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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features

Would admins close the various proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features? Started on 14 July 2011, the discussion has occurred for over 30 days. RFC bot (talk · contribs) removed the expired RfC template on 13 August 2011.

Perhaps admins can use Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security as a template for closure. Admins close the different proposals on the page with summaries of the consensuses, and when the all the discussions have been closed, the entire RfC is closed with an archive template. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, MER-C (talk · contribs), for closing many of the proposals. Many of them remain open. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: date formats in reference sections

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: date formats in reference sections? Both discussions are listed at Template:Centralized discussion. The first one is a stale discussion, having not received any comments since 22 August 2011. The second discussion has lasted for over 30 days.

If either of the RfCs result in "no consensus", a closure like that in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, where the opposing arguments are summarized, will be helpful to the participants. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SFD

Can some admins please come and help out at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion? The backlog there is out of controll again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Would admins close the following SfD discussions:

1. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/6#Cricket-admin-stub - already handled
2. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Czech-*-stub templates
3. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Category:Northern Ireland election stubs/Template:NI-election-stub
4. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/18#Rail -> Rail transport
5. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/20#Retail companies
6. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/21#Template:US-transport-company-stub
7. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/28 - already handled
8. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/2 - already handled
9. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/6 - already handled
10. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Madagascar province categories - already handled
11. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Old German district categories - already handled

Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RfC on adding future fights to fight record table

A request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RfC on adding future fights to fight record table by Fayerman (talk · contribs) has been unanswered. Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#Adding fights to records months in advance? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I was about to have a crack at this, but noticed this other recently closed straw poll. Perhaps someone from the project can explain what is going on here. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban of Jespah

Also, would an admin close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban of Jespah and log the editing restriction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Mkativerata. Cunard (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Review of block

NoHounding reported Izadso to WP:AIV due to the edits the latter editor made on Theodor Lessing. At the beginning I thought it was just a very bad case of edit warring and protected the article; after checking Izadso's edits more closely, however, I saw that almost every recent edit of theirs was an unexplained undo of one of NoHounding's and, therefore, I unprotected the page and indefinitely blocked Izadso for harassment, instead. Review is welcome (feel free to unblock, tweak the block settings and so on). Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Have you checked why that user is called "NoHounding"? Sounds like there might be some backstory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"NoHounding"'s very first edit was in fact a revert of an edit of Izadso [1]. So, who has been hounding who here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that! I blocked Izadso because this whole thing was incredibly disruptive and he was the one blindly reverting NoHounding. If it turns out that it was the latter who was hounding the former, I have no objections to blocking NoHounding or both... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If I'm correctly reading the contribution histories of both editors, it appears that User:NoHounding is spamming a reference to an essay across dozens of articles, and User:Izadso is removing them. A block is appropriate for the obvious edit-warring but I think we need to take a look at what User:NoHounding is up to as well. Why aren't they blocked for the edit-warring on Theodor Lessing? 20 of their last 21 edits are to re-insert this essay into the article. 28bytes (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

And before these two accounts were edit-warring about the spam links, other pairs of accounts were doing the same: HaTikwa (talk · contribs) vs. Susori (talk · contribs), e.g. on the Felix Salten article in July. These hounds are wearing woolen footwear. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

@28bytes: Because I, apparently naively, perceived NoHounding as the victim... As I've said above, I have no objections to blocking them. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that User:Michael Kühntopf, who appears to have written the essay that "NoHounding" is reinsterting, is using the exact same edit summary as NoHounding to participate in the edit war on Theodor Lessing. Perhaps User:Michael Kühntopf is unaware of our policies on undisclosed alternate accounts? 28bytes (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

See interesting thread at User talk:HelloAnnyong#New HaTikwa sockpuppet, and related case at de:Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung/Michael Kühntopf. Definitely two persistent sock drawers fighting a feud, one of them apparently a COI spammer. Don't think either of them is "unaware" of our policies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've indeffed HaTikwa (talk · contribs) and NoHounding (talk · contribs) (the two spam-inserting accounts, evidently related to the author of the spam links, who apparently was in trouble over at de-wiki too). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your time & review! Should we also indef Susori? I'd say so... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

My inclination at this point would be to indef the lot of them, but we may need CheckUser assistance to determine who "the lot of them" are. At the least it would be helpful to get a list of accounts and IPs that have been adding this essay to articles. What to do about User:Michael Kühntopf? 28bytes (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

He was also using the exact same edit summaries as the other socks, so he is almost certainly the sockmaster. Some of the background, as far as I got it from de-wiki: M.K. is an author of various published works on Jewish history, but he got in trouble over at de-wiki because apparently in some of his published work he had plagiarised Wikipedia texts. Ouch. Some of the links they were edit-warring over were references to just those publications. That means removing the refs was in principle justified, because the plagiarism background disqualifies them as reliable sources (though that may not be necessarily true for all his works). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a very very lengthy backstory here and here's the part I know. Basically, some academic named Michael Kühntopf (and possibly a small group of his associates) has been spamming every Wikipedia project by references to his obscure books and creating articles about the guy. The articles have been deleted at times and in particular Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kühntopf is instructive. This spamming even resulted in a thread on meta. discussion on meta block on de.wiki Here on the en.wiki, the battle is being fought through sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaTikwa/Archive). There are also single purpose accounts working against Kühntopf such as Izadso (talk · contribs) and Susori (talk · contribs). Mr. Kühntopf has made it clear that he know who this person is though I emphatically discourage anyone from caring. All accounts on both sides need to be blocked indefinitely and the individuals behind them need to be directed to a new hobby. I also believe that references to Kühntopf's work should be removed until someone can make a cogent case on a talk page regarding the value of such a reference in a given article. I know this is not the traditional approach but the spam has got to stop and as I recently noted [2] the circulation for Kühntopf's books it too low to be of any practical value, especially since the books are usually included not as citations but as general references. Pointing Wikipedia readers to a book that is only held by two state libraries doesn't make much sense and it's also difficult for other editors to verify the relevance of the book. Pichpich (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. I've requested a checkuser on the Kühntopf account, to be on the safe side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. 28bytes (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: Michael Kühntopf (talk · contribs) has been confirmed as part of the sock ring by checkuser and has been blocked together with other socks. Izadso (talk · contribs) has been offered a conditional unblock by Salvio, in light of what is apparently a background as a legitimate account on de-wiki. Seems we're mostly done here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Izadso has accepted the conditions I set forth; therefore, I've unblocked him. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Isdud into Ashdod

Merge proposal of Isdud into Ashdod requires the attention of an uninvolved administrator to close a week-long discussion. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Another merger requires an uninvolved party

