up his claims. This morning we agreed to go to the Mediation Cabal, and he's being disruptive over there. Now the TPM page is locked because he won't stop reverting. Seems to me the sanctions might best start with him.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, Magog, what do you mean about the sock puppets? How do you know that?Malke 2010 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any username sockpuppetry, but I have noticed quite a bit of IPs jumping in and out, including at least the one on the 99/8 range I mentioned above who is clearly editing as such to avoid scrutiny. Also, while Dylan Flaherty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has certainly been a problem, I also see other edit warring on the page, e.g., Digiphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? Show me one instance of me edit warring on the page?Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

[1] & [2]. It wasn't particularly malicious, granted, and I wasn't trying to lay blame on you (sorry if it came across that way): I was just showing that the reverting was going on with everyone, from what I could see, and it wasn't just a Dylan Flaherty issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't malicious at all and the discussion (we actually both immediately went to talk) showed that information was not correct as the previous consensus showed. Most of my activity on the page is on the talk page by a significant ratio. I don't care what actions are taken on the page as long as I am not lumped in with those edit warring. There is tons of edit warring so feel free to get arbitration on it or lock it down as far as I am concerned.Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that was just flatly incorrect. Apologies. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Magog, while I don't oppose the current protection (and wouldn't even if it had locked "grassroots" into the lead), semi-protection would deal with the IP's, and the "grassroots" issue that is behind the current page churn is currently under mediation. Putting aside Malke's despicable attempt to throw me under the bus, I think there's a light at the end of this tunnel. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. To clarify, what Malke is describing is that the proposal to remove the grassroots-lead bit diff is as-of-today in mediation. It was BRD to remove-diff days ago, with attempts to maintain it until a consensus otherwise like 1, 2, 3. -Digiphi (Talk) 08:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If one looks at what is going on over there I think that this is overkill. I think that the scope of the current edit warring is two editors over one word. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. There are other edits to made that don't involve the grassroots issue. This page has been relatively stable compared to other high traffic articles. The usual IP vandalism is there, but even right before the lockup, the page wasn't even semi-protected. I think Magog has a good idea whose time has not quite come yet. If you look at the talk page history, consensus usually gets reached there. Occasionally having an admin weigh in is nice. But nobody seems to want to hang out there consistently. I could see this two week lock if this were the Murder of Meredith Kercher which had terrible problems, but even that page which had two admins sitting on it didn't get ArbCom sanctions. I suggest letting the editors work this out. Problems come and go over there. I suggested mediation cabal for a problem we're having. We should let that process go forward and free up the page for everybody else.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the semi (not following the article), but I think that non-standard revert restrictions like 1/week and 2/week are a bad idea. It's too easy to violate them accidentally, and, with a lot of intervening edits, it's often hard to figure out if something is a revert or a new edit, both for the editor and for potential enforcement. If you sanction editors for accidental behavior, you will (justifiably) piss them off. If you don't, then every edit warrior will try to wikilaywer hir way out of a violation. If 3RR is not enough, go to 1RR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I had addressed the lock elsewhere, and didn't repeat it here, but it appears to be a topic here as well. Here were my thoughts:

"Hello Magog the Ogre. I noticed that you put a 2 week lock on the Tea Party Movement Article. You indicated this was for an edit war....the edit war the is pretty narrow....two people over one word, with several more (myself included) engaged in a general discussion on it, and now requesting and getting mediation. I don't know what could be called the "current" or "changed" version, but as it turned out you locked it a few minutes after the contested item was changed away from what it has been for the last couple weeks. But my main point is that this is a huge article badly in need of work and updating....it was receiving about 15-20 edits a day unrelated to this dispute. It seems a shame to shut all of that work down for two weeks over such a narrow dispute. What do you think about shortening or reducing the lock?" North8000 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem at this point is that there has been edit warring on other subjects in the past, and I still don't have assurance from Dylan Flaherty that he wouldn't remove the term until mediation comes to a close. While I understand your frustration, guys, it looks like this is larger than just the one issue. Although I am at the point of putting it on long term semi-protection instead, seeing the lack of resistance here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

Alright, I have a new proposal, based on the feedback I've received:

Tea Party movement is placed on informal probation:

