Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peripitus (talk | contribs) at 11:22, 30 January 2009 (→‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: update template:Afd2 ?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)


    Bots and Archives

    Resolved
     – Bot changed back to MiszaBot, archiving seems to be working fine. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Did anyone else notice that the archives template in the upper right no longer points to the right place, apparently archive 181 was done by a different bot? Whats going on here exactly? Apologies if I missed an already posted query.--Tznkai (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't confirm the issue. /Archive181 doesn't exist and is redlinked in the template for me. Additionally, /Archive180 is no where near full enough to make a new archive necessary yet. Some of Archive180 appears to have been manually archived, but other than that I don't understand what's wrong here. lifebaka++ 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 181, which is different than Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive181. Suggest tweaking the archive setting and doing some manual cut/pastes. MBisanz talk 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, forgot to check this page's history. Tweaked setting, did a history merge, and a page move. Turns out there's also /Archive 180, so I merged it with /Archive180 and moved /Archive 181 to /Archive181. It should be taken care of now, although Archive180 is larger than before. The bot settings should make it archive without the space now, but watch in case Archive 180 turns to a blue link again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the simple fix worked. There are a few pages that link to Archive 180 and Archive 181, so the redirects might be useful to restore. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In stead, I have updated the links to these archive pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IANAA, but IIRC, I've seen ClueBot (I believe) doing the archiving for the AN/ANI pages the last week or two (or more?) on my watchlist, instead of MiszaBot. Dunno why, but that may be the cause for the trouble. umrguy42 20:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Canis Lupus changed the archive bot from MiszaBot II to ClueBot III. Since it seems to be working now, I don't know if there's a good reason to change the bot back. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Canis Lupus has been indef blocked as a sock of Betacommand, so he can't be invited to comment here. Per the discussion at WT:AN#Archiving I suggest that we undo Canis Lupus's change and let MiszaBot resume archiving. (The switch to ClueBot may have been a misunderstanding due to the end-of-December outage that affected all the toolserver bots). EdJohnston (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (not an admin) I weakly support switching back, if only for consistency among noticeboards. Flatscan (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like the archiving stopped again. The last archive run I see was 25 January. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    flip it back.--Tznkai (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The archiving has resumed. However, as the comments supported changing back to MiszaBot II, I changed the bot back. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Gwp socks