Merge proposal regarding "2005 Ahvaz unrest" requires the attention of an uninvolved administrator to close an outdated discussion. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrator needed in closing unanimous requested move

Could an admin please close the multi-requested move at Talk:2005 Qur'an desecration controversy#Move?. The debate has been open since September 11 and everyone who has commented has agreed with the proposal. The move calls the the uniform rename of an entire category of articles, however many of the articles are move protected and it is therefore impossible for non-admins to complete the request. Thank you, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That one is done. Where are the other articles that need moving? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The list is located at Talk:2005_Qur'an_desecration_controversy#Move.3F, it is in collapsed form as the list is fairly long. Many of the requests have redirects in the way, or are move protected. I have copied the list here using the same collapse template (click [show] to see the list): Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Quran moves

• 2005 Qur'an desecration controversy
• Alexander the Great in the Qur'an
• Beit Al Qur'an
• Blood Qur'an

• Criticism of the Qur'an
• Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an
• Digital Qur'an
• Fi Zilal al-Qur'an
• Hafiz (Qur'an)
• History of the Qur'an
• List of people mentioned by name in the Qur'an
• List of Qur'anic names
• Noble Qur'an (Hilali-Khan)
• Parables in the Qur'an
• Portal:Qur'an
• Portal:Qur'an/Related portals
• Portal:Qur'an/Selected article
• Portal:Qur'an/Things you can do
• Portal:Qur'an/Topics
• Portal:Qur'an/Wikimedia
• Portal:Qur'an/WikiProjects
• Prophets in the Qur'an
• Qur'an 17:26
• Qur'an 2:255
• Qur'an 2:256
• Qur'an 24:35
• Qur'an 3:7
• Qur'an 4:24
• Qur'an 4:34
• Qur'an 5:32
• Qur'an 59:6
• Qur'an and miracles
• Qur'an and violence
• Qur'an desecration
• Qur'an reading
• Qur'an translations
• Qur'anic literalism
• Tadabbur-i-Qur'an
• Uthman Qur'an

I think we got 'em all. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears so. Thanks for performing the moves. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Elias into Elijah

Resolved

I proposed a merger of Elias into Elijah at Talk:Elias#Merger on 4 Sept 2011 and ask for closure.  Andreas  ^(T) 20:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Page Move Ban

At the suggestion of Jezhotwells[3], I am posting my request here for consideration. I am requesting that the indefinite “Page Move Ban” that was imposed against me over 2 months ago, on July 13, 2011, be lifted. I am an experienced editor, and I request that my editing history be thoroughly reviewed to confirm that there is no need for such on-going editing restriction. I wish to continue to work to rebuild my reputation on Wikipedia, and I appreciate the thoughtful consideration of my request. Dolovis (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The ban allowed you to request any page moves you wanted via WP:RM. Have you initiated any such requests since the ban? 28bytes (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent question. In addition, if you want the restriction lifted by the community, can you please demonstrate understanding of what the problem was and why the ban was imposed in the first place, and explain what has changed in eight weeks? → ROUX ₪ 22:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as an RM regular, I'd say that participation there would be an excellent way to establish that you're okay with page moves, whatever the reason was for the ban. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Per the others above. Use WP:RM for now, once you can demonstrate that you are not going to cause disruption with page moves, the community will consider whether or not to lift the ban. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have requested a few moves since the ban, the most recent being Oleh Shafarenko → Oleg Shafarenko. Other RMs include Nick Johnson (ice hockey) → Nick Johnson (ice hockey b. 1985) and requests completed as non-controversial here and here. I have participated in other RMs including at Talk:Louis Berlinguette. Dolovis (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The concern seemed to be that you would make diacritic-related moves without first seeking consensus. Can you address that concern? There is currently no consensus on how to handle diacritics, as far as I'm aware. What's your take on the issue? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I ran into the issue with diacritics when I started to create articles for notable ice hockey players playing in the Czech Extraliga, a topic that, until then, had received insufficient attention. The articles I created were titled, for the most part, without diacritics as the English sources I found to verify the articles did not use diacritics. I soon discovered that there is a dedicated faction of editors who are committed to renaming all Czech biographical articles to include diacritics, verified or not. My personal opinion is that article titles should be named according to WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME, and I therefore reversed (per WP:BRD) those moves of the articles I created where no verifiable source was used to support the new article name. The massive page moves continued, and I then, perhaps naively, brought what I perceived to be "massive page moves against policy", to the attention of the Wikipedia community. That is when the complaints against me, from the pro diacritics crowd, started. If you will actually take a serious look at the “controversial” page moves that I made you will discover that they are not extremely numerous, and that they were generally only to undo the bold move of another editor per BRD. In any event, my work to create articles for the current notable players of the Czech Extraliga is generally completed, and I have acknowledged that my opinion in support the policies of UE and COMMONNAME is controversial, and I have moved on. In the future, if I feel that such an article should be moved, I will not invoke BRD, but will instead either ignore the issue of diacritics or will use RM. Dolovis (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're committed to avoiding BRD in matters of pagemoves, and you acknowledge that any position on diacritics is controversial and in need of delicate handling, then I have no opposition to your being allowed to move pages. As you probably know, I'm extremely active in pagemoves, and as you might not know, I don't even consider using the 'R' step of BRD in move disputes. That's unless I'm reverting vandalism or fixing clear typos, or something like that.

The removal of your pagemove restriction is obviously not up to me alone, but that's my opinion, speaking as one of the most likely janitors to be on hand in the event of a spill in article titling... -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes, I am committed to avoiding BRD in matters of pagemoves, and I do acknowledge that any position on diacritics is controversial. Dolovis (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move at Talk:Tree shaping needs closure

Resolved

closed by Vegaswikian--regentspark (comment) 13:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'd appreciate another uninvolved admin taking a look at Talk:Tree shaping#Requested move 2, a discussion which has been running for six weeks now, and really needs a close one way or the other. As a heads-up, the article is within the scope of an ArbCom case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping, which centered around the naming of the article. I've been helping out as an uninvolved admin monitoring the user conduct in the topic area, but would rather that someone else handled the close. Thanks, --Elonka 06:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(followup) The situation is complex, so we would appreciate multiple admin opinions if possible, at the talkpage. --Elonka 16:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Δ (Betacommand) and community restrictions

Earlier today I saw this edit at Sarah Blasko on my watchlist and thought BC was on edit restrictions from using scripts on his main account but he isn't, But I do believe the edit violated the following community restriction set on BC:

“ Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin. ” — Wikipedia:Editing restrictions