1. The article is semi-protected indefinitely to avoid edit warring by drive by editors, to be removed by an administrator only on a trial basis or when it becomes clear that disruptive edit warring by IPs is no longer an issue.
2. No longstanding editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism only. More leniency will be given to editors who act in the spirit of WP:BRD or who remove uncontroversially untrue statements. The three revert-rule still applies to the article at large.
3. The above clause is not a license to revert exactly one time per day, every day. Editors who push a slow-moving revert war to the same item will be subject to blocking by an uninvolved administrator, after a warning.
4. A message of the sanctions will be placed on the edit notice page so no newcoming editor can miss it. Nevertheless, editors are encouraged to gently warn newcomers to the article of the sanctions should s/he place a revert. Unwarned long-time editors who slightly err in the 1RR clause without warning may be granted leniency,
5. Violations can be reported at WP:ANI or at the talk page of a knowledgeable uninvolved administrator.

To clarify a few points above:

• It's not expected this article will be on probation or semi-protected forever. But it certainly could be a long time; hopefully only months, perhaps a year or more, depending on how things evolve.
• The "same content" clause in (2) is to avoid blocking over common sense reverting two separate parts of the text or over good faith applications of WP:BRD. It is my belief that if an editor can only change one part of the text, it will vastly cut down on the edit warring.
• If there are common sense reverts (e.g., Cptnono's above, where a demonstrably false statement was added), editors are encouraged to ask on the talk page unless they are absolutely sure the added information is wrong, lest they find themselves blocked.

Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a bit more flexible than the previous proposal. My only concern is that, for the duration of the mediation on "grassroots", we avoid edit-warring over it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to personally enforce a block if an editor removes or adds it according to consensus after the protection is removed - I don't think that's fair to other editors, and it would be an improper endiorsement of the m:the wrong version whereas I'm more interested in general consensus. I will enforce a block if I see the same editor adding or removing the above several times. Yes, I have protected the page, but I did so decidedly neutrally as to the content itself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

While I have my preferences about which version should be there, I'm not demanding that it be chosen as the "right version". The fact is that we are currently in dispute over what the consensus is, and this has led to edit wars in the past. If removing protection starts these up again, you'll be forced to slap protection back on it, or worse, and we'll be back where we started.

What I'm suggesting that that, whatever version is selected, we enforce a 0RR policy on it until mediation ends. Nobody will touch it if it's electrocuted. :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you be amenable to readding the grassroots clause and enforcing a 0RR policy on this clause only until there is consensus (i.e., it will remain up... removal by a new editor could be undone without repercussion)? I realize this may cause existing editors to be more lax in their negotiations, but it does seem that there are more editors who think it should be added right now than think it should be removed. Additionally, this will allow quicker unprotection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Or, better yet, I readd the text, unprotect the article, and you agree not to remove it during the article's probation; then we don't have to worry about making a separate provision for it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course I would object to anyone adding "grassroots", because it violates WP:NPOV and is not supported by our WP:RS's. The problem is that requiring only me to leave it alone, besides being rather obviously unfair, would only cause trouble.

For one thing, if you look at the mediation page, I think you'll find that it's not safe to say that there are more editors in favor of inclusion. And, with my hands tied, there would now be an open niche to fill by those who pop up out of the woodwork to remove the offending term. Semi-protection will stop casual IP's, but more determined ones will simply register. This will lead to retaliation, and more warring.

If the article is unprotected, then no matter whether the contested term is included or not, there has to be a global ban on either removing or restoring it. Without this, mediation would become something of a face, as the state of article would be a fait accompli. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid, if we agree to the above conditions, then we will have to leave the grassroots section alone as part of the general sanctions, and it would be subject to the same as the rest. If any one editor reverts it multiple times, no matter the situation, this editor will receive a warning and eventually be blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's simply a recipe for a tag-team edit war. I'd rather just leave it protected until mediation ends. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of upping the ante, I'm giving consideration to restoring the article to a predispute version during protection (which is acceptable for an administrator per WP:PP), thus readding the text. I'm afraid you wouldn't still like the article protected this situation, which shows poorly upon your objectivity in drawing up a process to compromise. Just as I just said to Malke on the talk page of TPM, this may say that you are part of the problem, not the solution. I may have to give an outright 0RR sanction against editors who are part of the problem instead of the solution. Do other non-involved editors have no opinion on this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Magog, you are certainly within your rights as an administrator to do this. Having said that, I cannot pretend to think it is a good idea. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Magog I'm for the proposal at the top this "New Proposal" section and I'll put my name to the tweaks you've suggested between it and this comment. I like this page being a contract that we can point too for as long as it goes on. And Dylan he's giving us a way out, and also a way to save face, kind of. We should take it. I'll bet the others will post that they like the proposal too. -Digiphi (Talk) 02:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Magog. Two things. 1) My mentors are not fans of me commenting on AN threads, which is why I used the TPM talk page since you'd posted there as well. 2) Your comment to me on the TPM talk page about editors being the problem was not about me being a problem. I was not negotiating to get me a better deal on grassroots. I was seeking clarity about editing different sections because I did not understand what you'd said about it vis-a-vis your 1RR thing. It was not about the word grassroots. So it isn't "As I've just said to Malke. . ." My question was different. Entirely different. A very general question and different. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the version until settled, I think it's more important to bring the mediation subject to a conclusion. And who knows which version has dibs on being called the original version. But it should be noted that, with respect to the disputed portion, the version that has been there a couple of weeks and during the mediation was removed minutes before the block.