    Two socks from this user creation range have gone on the "rampage" as such today, with page move vandalism, i.e. Roo's Tubes (talk · contribs) and Yigger (talk · contribs). I see several accounts (as of yet have not gone on the rampage) with six or seven edits in quick succession and nothing else - for instance Smokemirror86 (talk · contribs) and The Flea from Mucha Lucha (talk · contribs). I'm not an admin (so therefore can't block), but I'm certain that if an admin skins through the account contributions listed in that UC range, they will see some *possible* sleepers. Also there appears to be several in the load, approx. 06:33/34/35. D.M.N. (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No obvious sleepers left, given the two accounts you mentioned. Do feel free to report any more if/when they turn up, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the latter two accounts; the contribution histories look like an endrun around the autoconfirmation limit and in and of themselves should have set off alarm bells. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 12:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Looks fine to me. Very minor edits (changing capitalization, piping links, adding or removing a space) with a new account to get the account autoconfirmed looks like classic Gwp behavior. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a little concerned that this is not an appropriate block reason, especially for an account that has not made any unconstructive edits. Would you care to explain this? -- Gurch (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll say it again: the account was making minor or insubstantial edits to bypass the autoconfirmed barrier, which in and of itself is a red flag it's a Jarl sock. Whether they're constructive or not is more often than not immaterial. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 21:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And that makes it alright to stoop to their level? -- Gurch (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They lost any chance for civility from me the day after 4chan got FP'd. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 21:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you should recuse from blocking them. Admin logs should always be perfectly civil and informative. The possibility of a false positive, especially when it's not the most typical Gwp-sock editing style, and the fact they haven't reached the 10 edits threshold, shouldn't be discarded. New users often begins with very minor edits, look at the new users' log. Cenarium (Talk) 23:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    New users make minor edits to the same article exclusively within a few minutes of each edit? -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 23:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is indeed possible. No need to make such edit summaries. Majorly talk 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying that a possible Jarlaxle sock shouldn't be blocked on behavior, Majorly? -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 23:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I started out by making minor edits to articles. So do many editors. There's too much risk you'll block a good editor instead. Majorly talk 23:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hooooly crap. You left a block message of "Go circlejerk with your wethers, Jarl" on someone whose only edits were adding "Escape from Alcatraz" to List of films based on actual events and then editing their entry six times? You're going to have to explain what this "behavior" problem is, and even so the block message wouldn't be justified. rspεεr (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "behavior" problem is the large amount of edits in a relatively short time, usually to the same article or section of an article, intended to bypass the autoconfirmation wall. And as for the edit summaries, it would help if someone had the testicles to tell the Foundation to file an abuse report to his ISP, since they don't listen to volunteers. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 01:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, please forgive my ignorance here, but just out of curiosity, what does "FP'd" mean? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 07:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Front Paged. The 4chan article appeared on Wikipedia's main page - Alison ❤ 08:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thank you for the reply. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 08:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeske, though the underlying problem is very serious, and preemptory action justified, that deletion rationale you left is absolutely unsuitable under any circumstances. I understand impatience, but this is far beyond what any admin should ever say on-wiki. DGG (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So is crap that is essentially outing editors, but I notice there are no rangeblocks. Ask Alison and you'll understand a bit better why I've been berserk as of late. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 01:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, I can understand that. While I think your edit summary was uncalled-for, I can sure understand your frustration. I've made a similar block summary myself before, and that was wrong, too. Jéské and NawlinWiki are two of the admins at the forefront of protecting the wiki against JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp/You-know-who and at times, things can get just too much. JA has a habit of making as strong and as indelible a BLP violation as he possibly can (against people like Daniel Brandt, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey and Giovanni di Stefano for example). He also enjoys publishing personal info on people, including Jéské amongst others. Saying Jéské is 'impatient' is putting it somewhat mildly; he's absolutely frustrated and annoyed by this timewasting nuisance. The irony is that JA/Grawp's real-life identity has also been floating around yet he continues unabated - Alison ❤ 04:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to put a point on it, but "frustrated and annoyed" is also putting it mildly, Alison. Try "about to block self before he goes on an administrative rampage against anons". -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 06:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That works, too. I was thinking something stronger, actually, which I won't repeat here ^_^ - Alison ❤ 07:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead. At this point, nothing's gonna offend me - the fact that Jarl still has 'net is offensive enough. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 08:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Two different issues here. The block: fine. Seems reasonable, preventative and easily reversible. The block log entry....much less so. I can see the frustration that drives Jeske to do this, so I don't think we gain anything from raking him over the coals. My advice is to just compose a pre-written block log and template message for "possible" grawp socks. something neutral and clear explaining why the account was blocked preemptively and what the user should do if there is an error. Then it is just Ctrl/Cmd+V. Protonk (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't give him that recognition of "having his/her own template"; make it as neutral and generic as possible. Tan | 39 16:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for a WP space template. Just something scratched up in notepad. The template isn't for "him" per se. It is for the 1-10% of false positives made in preemtively blocking. Just in case the human behind the account isn't related to grawp then you have a short message saying that the account has been blocked for reason XYZ and unblock requests can be made by emailing OTRS (because the blocks disable talk page editing and email). Protonk (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should just warn all new users not to make minor edits because if they do they will be blocked, abused, and prevented from making unblock requests? DuncanHill (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt. Those two accounts fall quite short of the duck test. –xeno (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this one? Quacks like an elephant. [1]. DuncanHill (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't come close to this one (the "alternative account" in question was, er, mine, as I created this one per email request). – iridescent 17:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I might not have made myself clear; I don't think these two accounts should've been blocked based on those contribs. –xeno (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just taken a look at my earliest logged-in contributions, and by the standards of some I should have been indef-blocked, sworn at, and my talk page protected. DuncanHill (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's an obvious one: Jagger fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Grsz11 20:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeske, the trouble with being so candid about one's disgust is that trolls find that interesting. They wonder what else gets under your skin and start poking. It is much better to keep cool and have a chuckle at their expense.[2] Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 21:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference between myself and you, Durova, is that I am much easier to get angry. Once I'm angry, I lash out, often violently. The only thing preventing me from going down and personally bashing that worthless little internet-toughguy twit's head into his monitor is the fact that I'd sooner not have an assault charge on my head. I'm not the most pacifistic guy on Wikipedia by *any* stretch of the imagination, and even I know when I have to ask friends to proxy as my eyes on /b/ and ED so I can make fun of all the crap Jarl throws at me that's flatly incorrect. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't remain impartial you should recuse, as suggested above... –xeno (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I take *EVERY* form of vandalism as a slight, Xeno. Are you suggesting I give up the tools? -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you shouldn't, Jéské. It's the surest way to get burned out and disillusioned. We are, after all, just janitors here, cleaning up the perennial mess of others. RBI just tells us to get the mop out, do the dirty work and move on. Taking things personally shows that vandalism gets to you and you'll end up being milked as a source of lulz (and attention - something Grawp lives for). Don't give them the pleasure - Alison ❤ 23:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all, I just think you should try and be mindful of what you're committing to the log. –xeno (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See, there's one that passes the duck test! blocked. –xeno (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive my ignorance but why isn't a quick checkuser performed on suspicious accounts before they are blocked preemptively? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser, by its very nature, is invasive of privacy, and as such Checkusers will not go on fishing expeditions. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So as if to endorse the point, Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis/JDH got his "personal army" to vandalize Jéské's talk page dozens of times tonight - as he does - with Jéské's alleged real name and a taunting message. I just oversighted the lot of them (so tough, Grawp). But this is what Jéské puts up with on a daily basis, and he is told to keep his cool when Grawp can do what he damn well pleases. Jéské know's Grawp's RL name, address, etc - who doesn't at this stage - but he's forbidden from mentioning them here. So on it goes ... - Alison ❤ 08:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I still haven't seen any evidence that Smokemirror86 was anything other than a legitimate new user. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, do socks usually enter an email address? I've unblocked - let's not bounce legitimate newbies off the wiki just because they make a few minor edits in succession. The first edit added a line to a list with an edit summary, the next couple fixed that same edit which they botched. Harmless. That's how newbies learn. –xeno (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As regards Jarl, it should be noted I (and others) have been e-mail bombed by his socks before. Assuming a sock of Jarl won't enter an email address is wishful thinking. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 19:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. I invite anyone to take a look at my earliest contributions [3]. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum

    I'm starting to notice what appears to be a few Jarlaxle Joe jobs badly trying to impersonate/imitate him. At present, they seem only to be vandalizing articles w/o page moves or doing page moves nothing like his (i.e. moving pages sans edit summary pointing to Jarlaxle's own Bill-O-sized ego). I hate to say this, but I think we may be becoming a battleground. -Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 09:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd believe that. Basically, he's turned into a bit of a lolcow and some folks are starting to have some fun with him. What can ya do only treat them all the same; WP:RBI and all that - Alison ❤ 09:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The only good I can see coming from this is that Jarl'll probably be too distracted to pester me with wethers, especially since his trying to use my real name against me is now kinda starting to fall flat... -Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 09:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the next step in this situation?

    I will try to keep this brief, since the nub of the dispute is already documented fully at talk:Clarence Thomas, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Clarence Thomas, and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Clarence Thomas. The short story is that an edit war arose of the content of Clarence Thomas, with both sides accusing one another of POV and violating Wikipedia policy; page protection, a medcab request that went nowhere, and a mediation request that will be rejected because one of the parties to the dispute just lied the mediation folks by refusing consent on the grounds that the matter was already settled, ensued. Since user:RafaelRGarcia has thwarted every attempt to reach consensus, stonewalling efforts by myself and user:Ferrylodge and demonstrating continued intransigence and refusal to allow the article's correction, the resumption of an edit war when the block expires seems inevitable.