Because he has appeared to have done more than 25 pages (based on my view of his 50 latest contribs and a random sampling of the diffs on that list), I also had a look at WP:VPR (including the last few archives) and couldn't find a discussion about this (His last posts there appear to be: Archive 75: Proposed partial solution to NFCC enforcement and Archive 73: Heads Up). Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 07:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• BC notified. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 07:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Given the general... aura that surrounds criticism of Δ, I very strongly suggest that you double and triple check your assertions before making such statements. 'Appears' is not useful in any sense of the word. And after you have gone through his contribs to see if there was in fact a violation, it may behoove you to instead rewind a little bit and nudge him gently on his talk page, rather than starting yet another round of drama. Yes, I am generally of the opinion that a restriction is a restriction, intent is largely irrelevant when someone is breaking them. The long history of Δ, however, has proven that to be an unworkable proposition; nobody is willing to actually say "this is your last chance. One more screwup and you are gone, forever, with no recourse. Enough is enough." In some cases discretion is indeed the better part of valour, and if there is no disruption being caused then perhaps it may be best to let sleeping dogs lie. → ROUX ₪ 07:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• I would have checked at least 15 (on the low end) edits as well the matching edit summaries was close enough for me, as for "nudging" the user, he is well versed and should know his restrictions by now, as for no one willing to "drop the hammer" as some say, If everything was take to the users talk page as a "nudge" then barely anything would happen, some times taking things directly to noticeboards (and the subsequent "drama") is the best course of action. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 07:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see anything disruptive regarding the edit at all, The article appears to be in better condition after his edit. My understand is that Δ holds a 1RR line regarding his cleanup efforts. This is more than sufficient to comply with the intent of WP:BRD, and is no less disruptive than correcting a misspelled word. Surly we wouldn't say you can only correct 25 misspelled words without an RfC to do more. If Δ disrupts something, it should be dealt with. If he merely collaborates, that is what we would ask of him anyway. My76Strat (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Allow me to be more direct, then: what disruption has been caused by this? In what way have Delta's actions been a net negative to the project? → ROUX ₪ 07:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting (yet) on the edit restriction aspect of this, was there something objectionable about the Sarah Blasko edit itself? Or is it just a matter of him doing it in rapid succession/scripted/without approval/whatever? I'd just like to get an idea of the scope of the complaint. 28bytes (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Can it be? Am I really seeing people above care more about the spirit of the project than the letter of some wikilawyered restriction? That's... a nice surprise. And yes, if it isn't clear, I fully agree with the sentiment that if the edits are helpful, don't kick the editor who is doing them. In fact, while I am not familiar with the wider background, if there is some kind of old restriction that could prevent an editor from improving the project, and the editor has been constructive for a reasonable amount of time (half a year?), I'd suggest revisiting the very need for such a restriction to still be in force. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 08:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Your half a year and my half a year must be very different. His latest round was in June/July during which time arbcom imposed additional sanctions on his behaviour. that was 2-3 months ago. Anyone who isn't familiar with the wider background should spend awhile in the ANI archives, sub pages, arbcom cases, etc or Delta/Betacommand before really jumping in. It's a very long and storied case.--Crossmr (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So, are you saying there is something harmful in these particular edits, or that there isn't? -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

can you show me any exceptions in the restrictions if that is the case? specifically it shows on-going contempt on his part for the community, regardless of the content of the individual edits. That's quite harmful.--Crossmr (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that issue, and you'll note I haven't disagreed with anything you've said. I haven't advocated making exceptions, and I'm not likely to do so. You didn't answer my question, though, so I'll clarify it.

Are you saying there are two issues: harmful edits and sanction violation, or one issue: sanction violation? Do you mind clarifying this point? I'd appreciate it, so I understand the full scope of what's going on. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing general article cleanup going back two years now. Ive made 7641 edits with the edit summary "Cleanup" (just with this account) and gotten a barnstar for doing it. Ive received other thank you's and its been a fairly simple project. Please take issues to my talk page before dragging this to the drama boards. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you been adding google book urls to articles for 2 years? how does that fall under the scope of "cleanup"? To mean clean-up is fixing up code, spelling errors, not adding urls for books.--Crossmr (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Then your definition of cleanup, and mine, at least, are different. Or not... adding a missing parameter and link to a template is, in fact, exactly "fixing up code" and "fixing errors" (missing data). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was only clarifying for 28bytes that her complaint seemed to be that Delta violated his editing restrictions. As far as problems introduced by his editing, are their specific wiki markup related issues? no. There does seem to be at least one editor questioning whether or not these edits are best for the article though. So is that "harmful"? Possibly. If Delta is adding google URL links to books which have no preview, it's a fairly useless edit that isn't adding anything to the article as noted below.--Crossmr (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The scope of the complaint seems to be that Delta has once again violated his editing restrictions. That despite the continually increasing, tweaking, negotiating, and repurposing of those restrictions, he's found himself once again for the nth time having violated them.--Crossmr (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And for the nth time, nothing is going to be done about that. There is a general unwillingness, and specifically with regards to Delta, to ever enforce restrictions in an unambiguous way. There is always 'just one more chance, we mean it this time, honest.' While on general principles I agree that it shouldn't be that way, the bald reality is that it is that way, and we should probably give up tilting at that particular windmill. This is a tempest in a teapot, and unless Delta is flagrantly disrupting things, absolutely nothing will be done, so why waste time and energy? → ROUX ₪ 00:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What's ambiguous about this? But you're right..I mean..why bother trying to take a stand as a community member. So what if we let users walk all over us. It couldn't possibly reflect poorly on the project or perhaps drive users away.--Crossmr (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in regards to that edit itself that I saw, the only reason I mentioned it was so people saw where I first noticed it, compared being accused of user stalking (or whatever the flavour is this month). Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 09:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of his edits are helpful, and some less so. I don't see the point in adding a Google Books url to all books, which he claims to do for uniformity purposes, especially to those that have no preview on Google. Adding those just clutters the edit window, making it more annoying for people that actually write content in these articles without any benefit towards easier verification by the reader (ISBN does just the same to prove the books exists). Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If this action is desirable, the {{cite book}} template should be changed to allow a "googid" or something similar to be used, like it has for ISBN, DOI, OCLC etc. At least that will slightly reduce the clutter in the edit window. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the scripts, is Delta still not under the restriction regarding making automated or semi-automated edits?--Crossmr (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Have other means of dispute resolution been attempted first before this thread started? Looks to me like Delta was making a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia...like he always does. I agree he has a tendency to edit right at the edge of his restrictions but what do you want the guy to do, change his entire editing philosophy and focus? That would be akin to banning him entirely. I think last time we were here (NFCC edits and being bitey was the issue) there was actually community consensus to lessen the restrictions until arbcom got involved and overruled. Not 100% sure on that and don't feel like digging through the archives at this hour. The question I must ask is, if someone makes a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, as Delta seems to do, and responds to community concerns, as Delta seems to do, then why must we bring every potential technical breach of the restrictions here? There is a key difference between the spirit of restrictions and the letter. While Delta may have violated the letter he doesn't seem to have violated the spirit, which is about unauthorized bots if I recall correctly. Heck Arbcom even exempted User:Δbot so SPI could actually have a clerkbot. All this does is drive good-faith editors away from the project. I'm actually somewhat amazed Delta's hung around this long despite all the...stuff...he goes through on a routine basis. N419BH 06:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on this, he seem to blissfully ignore the opinion of others with respect to the usefulness of this latest efforts, and just carry on. I have previously posted on his talk page myself in this matter [4]. You should check his talk page and its archives as well as he has a rather rapid archival setting on his talk page bot, before (rhetorically?) asking others if the matter has been discussed. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Delta has been through every kind of dispute resolution out there. He is beyond dispute resolution, because nothing ever really gets resolved with him. He's got just enough people who will show up and try and muddle a discussion up, that in almost all cases, nothing ever goes anywhere. Delta's violating the letter of the law, is a continuation of his contempt for the community which has been going on for years, and frankly is directly connected to his original behaviour. While he's turned it down a notch since this first started, the underlying attitude is still the same, which is really the entirety of the problem.--Crossmr (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, please keep your personal attacks to yourself. I may not always comment on notes left on my talk page I do read them all, and take appropriate action. It doesnt matter what you do you cannot please everyone all the time. Once multiple users left a note about the google books issue I have stopped adding links [5]. If you actually have something constructive to say please do, otherwise keep your derogatory comments to yourself. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• This seems pretty straightforward: Is Delta violating his editing restrictions? We seem to have no one claiming he is not. Delta, are you claiming you have not? That those violating actions are or are not themselves disruptive to the encyclopedia is relevant to the degree of response, but not to the fundamental issue. There has been a lot of debate about Delta's behavior and the "final" resolution was to make really clear lines for him. If nothing is done when he crosses those lines we've got a real mess coming up (again). Hobit (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • • I bundle a lot of gnoming work under the category of "Cleanup", everything from adding archive urls, dating templates, removing stale IFD tags, removing duplicate references, removing duplicate categories, deleted categories, missing files, and a lot more other minor stuff. I didnt know I needed VPR approval just to fraking edit like a normal user. I do a lot of minor misc. fixes that I consider cleanup and have done so for a long time using a similar edit summary. Instead of complaining on drama boards lets actually get back to doing what this site is meant to do, write an encyclopedia. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • If Delta is violating his editing restrictions then he should be blocked as spelt out in those restrictions, if not then he should not be blocked. We should follow what we have agreed to do and this should be fairly straightforward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Structure WP:WQA conversations and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove ability for new users to create other accounts