Your plan sounds like a good one to me. North8000 (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Malke I'm going say this because you and I are obviously in the same camp in this thing and it's become clear we get along pretty well. 1.)Maybe just let it go about the little thing on the now-archived page, because we're really close to getting the page unprotected. In the big picture we're going to get richer just by playing ball than suing for the tiny maybe libel. 2.) Let's not pussyfoot around this. There's obviously a chance Magog might come around to seeing our shared position about BRD in the course of un-protecting, and that would be a pretty nice bonus. Or he may not and it might get stuck up there, and that's just the way it goes. Things aren't always perfect but they don't have to be shitty. Know what I mean? Let's get this thing un-protectedd -Digiphi (Talk) 03:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good proposal, etc. Hey there Digiphi, I knew you were here, your cat called me. I just wanted to clarify what can and cannot be done on the page so we all don't fall into the sinkhole. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So are we good now?Malke 2010 (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, if that was a question for me. -Digiphi (Talk) 08:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer waiting just a bit to get some more community input. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the expectation that the edit war will continue and mediation will be undermined, I recommend against unprotecting at this time, at least without global sanctions against modifying the disputed term. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we're talking about what happens before conclusion of the mediation; after that I think we're assuming sticking with the result for a long time. The passage in question got locked minutes after you switched it to your preferred state. Would your thought be the same regardless of which version is there during the mediation process? North8000 (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I do understand that, but my point remains: so long as it's locked down, it's in limbo, but once it's tag-team edit-warred over, the mediation effort will become a joke. In general, when it comes to inclusion of disputed material, we should default against it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(added later) Going from memory, the "grassroots" version had been in for about 2 weeks before the block, and then was removed minutes before the block. Not sure what this should or shouldn't mean. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Magog, I understand you'd like more input but you could just unlock the page with semi-protection, add back the text with the caveat that it remain until the mediation is settled since it's got consensus, and then stay with the page and if an edit war develops send the offenders to the gallows.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Or the gallows. -Digiphi (Talk) 17:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Magog, after/if you settle the question of what version is in there during the mediation process, I'll be we could get all of the involved editors to leave it until the completion of the mediation process. After that, I think it would be very very hard to argue for or put in anything contrary to the result of the mediation.North8000 (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Does no one uninvolved in this dispute have any opinion on this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think your proposed solutions are too lax and will result in gaming and tag-team edit-warring, as they are on article with similar editing restrictions. I propose that the article be put under a revert restriction that would basically codify BRD.

Any editor is allowed to blodly insert or edit material in the article. If the material is contested, any editor is allowed to revert that material once and discussion of the revert must take place on the talk page. No other edits related to the original edit are allowed until the discussion is complete. Violation of the revert restriction will be enforced by blocks starting at 24 hours and of increasing duration for repeat offences. Reverts of blatent vandalism and BLP violations are exempt from this restriction.