    While I "have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute," as I see it, the dispute is "over the content of an article," which seems to place it beyond the ambit of arbitration.Wikipedia:DR#Last_resort:_Arbitration. What can I do next? Simon Dodd (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Simon Dodd's edits to the now-unprotected article, made today, ignored the discussion on the Medcab page entirely and set in his preference on all issues. I have changed these few small parts of the article to better reflect consensus. Admin Bearian joined in on the Medcab discussion to clear up a debate about WP policy, but Dodd ignored even this comment, lying and saying that the response was not relevant. Dodd insists on adding unverifiable, uncited claims to the Thomas article; this is the main point of contention, but the policy on Verifiability says this claim should not be allowed. User Ferrylodge has the same political views as Dodd, and the two tag-team on other political articles, like Unitary_executive_theory. He joined in late in this issue to tag team against me and corroborate what Dodd says. Anyway, I feel that the Medcab discussion cleared up the issues quite a bit, and that a consensus version of the page is now quite possible, unless Dodd insists having his way on every aspect of the article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even going to comment on this characterization of what happened at medcab. I invite interested parties to go and read the page for themselves.Simon Dodd (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ← How about a 0/1RR restriction? It could work. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Editnotices work surprising well for restrictions like that. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:1RR suggests that "[s]ome editors may choose to voluntarily follow a one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them." That approach has already been tried and failed, as the talk page discussion and the article's edit history makes clear. Discussion only works when both sides are willing to compromise, and are contributing in good faith to improve Wikipedia; Garcia has already rebutted the presumption of good faith time and again (most recently by the outright lie offered to the mediation committee that the issue was resolved), has made clear that he will not compromise (see, e.g., the medcab dispute on the section title "commerce clause"), and this dispute is precisely about Garcia's wikilawyering in service of preventing the improvement of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has to have some mechanism for dealing with users like him - for dealing with situations where discussion between two editors has proven unworkable, for resolving antithetical views on how an article should read. Simon Dodd (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Interested parties have read the discussions, and have found that your mischaracterization of RafaelRGarcia, Simon Dodd, is just as bad as, if not worse than, xyr mischaracterization of you. I thank you both for having a dispute that is actually on an interesting subject, and not on some sex scandal, though. ☺ For what it's worth, you're both wrong.

    Simon Dodd, you're wrong in that if you have no source stating what someone's position on states' rights is, you have no business adding content that states a position for that person, however much you want to "balance" an opinion of that person published by an analyst. The correct application of the NPOV policy is to attribute the opinion to the person who holds it, so that it is presented as opinion, and not presented as if it were Wikipedia's opinion. One doesn't need to construct original counterarguments for opinions that one disagrees with. Correcting the rest of the world is not Wikipedia's place.

    RafaelRGarcia, you're wrong in that Simon Dodd is not "deleting facts", and you're also wrong to try to present only one view out of what are clearly more than one in the article's introduction. Plenty of sources do not portray Thomas' rôle on the Court as you would have the article portrary it.

    I suggest that both of you make an attempt to get out of this rut that you are in, because the "next step" in this situation is your both being limited in your edits by administrators. Be warned: To an impartial observer you're both at fault, and of the two of you there's no wholly right side to pick.

    I find it highly surprising that neither of you has gone to look for more sources. You could cite Ingram's observation on Thomas and states' rights and judicial restraint (pp. 115 of ISBN 9781596985162), for example. Or you could use pp. 32–33 of ISBN 9780226294087; or pp. 329 of ISBN 9780226443416; or pp. 111–112 of ISBN 9781576073476; or pp.119–120 of ISBN 9780976678809; or pp. 155 of ISBN 9780813923031; or pp. 90 of ISBN 9780814775684. And that's just where I stopped looking. All of these deal with Thomas, and the SCOTUS in general, and states' rights, and show how complex the issue is, and how it shouldn't be falsely reduced and oversimplified to an issue of racial equality (as you are doing, Simon Dodd), and how Thomas is not some lone perennial minority dissenter (as you would have him portrayed, RafaelRGarcia). Indeed, yet another source, pp. 145 of ISBN 9780415232630, makes pretty much exactly this point about states' rights in relation to Thomas.