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Structure WP:WQA conversations and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove ability for new users to create other accounts? Both discussions were listed at Template:Centralized discussion and delisted to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive owing to inactivity. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BOARD International

Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BOARD International, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BOARD International and User talk:KuduIO#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BOARD International. Since Cirt has been desysopped by ArbCom and hasn't replied to my inquiry, I'd like another admin to close the request. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 17:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If these were deleted via deletion discussion, then they should go to WP:DRV before being recreated.--v/r - TP 19:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Age requirements for Wikipeida

OK, this is extremely likely having nothing to do with this page, but what are the requirements for Wikipedia editors and accounts? I'd post this elsewhere, But I cannot find it. Thanks and you may move this if you wish. --Hinata talk 18:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There are none. →Στc. 18:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're good enough, you're old enough. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict again, ugh yeah. I'm 17 and have been using this site since 2003. But never edited it until this account. So, a user could be 8? --Hinata talk 18:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. As long as they don't tell us their age and act maturely, we would never know. →Στc. 18:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, but one last thing. What about the recent incident with the Wikiproject Pornography? What are your thoughts on this? Personally, I threw up when I read that thread. Look in my edit history and you'll see why. --Hinata talk 18:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

How would you enforce such an age-restriction? That is near impossible without breaching someones privacy. I would have to look it up to see who, but as far as I known the Dutch Wikipedia has a thirteen year old as administrator. Would you ban him from vandalism-fighting on Wikiproject Pornography? Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The community's thoughts on this, and administrators' thoughts on this, are splattered all over Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), User talk:Jimbo Wales and some archives of WP:ANI. I don't think it's useful to re-run the entirety of those discussions here just because we can. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and yes, I admit... I view that sort of stuff from Google. But personal issues aside, it is unenforceable... because it would take out the privacy that so few websites have. --Hinata talk 18:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes. Because obviously no under-13s use Facebook *grins* Of course it's unenforcable. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 18:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Aside from that, it would disallow Anonymous editors and that, in turn, would ruin the principles of Wikipedia. --Hinata talk 18:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog or a young pup. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK the 13yr age restriction on FB (and a number of other fora) is due to US privacy laws. As opening an account here does require no personal information to be given this is moot. This site has seen 13 year olds as admins and at least one buerocrat. Agathoclea (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

See COPPA which includes "Most recognized non-profit organizations are exempt from most of the requirements of COPPA" (i.e. COPPA does not apply to Wikipedia). Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that comment; the 13-year-old legal bit was in my mind, and I didn't want to mention it because I couldn't remember enough details to make a useful comment. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion abuse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wrong venue. If you believe that this decision was found in error, please contact the administrator who implemented the deletion request. If you are not satisfied with his response, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

---

I created an article here and then it got deleted the next day i get on without letting me have a chance to discuss what is going on. The reason to delete my article is simply not notable enough and that person which is this User:Versageek didn't even provide me any proof about it. I put my reasons in here and the one that deleted it doesn't even bother to participate into the discuss. What kind of wikipedia rule is this? Delete without any reasonable reason? I did in fact have like 4 references in my article and it is formatted the way it supposed to be. This is really a big insult to me. I have been writing many articles in Vietnamese Wikipedia for many years. I'm confident to tell that i know what is to keep and what is to delete. This is my first article here but doesn't mean it has poor standard or anything. I think the action need to be undone and whoever did that must hold responsibility for carelessness before doing something and didn't bother to take a consideration. In case i could be wrong, at least put my article into this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and see what the majority says. I'm strongly suggest that the administrators must solve this issue fairly.Trongphu (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no guideline to delete without discussion, he abused it. --Hinata talk 20:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is. Take a look at WP:CSD for more details.