Use of semi would be consistent with policy. Also noting that claims of vandalism and BLP vios are not the same as actual vandalism and BLP vios. I'm not sure if this has been tried before, but I think in this case it would stop the reverts and force discussion to the talk page. -Atmoz (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, we did go to the talk page and discuss and the consensus was to include it. So BRD was followed. Grassroots was put in with reliable sources, reverted, discussion opened up, consensus shown, edit returned.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really like it. Be prepared for the usual bickering over uncontroversial, but I think you were expecting that. 3RR/article but 1RR/content is a common sense rule that is probably not too complex for the KISS principle. It will be worth checking the displayed edit notice to make sure that IP editors trying to contribute through the semi-protection are prominently directed to the talkpage (it will still be in the general notice, but it might get visually swamped). I think that at the talk page of a knowledgeable uninvolved administrator should be removed, though; it sounds good in abstract, but invites over-involvement and adminshopping. An alternative might be to encourage that simple violations be reported in a new section at the talkpage, while more involved issues are kicked up to AN/I using {{sanction appeal}} or similar. It might also be worth adding some language to the effect that Editor A makes an edit → Editor B reverts → Editor C rereverts → Editor D rerereverts → Editor E rererereverts → ... is an edit war and will be treated as such. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My concern with a 1RR limit for "content" is that the term is not currently defined, and not easily defined in a way to discourage wikilawyering. if I understand the point, you want a tighter leash on a segment more narrow than the whole article. It would be better to use a metric that is more objection, such as section or subsection. Doesn't accomplish exactly what you want to accomplish, but it should eliminate definitional wrangling.--SPhilbrickT 19:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to address that on the editnotice clarification page [3]. Feel free to propose another change with the {{editprotected}} template if you think this is insufficient. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect to any version of "new proposal" please. Came from the mediation page, with slight COI as an editor for WorldNetDaily, and also as being involved with Dylan Flaherty in a different mediation. Magog, I think there is a clear consensus on this page that unprotection should lift asap, and I think the stalling is due to a single party. This being the case, I believe that warring per se will not continue among the established editors due to the single party's knowledge of the excessive force against him, and the ongoing mediation. I believe that any potential warring by new or SPAs will be curbed by the present proposal, especially if you include that 1RR per week for SPAs rule that you mentioned above. If my beliefs are wrong, well, that's an outcome of AGF. (I would also disagree with 2over0, the edit war doesn't start until rationales disappear or same-editor repetition begins.) This should not be a paralysis of analysis issue, and I would be disappointed to find that any party continued to tie up important articles with such stall tactics. JJB 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• <sombervoice>It is done</sombervoice>. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Fundraiser launch tomorrow

Hello AN,

Just a reminder that the 2010 fundraiser will kick off tomorrow morning. Please be on the lookout for any issues; you can report them in #wikimedia-fundraising in IRC, or to me via the user email function. Example: someone blocks the fundraising banners from the main page, that'd be a big deal, but minor issues are important too. The more successful we are, the faster the banners go away, so lets help make this a success. Please also consider joining the Wikipedia Contribution Team if you'd like to assist through article contributions and other non-financial ways. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 18:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

this is an odd thread. Does 'tomorrow' mean the 16th November? - I'm pretty sure the fundraiser is scheduled to start 15th Nov, but either ways, the timestamp shenanigans are kinda counter-productive here, making the important information almost impossible to discern! doh! Privatemusings (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The fundraiser officially launches on the 15th. However, starting tomorrow (Friday, the 12th) we'll be going to 100% on the banners for final load testing. So, even though the launch is actually Monday, most users will be seeing it as if it were tomorrow. As a result, we really want the weekend to find and address any issues. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 23:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification :-) - it was the fact that you appear to have made the op four days into the future which confuddles me :-) (good luck and fingers crossed for a smooth launch too....) Privatemusings (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, duh. Yes, I signed it in the future to make it last longer. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I can sign things in the future? I will be able to avoid WP:CRYSTAL that way! :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the fundraiser is going great so far! Today we broke an all-time one-day record for fundraising [4], $465,969 and the day's not quite over yet! Congrats Swatjester & the fundraising team! --Aude (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! We don't even technically launch until tomorrow so we are extra excited. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 21:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nominations are now open for the 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections

Nominations are now open for candidates to run in the 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections.