    More attention to sources, less edit warring, and a willingness by both of you to leave the rut that you are stuck in, are needed. The proper study of encyclopaedists is the finding, reading, using, and evaluating of sources. You both seem to erroneously think that the finding part is over. Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncle G, without meaning to sound disputatious, just a few queries. First, could you be more specific on two points that went by me. You say that I have "mischaracteriz[ed]" Garcia; how, and where? Where have I "reduced and oversimplified to an issue of racial equality" the question of whether Justice Thomas has ever used the term "states' rights" in a published opinion? Second, you say that I shouldn't add something for which I don't have a source, but you are not addressing the key point that Garcia is demanding that I prove a negative. If Thomas has used the term - ever. As often as once - Garcia can destroy my position by citing it. He will not, because he can't; is the accuracy of the article to be held hostage for want of a published source stating the obvious? How, then, do you account for the examples given at MedCab (for example, the nuclear option case)? And third, I think it is only fair to note that I have done everything possible to "to leave the rut." I tried WP:BRD; Garcia rejected all attempts at finding compromise language. I took the issue to the talk page; Garcia rejected all attempts at compromise, even when a third editor got involved. I took it to medcab, and Garcia refused to even consider compromise language on even the most minor point at issue. I took it to mediation, and Garcia refused assent to mediation based on a lie. Concededly, I didn't try WP:Third opinion, but in light of everything else tried, see WP:SNOW. I don't know how I could possibly have shown more willing to forge ahead. Simon Dodd (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning someone never saying something: As far as I know, the rule is that we can't make such an observation unless it has appeared in a reliable source; otherwise it's original research. There are many true things that we can't say for such technical reasons. This is the price we pay for having objective rules. So yes, although it's a bit counterintuitive you must prove a negative, and it's possible in principle. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hans, isn't that precisely the sort of absurd situation that WP:IAR exists to avoid? "Its purpose is to keep [rules] from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated. ... Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. (See also Wikipedia:Use common sense.)"[4] How do you deal with the nuclear option statement mentioned at MedCab, that Congress did nothing about a particular problem in 1993 - is that one going on the ashpile, too? When I was editing the John G. Roberts article recently, there was another similar "prove a negative" situation that I got rid of for an unrelated reason; there are a lot of statements throughout Wikipedia that are unquestionably true (that is, can't be questioned in good faith, such as the assertion at issue here) but that are uncited and would be tough to cite. It seems to me that when Wikipedia policy seems to require an insane result that is detrimental to the encyclopædia, that is precisely the sort of situation for which the IAR escape hatch was designed, and that applies a fortiori in the context of WP:BLP. Simon Dodd (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what needs to be done, you should cite every single opinion Thomas has given as proof he has never used the term "state's rights". </sarcasm> This is getting a bit out of hand, and now a whole section has been thrown together to try to refute a single source. Is that really necessary (and seems like some OR has been thrown in as well)? I'm not sure the article was ready for unprotection, and it doesn't seem like these editors are discussing that much or playing nice. Perhaps a RFC could bring more opinions to the table to help settle issues, or if the edit warring continues, locking the article again.-Andrew c [talk] 22:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    personally, I tend to like the solution in matters like this of asking both the individuals involved to avoid contributing to the article for a period of time, so that other editors can fix it. (I do have an opinion about who is the more reasonable of the two, but that is not immediately relevant to the question of how to go forward). he person whose view of the matter i do agree with is Uncle G (as I usually do)./ As admins have the power to block both eds for a time for edit warring, we have the power to give them a partial block only, though there are no technical means for automatically enforcing it. DGG (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, Andrew, the sarcasm is unproductive and misplaced. What would you have me do? If I was asserting that Thomas had used the term, I would cite the case in which he used it. It has been demanded that I prove a negative by citing a source, and the only way to prove a negative is to cite every single instance in which it could possibly have occurred but didn't. So I did just that. Is that a ridiculous result? You bet. But I'm not the one who made it necessary.
    I would also emphasize that my edit was made with great care to comply with WP:OR. That policy is very clear on this point. It allows primary sources to be cited when they "have been reliably published," as the U.S. Reports have been, "but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." That standard is, beyond any serious doubt, met by the footnote I added: I did not "interpret[]" the primary source material at all; the only use I put it to was a descriptive claim (it supports the descriptive claim that none of those opinions contain the words "states' rights"); and it requires no specialist knowledge at all to check those opinions to confirm that they do not contain the words "states' rights." WP:OR further rejects "original research or original thought ... includ[ing] unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Here, there are no unpublished facts or arguments, original thoughts, speculation, or ideas - merely the statement that none of those cases contain the words states' rights. It might be irrelevant to edit Altria Group v. Good to state that Justice Thomas' opinion in that case does not contain the words "a moo cow says what"; it might even be vandalism - but it would not be original research. And if it is not original research to state that one opinion does not contain a particular phrase, it cannot be original research to state that many opinions do not contain that phrase. (And if the response is that I'm sticking to the letter of WP:OR rather than considering its purpose, my reply is that invocation of WP:IAR is precisely what I've been saying all along.) Simon Dodd (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add - Andrew, I'm not at all opposed to an RFC, but as I mentioned above, I took the issue to medcab and tried to take it to mediation, neither of which has any purposes beside "bring[ing] more opinions to the table to help settle issues"; neither helped. I filed a request for third opinions about William Rehnquist (see [5]; [6]), and it hasn't brought in a single additional voice. I'm certainly willing to give it a try - but I really find it insulting that there seems to be not a whit of recognition here that at every turn, I've been trying to get outside input on the article, been trying to find consensus, been trying to involve other editors. It is not me who's the problem here. Simon Dodd (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent)This article definitely could use semi-protection, to stop edit-warring and vandalizing by IPs.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind. I guess there's not enough trouble to warrant semi-protection.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sebastian Plewinski