References assert notability and importance. I'm not sure what the content was in that article, but from what you said on the talk page, I can guess that it was a bad deletion. →Στc. 20:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

While we appreciate that you were apparently instrumental in the establishment of the Vietnamese language Wikipedia, that is a weak assertion of notability at best. You have made no attempt to discuss this with Versageek, nor have you notified him as required. I will do that for you. You were correctly notified that the article might be deleted on your talkpage. Perhaps the Vietnamese Wikipedia is different in regard to speedy deletion: I don't know, but you should also realize that creating autobiographies is strongly discouraged on the English Wikipedia. You must first discuss this with the deleting admin, and then take it to WP:DRV if that doesn't work out to your satisfaction. Acroterion (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The article subject is user:Mxn, not the article creator. Here you also have the google cache link. Two of the four references are statistics on the vietnamese wikipedia and the other two are vietnamese websites. I am dubious whether they pass our guideline on reliable sources though. Yoenit (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Vietnamese websites are not reliable? Is that what are you telling me? What kind of attitude is that? Do you even know anything about Vietnam? This statement is absolutely strongly stereotype or discrimination. And since i work for Vietnamese Wikipedia, can i as well say English sources can not be use in Vietnamese Wikipedia???Trongphu (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Criteria A7 does not consider whether the subject of the article is notable, only whether the article makes a claim of importance about the subject. Here (based on the google cache) the article claimed "He was one of the founders of Vietnamese wikipedia" which is a claim of importance. Whether that is enough to keep an article around is an appropriate topic of discussion, which means the article should have gone to AfD where a discussion could occur. Monty₈₄₅ 20:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there might be a weak claim of notability, but my primary point is that the discussion should take place with the deleting admin, or at DRV, not on AN. Acroterion (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And let me make another important point. Wikipedia is a lot more important to Vietnamese people than it is to English speakers, reasons are in the talk page. I have provided all the references needed in the article.Trongphu (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be the admin responsibility to engage to discuss before he delete my article with a weak reason, which i'm guessing he is not neutral viewing the significant of Vietnamese people. He should be the one really careful consider any article he delete that is it really deserves a speedy deletion? His obviously fault is that he was too rush on deleting articles which he thinks deserves the speedy deletion without further discuss with the author or asking the majority opinion (this is almost the same as dictator i'm thinking, which is not a good thing). Power should goes with big responsibility. This action makes me started to think how many other articles that have been deleted that should deserve to keep? And i'm pretty sure there must have been a tons (or a few) of mistaken deletion according to this. Another issue is for most members on the first article they created if those articles got deleted those people won't have any idea how to find justice for themselves like i did (because they don't know Wikipedia well enough, where they can get help) they probably got frustrated and end up give up on editing dream on Wikipedia. Well that's why the amount of new wikipedians keep decreasing over the past few years, here. And why autobiography is strongly discourage? It's not like i'm writing about myself. For all i know it is strongly discourage for "only" those people that write about themselves. Example Jimmy Wales wrote about his article in Wikipedia = discourage. I don't see any rule that limit writing about people that notable enough and deserves to have an article on here. My last opinion here is we need more enforcement to protect new article that created my new members to avoid bad justice as good as possible to ensure to prosperous future of Wikipedia. I think we should make a rule like no admin can delete an article just base on his opinion, the admins must take the community consensus first before they take actions because the admins point of view can not always be neutral. Whoever violate the rule must hold responsibility.Trongphu (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disabling "Email this user" from another editor's account

Hi there. Does anyone know if it is possible, or what user rights are required, to disable "Email this user" from an editor's account. Don't ask me the reasons at this stage: I just need to get in touch with an appropriate account creator/'crat/developer whatever. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume they are not blocked (since otherwise you would do it yourself, as part of the block)? I'm reasonably sure it can't be done to an unblocked account, except perhaps by a developer, and that seems fairly unlikely. But without knowing what is going on, I would think if the emailuser right is being misused, perhaps a block is in order anyway? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that there is good reason for the user not to be receiving email, so I'd like to disable the "Email this user" function that appears on the left of the user's talk page. I don't believe that's within the power of a humble sysop. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand now what's going on. I'm sorry. I'm about 99.5% sure either (a) you need a developer to do it, or (b) it can't/won't be be done by a developer and you might consider a carefully worded block of the account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

:::The user can disable his/her own mail if he/she decides this is warranted. What's the problem? Bielle (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Look first; write second. Bielle (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag indef blocked