To become an arbitrator is to take on an important and demanding role, and there is perennial need for new volunteers to step forward. This year, an unprecedented 11 arbitrators are expected to be chosen. Nomination is open to any editor in good standing over the age of 18, who is of legal age in their place of residence, and who has made at least 1,000 mainspace edits before the opening of the nomination period; candidates are not required to be administrators or to have any other special permissions. Experienced and committed editors are urged to seriously consider standing. Thoughts and advice from past and present members of the Arbitration Committee are available at the following pages:

• October 2010 Signpost interview: "So what is being an arbitrator actually like?"
• Arbitrator Risker's "Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates"

Nominations will be accepted from today, 14 November 2010 through 23 November 2010, with voting scheduled to begin on 26 November. To submit your candidacy, proceed to the candidates page and follow the instructions given. For the coordinators, Skomorokh 00:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking talk page creations

Hi. I'm apparently unauthorized from creating talk pages for the following articles: Talk:State Administrative and Judicial Institutions Employees Union, Talk:Economic-Administrative and Technical Institutions Employees Union and Talk:Judicial and Administrative Institutions Employees Union of Yugoslavia (three articles I have created myself). I get the message "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." Not sure what blacklisted item I've come into contact with, perhaps this is an error in the blacklists? --Soman (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Soman, I don't know what the problem was, but anyway, I've created them. I didn't get an error message or anything. PhilKnight (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Well from the message, it sounds like it's on either our blacklist or the one on meta. As an admin, you wouldn't get an error message because admins and account creators can override the blacklist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It's almost certainly a blacklist pattern matching "Admin" and some other string. I logged out to see the problem, but by the time I had you'd created the pages. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I suppose I got the message as I'm not an admin. --Soman (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, although that's unrelated to the (believed) "Admin" in the blacklist pattern, which is (I suspect) there because it happens to match a favourite vandalism target. (I was going to look up which pattern it was matching.) You'd get the same behaviour for any title blacklisted pages because you are not an administrator. Uncle G (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
        • It's probably the pattern (Talk:).*[AΑÂĄĂÃÀĀΆẠẬẢẤẦẨẮẰẴẲẪẶḀǞǠȀᾼᾺᾈἉᾉἌᾌἊᾊἎᾎἍᾍἋᾋἏᾏÁÂÄÆÅǺ٩4aáàâäãǎāăảąæåάαᾳᾴὰᾲᾶᾷἀᾀἁᾁἄᾄἂᾂἆᾆἅᾅἃᾃἇᾇаӑӓӕạậ]+dm[ÌÍÎÏĨļǏĪĬİḷŀΙЇɨ!łľıĮįīi]+n.*, added quite recently. Forbids creating any talk-namespace page containing "admin". I don't know if User:MuZemike discussed this anywhere before adding it or what the motivation might have been for doing so, I don't see anything obviously related in his contribs or deletions for that day. I've invited him to comment. Anomie⚔ 16:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak to MuZemike's motivations, but I can tell you that, while anonymous users cannot create articles, they can create talk pages (this allows, among other things, anonymous users to submit content at WP:AFC). This may have been a preventative measure against vandalism. TNXMan 17:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This has caused a couple of other problems as well (I dealt with one at AN the other day). I think the would be more suited to the abuse filter than the black list, if we do want it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I added the entry due to a recent deluge of vandalism such as Talk:Admins being fucked in the ass being created. Looks like I had a lack of hindsight on good faith contributions. However, we do need some way to keep tabs on what is created somehow. All I know is that most can easily dodge the edit filter, which is my concern. –MuZemike 19:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Image vandalism on Islam-related articles

This is a heads-up to administrators that Commons has experienced significant vandalism to Islam-related images in recent hours. This vandalism has an effect on our articles because Commons images are widely used in our Islam-related articles (as well as similar articles in other projects), and there may be complaints about vandalism here although there is nothing we can do directly to correct it. Wikimedia Commons administrators have been put on alert to assist in addressing any issues, and they can be reached through that project and/or via IRC. Risker (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock message templates

Since this will concern admins the most, I could use some input on my overhaul of {{unblock}} and related message templates. Please head over to the talk page and give your opinion on the redesigned templates displayed on the test cases page. — Edokter • Talk • 20:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#Belen Echandia

Resolved

 – Collapsed it. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

...is degenerating into a squabble. The actual matter at issue is being dealt with at an AfD, and the AN/I thread is not going anywhere. It might help prevent bloodshed if someone uninvolved would close the thread. JohnCD (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Within a dream

Resolved

 – User blocked by Vianello

I have had issues with this user since he started editing. As you can see on his talk page i have warned him countless times about adding unsourced edits and poor edits in general. Editing wikipedia you must have a basic understanding of logic and reasoning skills. Withinadream with all the warnings continues to add whatever he pleases and will not listen. As you can see on We R Who We R it takes him 5 edits to add something incorrectly. He has been blocked before for additions of unsourced edits and when i warn him he says "block me see if i care" or similar wordings, so, he should be blocked, 99% of his edits are not constructive and i have to go back and clean up after him and im tired of doing so. He is constantly messing up articles ive written which are in compliance and are GA's and its getting ridicules, something needs to be done. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Current concerns are on;

• We R Who We R and
• Cannibal (EP).