    Weird issue. Plenty of notability, well-sourced and fairly well-written article...but the username makes me a bit suspect. COI, spam name block or ? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reads like an advert to me - sent in the flamethrowers - as for the other issues - could be.--Cameron Scott (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like spam to me and the competitions sound well... dodgy. Needs a look from some experts. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cool. I was thinking of hitting the speedy button, but it seemed kind of borderline. Someone pass me a flamethrower and a fire suit, please...--PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cameron Scott has now opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Plewinski. I gave a 3RR warning to the creator of the article, Management artists after I noticed them reverting some improvements of the article by regular editors. They have not continued, but a series of IPs have now begun work on the article. Lately the IP editors have removed the AfD banner from the article for the second time. Semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See also: pl:Sebastian Plewiński, created by the same account. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Statistics page needs link changed

    I created a Wikipedia:Bots page. the "Bots" link at Special:Statistics should now be linked to it rather than to Wikipedia:Bot policy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Happy‑melon 11:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Assyrian/Syriac issue

    hello, to get you in the context of things, there was an issue between assyrianists and arameanists about the 'assyrian people page' arameanists claim that Syriacs are not assyrians rather arameans, while assyrians claim syriacs are infact assyrians. Long story short, some admins got involved and we compromised that the pages should be one, and that instead of just "Assyrian" they be "Assyrian/Syriac" or "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac", as seen here: [[7]], and [[8]]. This was the norm for a while and everyone was happy. User:The TriZ took liberty of changing all previous "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Syriac" and everyone was fine with that too. Now the issue is that when I tried to do the exact same thing he did but changing "Syriac" to "Assyrian/Syriac" he undoes my posts ... I ask for explanation, and he asks for sources (mind you he provided no sources for Syriac), then I provide him with sources, and he does want to continue to discuss the issue. He impliments his POV in every page without any sources, and when we try to put the accepted neutral stance of "Assyrian/Syriac" title (Which he agreed upon) he is against it. This is POV at its fullest. The pages I am talking about are: [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], and he recently changed "Assyrian" to "Syriac" just recently on this page [[13]]. I have asked him as to why he keeps doing this on this talkpage but as you will see he does want to discuss. P.S. his moves threaten the neutral "Assyrian/Syriac" titles implemented by admins, If he continues like this then what is the point of keeping his changes from "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Syriac"? Malik Danno (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The people watching Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts may be better suited to addressing this issue. -Andrew c [talk] 17:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thanx, Ill just copy and paste what I stated above. Malik Danno (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Block times