I have indefinitely blocked User:TreasuryTag. He was indef blocked on 29 August by Ioeth, and unblocked on 2 September by HJ Mitchell, but with conditions as stated here. I have explained my reasoning for the reblock at User talk:TreasuryTag#Indef block. Review of this block and any changes (unblock, shorter block, topic ban, whatever) to it are welcome. Fram (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how someone is supposed to know ahead of time that a request for delete will result in a keep. However, if there's an issue with Dr. Who, maybe a topic ban from that subject would work better. Then there should be no wiggle room. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that this thread was started regarding this nomination for deletion where TT nominated an actor on Dr Who for deletion in apparent violation of his unblock editing restrictions. Buffs (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. It was started regarding another Dr. Who related AfD he made, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Christmas special (Doctor Who), as explained on his talk page. Fram (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so there are two of them in play... Buffs (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think this was a good block. Any reasonable editor should have been able to look at that article, looked at WP:CRYSTAL, and drawn the obvious conclusion to delete. There is no guarantee that this particular episode will be notable, there's precious little information on it, and deletion is the obvious choice unless and until there is significant coverage indicating that this episode is, indeed, notable. The fact that the original blocking admin knew of this and failed to view it as an infraction of the conditions that he imposed seems particularly relevant. → ROUX ₪ 10:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Any reasobale editor who knew anything about Dr. Who, like TreasuryTag does, would know that the Xmas episode, once it is announced, is notable, and that (as has been said in the AfD) even a subsequent cancellation of it would be notable. "Crystal" doesn't mean that everything that still has to happen can't be notable. As for the original blocking admin: um, no, it is the original unblocking admin, not the original blocking admin. Fram (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• That looks like a good block to me - it was a clear violation of the unblock conditions. Given their block log, TreasuryTag was already on very thin ice, so it's appropriate to enforce a strict interpretation of the conditions. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Without too much knowledge of the past history the nominations (a few other unsuitable ones were done at the same time) one could apply AGF but the obvious knowledge of the DrWho subject matter makes it clearly disruptive. Compounding the fact that opposing (there were no supporting ones) views get hounded with WP:BASH. Anyway moot as this edit is in clear violation of the NoProd rule laid out in the conditional unblock. Agathoclea (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • (copied from TT's talk page): The edit highlighted by Agathoclea (talk · contribs) was indeed a violation of the unblock conditions. However, it was a genuine mistake which I reported to the unblocking admin as soon as I noticed it. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Different article - different Prod. Agathoclea (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• (ecx2) This is an odd one ... the original limitation/condition of unblock probably should have gone so far as to completely disallow AFD for Dr Who. However, the wording is clear, and the fact that an article that was Speedy Kept was AFD'd means that TT did break the letter of the law, and the block is good. Attempts to weasel out of it is probably the biggest incident of wikilawyering, ever. I'd hate to think that TT originally accepted the condition knowing that it could be milked this way. I would be willing to see TT unblocked but only on the condition that the original blocking conditions be extended to disallow AFDing Dr Who-related articles, broadly construed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• I have no intention of getting bogged down in irrelevant debate about the exact unblock terms and whether or not they were breached. It is not only clear that the spirit of the restriction was breached, but I think it is more important that Treasury Tag's recent overall history relating to AfDs has been highly disruptive, irrespective of the unblock terms, and not only on Dr Who related AfDs. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copyright symbol was ridiculous. As far as I am concerned, the question to ask is not "has Treasury Tag breached the specific terms of the unblock conditions", but rather "taking into account all the relevant history (including the unblock conditions, the user's previous 16 blocks, etc etc) would unblocking Treasury Tag again be beneficial to Wikipedia?" To that question the answer is very clearly "no". I don't think that restrictions on Dr Who-related article are enough, as that is not the only problem area. The indefinite block should be confirmed, and the current unblock request should be declined. There has to be a limit to how many chances we give to troublesome editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I cannot say I know much about Dr. Who stuff, but I agree with you that his proposal Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copyright symbol was ridiculous. Giving editors like him free reign to annoy others on procedural grounds is a significant part of the unpleasantness I found editing Wikipedia. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock with clarified, simplified restrictions. The linked unblock restrictions are too complicated. TreasuryTag’s recent AfD nomination is not a clear violation of readily apparent sanctions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Hinsight is 20-20 but I think events like this illustrate that these kinds of restrictions may not be the best idea. I do not doubt those knowledgeable in this area who say that TT should have known the result of this AfD, but the fact remains that technically any AfD could go in several directions. It's better to restrict someone from an activity altogether than to do so conditionally in ways that it could be argued the person couldn't know in advance if the activity would violate the restriction. That said, I've seen TT mentioned at AN/I and AN enough times now, even defended him on occasion, to know that this goes well beyond technicalities. He has a problem with knowingly editing in ways that the community has, through consensus and through its representatives (admins) told him not to. I think that's a bigger problem than the technicalities of this block or the restrictions he was originally given.Griswaldo (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Whatever happens to TT regarding this, I think there is also another problem that needs to be considered, and especially should TT get unblocked or have his block shortened. Had I seen this AfD I would have voted delete, and I think quite a few others outside the walled garden of fandom surrounding this TV show (like those of others) might concur as well. Entries like this serve only one purpose - PR for the show and the network. They have no business on Wikipedia in my opinion. If TT keeps on AfDing articles like this and they keep on snowballing to keep I think he should be encouraged to start a much broader community discussion about them, while promising not to AfD any more Dr. Who entries. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Good block, must be seen in the context of TT's history and weighing the net positives/negatives of blocking/not blocking. For the future, it would be a shame to completely lose someone who is enthusiastic, intelligent, knowledgeable and knows how WP works. If these positives could be channelled by some (very) strict boundaries - eg, no AfD nominations permitted - it would be nice to think we could deal with TT with something short of what would effectively be a ban. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'm curious to know why there's any debate about Dr. Who episodes. Isn't there a project team for this long-running show? Isn't there some consensus within that team? I'm comparing it with Star Trek, where every episode has its own article, including the incredibly silly ones such as The Omega Glory. What's going on with Dr. Who that there is frequent debate on individual episode articles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That is the heart of the problem. I don't follow the project but from what I have seen there is sufficiant coverage of every episode to warrant an article, at least for the modern incarnation. That coverage is obviously less if the episode has not aired yet but it tends to be pretty instant and widespread once details are released. The problem here is that a one-man-band tries to fight the status quo via AFD. Why else would you nomminate an actor for deletion after he gets announced to have a (repeat) role in an episode that compared to other episodes has a heightened media interest. Agathoclea (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I disagree with the implications of what Baseball Bugs has written. There is no reason to have information about upcoming episodes. We are not here to further promotional work for the network. You realize that almost 100% of information about upcoming episodes originates as PR. That one or two industry sources have done as the network, or the producers have hoped and used their PR to stimulate interest in the upcoming episode does not mean that there is significant independent coverage here. I think it is too bad that people feel issues like this should be left to groups of fans on Wikipedia. There needs to be wider community discussion here. I think what TT is doing is disruptive, but at the heart of it he has a very good point.Griswaldo (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
      • • • A little off topic but I really don't think the BBC needs Wikipedia to promote a popular show that's been around since 1963. That's why I call articles like the one in question (ie "verifiable" articles on fictional elements of otherwise highly notable works of fiction) "low risk" articles and I think it's a damn shame that there is more drama generated by these articles then there is over BLPs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, you didn't really answer my question: Is it, or is it not, appropriate to have separate articles for each episode of a TV series, especially those as widely known as Star Trek and Dr. Who? I mean, I could see not having a separate article for each episode of My Mother the Car. But Trek and Dr. Who are widely discussed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, I think that having separate episode articles for shows like My Mother the Car or Supertrain would be silly but if they did exist, I wouldn't think the sky is falling. For popular shows, not all of them have separate episode articles. Stargate SG1 and it's spinoffs are good examples. Only a few episodes have articles and the rest are redirects to episode lists. However, I would be happy if such decisions were discussed in wikiprojects and not at AFD. Maybe then, some of those AFDs I now close as "no consensus" after 3 weeks with no comments might start getting comments. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
            • BB, please reread what I wrote. I think stubs are fine if we can reasonably expect something will be notable. What I object to is writing articles based only on PR.Griswaldo (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
              • Then EVERY article about a future event has to be a stub, because EVERY ONE OF THEM is going to be based (directly or indirectly) on press releases. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
      • But after the episode has aired, we would have an article about it, right ? (Again, this is true because it is an internationally popular show that no episode since its relaunch has not proven notable - this is not true across the board for any TV episode). Yes, personally, I wouldn't be rushing to create an article on the episode once it has been announced, but I wouldn't be deleting efforts once its created because its not an issue with WP:CRYSTAL. (If anything it falls into WP:HAMMER, since it lacks a name, but that's just me). So yes, it may seem like PR while the episode hasn't aired, but I could say the same for any yet-published work, books, film, video games, etc., and really, that's more harm than good ; the wealth of development and other type of information of behind-the-scenes that are good in these articles only come about before the publication, with reception following afterwards. And basically, that's the right part of the block; it is a gross misunderstanding of CRYSTAL on TT's part; this, and other DW episodes TT's nominated, will have articles once they have aired, so it makes no sense to delete these once the BBC has affirmed they will be airing. It becomes disruptive to do so. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
        • If anything we would need an exception to the notability guideline stating that unaired episodes are not notable even if they otherwise qualify under GNG. So far to my knowledge that exception has never even be proposed - and I doubt any success would be likely because on the ramifications this would have accross the board eg STS-400. Agathoclea (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
        • @Masem. I disagree. CRYSTAL says "to avoid advertising and unverified claims." There is no way to avoid advertising when every piece of information available is part of a marketing effort by the network. This particular entry is almost entirely based on what the BBC has said about the episode. Under point 5 it also says, "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate." That is essentially what we have in cases like this. I think there are several solutions to this issue but they need to be discussed. I think you could argue, per WP:CRYSTAL, to have a stub that contains nothing except a one sentence announcement about the upcoming episode, if the episode has a number or a name. But beyond that CRYSTAL actually cautions against the type of writing that is taking place, based purely on promotional information. Consider also that writing such articles means giving the network or company and advantage once the event has happened or the product has been released, since what is already in place is their PR. Subsequent information about the actual product from third party sources now has to compete with the current consensus version, which again is crafted out of information that was originally PR. We really need a broader discussion about this if you ask me. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
          • That narrow interpretation would rub out every article about something that hasn't been released yet or hasn't occurred yet. Like, for example, Super Bowl XLVIII. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
            • I don't think its narrow, I think it is precise and in line with other policies as well, like WP:N and WP:V in terms of "independent" coverage. But to your main point I'm unsure of why there would be a problem with not having articles on topics that can't yet be covered sufficiently from independent sources, or merely having stubs with announcements until such a time that the product is actually released. Can you explain why that would be a bad thing? Is more and faster always better? I don't think so. I'm sure there is plenty of work to still be done on the entries of existing Dr. Who episodes, which can be written from independent sources. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
              • Again, I point to WP:HAMMER, where, if it were up to me, I would have not created this article now but likely dropped a redirect to the 6th series page, but knowing that there will be an article there some day with high confidence, it makes no sense to try to delete it if someone else actually created it based on the BBC announcement. That said, even if TT thought the article shouldn't have been there, deletion was the wrong answer, since a merge with redirect makes a lot more sense (even if yet unnamed, its a valid search term). --MASEM (t) 13:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
              • I wonder if there's any "independent" source for the 2014 Super Bowl. Sure, it's been written about. But what would their sources be, other than NFL press releases? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
                • Except you are 100% wrong about that. Did you bother to check Super Bowl XLVIII before making this argument? Doubtful. The Superbowl article is almost entirely about events that have already happened, as part of the preparations for the Superbowl and do not originate from press releases. Have a look for yourself. I think the same standard should apply to these articles as to upcoming TV show episodes, but if you ask me the superbowl article does a good job of it.Griswaldo (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
                  • Griswaldo is not alone in thinking that we should not have articles that are merely a network's PR for an unaired episode or program. I agree with that assessment. This is not the place for the general discussion that apparently needs to be had about that though. Griswaldo, want to start a discussion somewhere else (WP:VPP, WT:N...?) about this and link it here? LadyofShalott 13:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
                    • If Dr. Who episodes are considered notable as Super Bowls are, then information about future episodes and future Super Bowls are also notable. I say again, the only source for a future Super Bowl is the NFL itself. And for a future film or TV show that is likely to be produced, the argument that the source is a press release implies the possibility that the creators are lying. That is not a good stance for wikipedia to be taking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The block was quite poorly implemented. The immediate cause was grossly insufficient for the block. And "TT's history" does not support the block. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• This is clearly an example of a poorly defined editing restriction. There is no way of knowing whether TT AfD-ed an article for deletion knowing that it was a violation of the restriction. Similarly, there is no way of judging whether this was a good block or not without getting into the blocking editor's head. I agree with the suggestions above that TT be unblocked, and a clear restriction (can/cannot nominate Dr. Who related articles for deletion). I'd favor the cannot part, because there is plenty of stuff for a single editor to work on and it hardly matters that one particular editor is not permitted to nominate a particular set of articles for deletion. --regentspark (comment) 13:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree with TT on much, but I think I agree with most of the above people: this wasn't a well-formed editing restriction and could reasonably lead to confusion. A blanket topic ban is the most appropriate for this and will lead to a more less acrimoious editing environment. Can't find the policy, but shouldn't TT's editing restrictions need to be displayed at the top of his talk page? Buffs (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I would like to see one additional restriction imposed on AFDs - no interaction on or outside the AFD about keep/delete comments on that AFD. In fact I believe that regardless of the unblock conditions that were the ultimate reason for the block, if TT had not haggled on almost every keep-comment accross his ill-advised AFDs the issue would not have taken such proportions. A few keeps - a snowball close - nothing to see. The issue only raised its head through the combination of actions (and history). Agathoclea (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• • I couldn't make sense out of the restrictions. Ironically, it requires a "crystal ball" on the part of an editor to know what's going to be kept and what isn't. And the fact that others here have argued for deleting the article in question, raises questions about the appropriateness and validity of the restrictions on the user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that this requires a "crystal ball" on the part of an editor to know how the AfD will end up. But when TT decided to do a AfD, they voluntarily accepted that risk. Nobody forced TT to nominate it for deletion. That was their choice, their decision, their responsibility. TT could have simply decided not to do anything. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, except that if the article had been deleted, there would have been no violation, right? A restriction that depends on a unknown future outcome is not appropriate. If they don't want him nominating stuff for deletion, they should prohibit all nominations for deletion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• I am highly leaning towards unblocking TT for exactly what Bugs said. Basing blocks off AFD discussions is petty and childish. If the discussion for some odd reason was delete we wouldn't be having this discussion. AfD was used exactly what it was intended for, a user wants to delete something, but knows it won't survive a CSD and won't survive a PROD. There shouldn't be any restriction on what could go to AfD (Some articles, namely FAs, will obviously be kept). Kwsn (Ni!) 14:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• To me, reading through this and some of the AFDs, the editing restriction on knowing how an AFD will end is completely infeasible, for reasons well stated.
• But, that doesn't mean there's a problem here. My read of what TT does with CSD/PROD/AFD is to throw it against a wall to see if it will stick. (The approach in the Copyright symbol AFD is clearly one example of this). AFD's should not be used as such grounds to gain consensus for something against the status quo, as, as we're seeing here, becomes disruptive. I realize that any AFD could be classified in the same manner, that it is a means to see if an article should stay around. The issue is that many of TT's AFDs are closed as kept, in some cases speedily. To me, this indicates that TT needs to engage in some type of discussions before launching an AFD, such as by posting "I plan to nominate this article for deletion within 7 days unless the following concerns are met" on the talk page. TT should then judicially use any resulting discussion and changes to determine if they go forward. If, if it were the case of the Copyright symbol, there would be a lot of resistance to the idea, and TT did continue to go forward, that would be likely a bad faith nom. I realize that with a show like Doctor Who you will have a dedicated editor base that will claim something is notable, and that talk page discussions won't break any stalemate created by this, and sometimes AFD is necessary to break that stalemate by garnering wider opinions. So basically, I would say that if TT posts such a message, gets significant discuss against going forward on the AFD, still goes through with the AFD, and the AFD is speedily kept, that's an issue to deal with. I don't know how exactly enforcable that is, as it becomes very touchy-feely. But I think there's something there that can be enforceable and implement blocks to prevent future disruption by TT for AFDs that otherwise serve no point beyond a testing ground. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I wonder if Buffs (above) meant a 'less acrimonious editing environment'? For my part, I don't agree with TT on everything. (I don't think I agree with anyone about everything, and would probably be worried to find someone who didn't disagree with ME about something...) If, as it appears, TT's nominating for deletion has become a problem in the world of Dr Who, I would go along with a topic based ban on nominating, but with a proviso that it should be possible for TT to ask an admin to nominate on his (I assume - could be her, I know not) behalf. This may be decided to be any admin, or one of a consensus decided small number (preferably not ones involved in previous blocking or controversy - must be some...). This would take care of anything TT spots that should be deleted, but with a filter. I would be sorry to lose TT, as amongst the controversy there is valuable editing. Peridon (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah, my bad...words are hard!!! Buffs (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note that apart from the AfD that lead to this block, Agatoclea also highlighted a Dr. Who related Prod he made, which is if necessary an even clearer violation of his editing restriction. There is little doubt that he was willfully ignoring (or blatantly and unsuccesfully testing the limits of) the edit restriction. WRT the AfD of the upcoming Christmas Special: new rules, if needed, shiould be discussed elsewhere: for now we have to do with the rules we have (which allow such articles), the opinions of those commenting in the AfD (which were clear), and precedent like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who). Note that TreasuryTag actually !voted "strong keep" in the last one, including references to CRYSTAL and so on (that AfD started in July, not in September!). No idea why we he completely reversed his position in the past year, or why he would nominate an article that he could be fairly certain would end in an overwhelming keep. Fram (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've interacted with TT in the past, and have on repeated occasions noted how TT games the system in a 'if you don't do it my way, I'm taking the football stadium home with me' way. He has had sizable issues with civility and - judging from his block log - is not very good at taking a hint. I am a bit startled that he would violate the terms of his initial unblocking - he's seemed lever enough in the past to avoid doing something overt enough to get himself blocked. If he had questions about the nature of the restrictions, he should have asked.