- (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and now the jerk is going around vandalizing my sandboxes. Please see history at User:L-l-CLK-l-l/Sandbox8. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see that he's indeed vandalized a sandbox of yours, and that he has been notified and warned and responded unproductively. Can you please specific diffs and explanations for your issues with his content contributions? Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I further note that you appear to have violated 3RR yourself on We R Who We R today. Please observe Wikipedia's editing and dispute resolution policies. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies i didnt even notice, wasnt paying attention. Sorry - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking edit history im at 3RR, havnt violated :P - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes i can, check his edit history, every single edit is poor. I will show the ones from today alone.

• [5] Which took 5 edits and messed up the boxes, used a fan site (Keshadaily) as a reference.
• [6] Took 3 edits and added incorrectly again and another fan site.
• [7] Unsourced
• [8] Vandalizing the page now.

Check his user page is now calling me an asshole and there are 3 editors reverting his edits as we speak cause hes trashing crap left and right. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The user has just now gone on to much more overtly vandalize We R Who We R. I have blocked them for 31 hours for disruptive editing, their second block for such. - Vianello (Talk) 23:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Wikibreak Enforcer

I'm pretty sure this is the correct place to request this. Hey, this is Silver seren. I put myself under an enforced wikibreak at the beginning of November because of my participation in NaNoWriMo. However, i've withdrawn from the competition, so I would like to have the script removed from my monobook. I did put this forth to Moonriddengirl here, but it seems that she's offline. Could some other admin remove the script for me? 165.91.173.45 (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't you just temporarily disable javascript? StrPby (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Graham87 01:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Silverseren^C 01:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit

Edit protected redirect Please edit Mark Felt to add Category:Unprintworthy redirects and possibly add {{DEFAULTSORT:Felt, Mark}}. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist site-notice

It seems to me that this site notice is rather.. specific, for something as broad as Wikipedia. Isn't there some amount of discussion required for such a banner?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The WMF can advertise whatever it wants on the servers it owns. It appears to have a fundraising drive every year.   — Jeff G.  ツ 04:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I thought my complaint was clear; that isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about the site notice on the watchlist.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo needs a castle you churls. That kind of advertising is what keeps the speaking fees rolling in. Don't you get it? Man has got to eat. Bali ultimate (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am not talking about the fundraiser, but the notice on the watchlist that advertises a specific event in San Diego.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean the one specific to you as I have one specifc to my approximate geographic(give or take 60 miles) locationHeiro 05:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, he must have updated to the new skin. I don't see any of that stuff. How horrible.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, no, I have not upgraded. Second, if all you're going to do is sit here and mock me, please find something more productive to do.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I'm mocking the fellow who's using a "foundation" as the marketting wing of his personal speaking empire. As for the skin -- i apologize. I don't see any of that stuff unless i go looking for it. I was born lucky.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The San Diego and other notices seems to be localised. Note also that the fund-raiser banner may be turned off within your user preferences. I'm not seeing it now anyway so I suppose there's some intelligence in that feature too. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's WP:GEONOTICE. T. Canens (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct; it is a geonotice for WP:USPP. Please consider volunteering. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin needed to look at this (second time I ask)

This is now the second time I ask for this here.