I don't particularly like the editor, but that's grown out of TT's incivility and edit-warring issues. That he's gaming the system yet again is no surprise to me. The initial block was too easy to ooze around, but the observation regarding the spirit of the unblock conditions was on target. TT knew what he was doing. And now, he's reaping what he sowed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think TT needs a mentor who will get them to dial back a few notches. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone else wants to do that that's fine. Frankly given this action was in clear violation of the unblock conditions and wasn't even borderline it should be made clear that violations will lead directly to an indefinite block or an Arbcom case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I can't see strong consensus here for the indef to stick / a community ban. I'd be happy to mentor TT again, although my time onwiki is increasingly limited, but would be happier doing so if there was a well thought-through and collaborative process to determine some editing restrictions. I think AfD seems to be a flashpoint for this editor. I don't think AfD nominations are particularly disruptive per se, (they're certainly less so than bad speedy noms) I think it's more the bickering that can crop up in the debate which is objectionable. --Dweller (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Its a good block. For fucks sake guys how many chances do we need to give? Indefinitely looked fair enough last time it was given. Giving users twenty trillion chances is totally unproductive. I think I'll be taking the case to Arbcom if the block is reversed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not fond of that block: I think the editing restrictions wrt AfD weren't crystal clear. That said, the two prods are problematic (though the one self-reported and reverted I'm not too worried about). I'd say give a week block for the PROD with escalating blocks for repeat offenses (4 weeks, 3 months, year). Prevent all AfD nominations that are Dr. Who related just to clarify (or perhaps all of AfD). TT has lots of communication issues, but is still a net win for the project and I'm loath to toss him out over something like this. (Which reminds me, how is this any different than the editing restriction Delta is violating?) Hobit (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The AfD he filed was clearly and blatantly in violation of the unblock conditions set at the beginning of September. End of story. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    • With regards to Delta possibly he needs to be indefinitely blocked as well. Just because we haven't always followed our standards of behaviour doesn't mean we should continually fail to enforce them in future. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reduced TT's block to one week, as he correctly pointed out in his last unblock request that violations of his unblock agreement would be dealt with by escalating blocks, starting at a week. Feel free to continue discussion on the merits of the block, vagueness of the terms, etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A bit of a technicality, but that seems reasonable. We should follow through with what we have said we will do. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

good catch! TT has a history of problems like the also mentioned delta. Both are still around and are not banned sofar. Both still contribute in a positive way to the pedia while causing drama in the process. If we can cut out the drama we are left with the positive. Agathoclea (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Cutting out the drama seems highly unlikely to occur. But I'm prepared to be proven wrong. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There is much discussion above which is not actually relevant here. JamesBWatson hit the nail on the head when he wrote: "taking into account all the relevant history (including the unblock conditions, the user's previous 16 blocks, etc etc) would unblocking Treasury Tag again be beneficial to Wikipedia?" To that question the answer is very clearly "no". That, to my mind, is clearly the question here and the correct answer, not how many Dr. Whos can dance on the head of Mr. Spock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition these edits to the page of a real-life director of Doctor Who, who made exactly one clarifying edit [6] removing 4 square brackets, crossed the line.[7][8][9][10] His responses to Newyorkbrad were problematic.[11] Mathsci (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Tangential discussion

Per LadyOfShallot's suggestion I have started another discussion about the side issue of what to do with the types of entries TT was trying to delete. It can be found here - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:CRYSTAL_and_TV_episodes_airing_at_a_future_date. Please post further comments about that issue there and not here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:76.4.177.52 removing Roman from Roman Catholic

Another one. I took the decisions made at previous ANI threads to still be in force and blocked for two weeks after continued removal after a Final Warning from Beyond My Ken. I took the block length from the one used in the previous blocking. Are there any objections? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You at least have my blessing. Favonian (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Mine too. A perfectly good block. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 10 October 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this