There has been a very long discussion here: [9], someone is needed to go through this entire discussion and see if there is consensus. Its important that you look at the arguments. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Following such a deliciously sweet and tempting request, I hovered my cursor over the link... I am not surprised you did not give a clue as to what the discussion (it is Israel/Palestine, folks!), and the exhortation to look at the "arguments" gives an indication which way you think a reviewing sysop should decide. I have found that in such areas the only way to get agreement between the differing parties is in condemning the poor admin who fails to please either side with their conclusion (regardless on how well the sysop actually performed the task.) Next time, why not be honest and request "Fool with flags and thick skin wanted"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if some parts will "condemn" the admin. Consensus is based on arguments, so this is the only thing that matters in the discussion, not saying "no" and bringing no intelligent argument to the conversation, this is why someone is needed to read through everything. This is one of the few occasions where editors have discussed a problem instead of edit warring within the Arab-Israeli conflict, are admins gonna turn there back on these participants? If admins wont even take a look at it then this will send a message to these editors that dialogue doesn't help. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If by this coming weekend no admin has fancied sticking their head over the parapet, drop me a note on my talkpage; I will look over it and decide if I am inclined to do a full review and pass a judgement - after all, I have done a bit on Eastern European, Climate Change, Northern Ireland, t/The Beatles, so I may as well try for an Isreal/Palestinian patch... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Above comment is +1, insightful. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is now the second time I ask for this here. Oh, I'm so sorry. If you send me your home address, I'll send you a $500 credit-note as compensation. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 16:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  Above comment is -1, not funny and not helpful. Rd232 ^talk 17:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  Whereas the whinging tone of, "How come I have to ask a bunch of volunteers more than once to carry out an enormous and thankless task?" was both funny and helpful? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 18:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  Are you in need of some wet fish? Because applying it may be both funny and helpful. Rd232 ^talk 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Feedback request

After LouisPhilippeCharles had an {{unblock}} request declined, he used his talk page as a sandbox for Ferdinando de' Medici, Grand Prince of Tuscany, removing the unblock request in the process. After I reverted him, he started up again with the edit summary of "please dont be rude, the request box is saved on this page just as a hidden message so i have breached nothing!!!!", and continued several more edits. Today, I reverted him, left him a warning not to use his talk page like that, and RevDeled all his revisions. I would like to know if other users think my actions there are correct. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have my problems with this user, but I doubt that revision deletion was correct – because speedy G5 was hardly a valid deletion rationale. He clearly didn't create his own talk page (in January!) in violation of his current one-week ban. What is more, I don't think blocked editors should normally be restricted from doing valuable content work on their talk pages. But I can't verify that that is what happened or whether he was just preparing page versions for future page moves. Hans Adler 14:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not me. Declined unblock requests are only to be kept around to prevent blocked users shopping around between different admins. As long as there's no further appeals while the previous message is absent, there's no particular reason to enforce its presence. As for the revdeletion, assuming there's no vandalism in it that I'm missing, I don't think there's any basis to delete the revisions. I'd have been persuaded if you'd deleted the revisions under RD1 as a blatant copyvio instead.

I think the real test for revdeletion is whether, in the good old days, you would have deleted the entire talk page and restored it without those revisions. In this case I'd be very surprised if anyone would have done that. We reserve that treatment for trolls of the lowest order. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he should stopped from writing legit, non-copyvio articles on his talk page (we often ask trolls to do that to show that they intend to return, but he is not a real troll), and the RevDel doesn't seem completely appropriate. If he doesn't stop being disruptive, you can revoke his talk page ability, but RevDel'ing the content seems like overkill and not covered by the RD criteria. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not correct, as noted by others: it's just not RevDel material. In addition, whilst removing declined unblock requests is unhelpful, it is permitted. A far more helpful response would have been moving the draft material to a user subpage - if there's no particular problem with the material itself. In combination with that, you could restore the unblock decline, saying that he could remove it if he really wished, but it would be preferable to keep it until the block expires. Rd232 ^talk 17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've not looked at the larger issue, but this caught my eye: according to WP:BLANKING, they may not be removed during an active block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh. How long has that been there? Still, in combination with restoring the unblock decline and explaining it may not be removed, I'd have moved the draft to a subpage. Rd232 ^talk 18:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. As far back as I remember. :) (Given my memory, this doesn't mean a lot. :/) I think a subpage would have been a good solution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not been permitted to remove declined unblock requests for as long as I've been active. It's one of the few exceptions imposed by WP:OWNTALK. The revisions clearly didn't meet the revdel requirements though, I don't see why they were deleted; even reverting them seems a bit counterproductive if it's a constructive draft; the unblock template could simply have been restored and the draft left in place. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ctrl+Alt+Del

Can someone please move Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) to Ctrl+Alt+Del? This was deemed an uncontroversial pagemove, but I can't do it myself since the article's move-protected. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. — Edokter • Talk • 21:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)