    Resolved
     – Consensus seems to be that on top is the preferred position. –xeno (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to adjust block times drop-down so that "indefinite" is at the bottom of the list. This would make the ordering logical, with the shortest blocks at the top and the longest at the bottom. Logical ordering would make the drop-down more intuitive, especially to new administrators. Thoughts? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite is one of the most common, so it should be at the top. I think it used to be at both top & bottom for some time. Kusma (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was told the same. You'll find its easier to get to indef if its first on the list. Synergy 19:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I should point out the obvious that "indefinite" isn't necessarily the longest block time, since it's an indeterminate amount of time. It could, theoretically, be the shortest. I think we should leave it where it is... –xeno (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Never fails. Someone always shows up to point that out. :) Synergy 19:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Accounts that are blocked indefinitely are typically things like inappropriate user names and thus are rarely unblocked, making "indefinite" the same as "infinite". —Remember the dot (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Typically yes, but even those are unblocked for requesting another username. Synergy 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec*2)On the subject of this, is the 5-year option not a bit unnecessary, how often does someone get that long a block?--Jac16888Talk 19:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think open proxies receive 5 year blocks. –xeno (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ecx2) Yes, for open proxies. Synergy 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Open proxies, in my experience, receive block times of only 2 years... -Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 19:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Two years isn't one of the block times.... Synergy 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an "other" option that allows you to fill in the time. Whether or not it's a block time in the list tends to be immaterial. -Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh thats right. Haven't seen it yet, and I forgot about that option. Thanks for the reminder. Synergy 19:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Different types of open proxies should get different lengths of block. Only the long term static IP hosted proxies should get up to five years. Spambots, zombie proxies, and Tor proxies should generally be blocked for under a year, unless in each case there is evidence they have been active for a long time, they are far more likely to be dynamic or closed down. One year or six months should be the usual length of block for most open proxies. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Against indefinite blocks

    I was wrongly indefinitely blocked a few weeks ago. Indefinite blocks should not be done. 1 year blocks are better for everything except inappropriate names. Even people who murder are often given multi-year sentences, not lifetime sentences. This would encourage rehabilitation. I have been editing for 1.5 years and suddenly, boom, blocked for life. Administrators must be very careful to be ombudsmen, not trigger happy goons who block with fun and sadistic satisfaction. By being nice ombudsmen, WP gets better. Spevw (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You were accidentally blocked for a total of 9 minutes, before the admin responsible noticed and unblocked without prompting, it was over a month before you even realised. I would hardly call that a life sentence, or the result of a sadistic trigger-happy goon--Jac16888Talk 03:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how the above incident would have been materially different if Spevw had been mistakenly blocked for 1 year rather than indefinitely. I don't think it would affect anyone's assessment of the editor or the admin involved (please, no Goons). More generally, I support the idea of the indefinite block; having no fixed duration, it sends a very clear message to the editor in question that unblocking requires some specific action or undertaking on their part. Some editors will sit out a month-long block and return to being disruptive, but indef blocked users tend to discuss what needs to be done, to get back to editing, within a week or so. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible unapproved bot being run

    I quote this from User talk:Anomie:

    Normally this might go on wikietiquitte alerts, but since AndysCrogz1 implies here he/she is running an unapproved bot, this needs to be handled by an admin.--Ipatrol (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked as a banned sock of some other user. MBisanz talk 19:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not a real bot. Look at the edits. Its quite clearly someone just acting like a bot. This is the second instance of this. Its blatant sockpuppetry combined with vandalism/trolling. The first "bot" was supposedly written in Flash and the second supposedly had an AI addon despite using AWB. Either this person is an amazing programmer but is otherwise completely clueless or its just random disruption. Mr.Z-man 19:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He misinterpreted WP:IAR, in any case. —kurykh 03:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification by motion relating to arbitration enforcement restriction

    The Arbitration Committee has amended the restriction on arbitration enforcement activity in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin by successful motion, archived here, to include two clarifications of the initial remedy.

    Effective immediately, the restriction applies only to specific administrative actions applied to specific users. It does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not specific actions applied to specific editors. This is a provisional measure, pending the resolution of the arbitration enforcement request for comment. Furthermore, the Committee observed that administrators are normally expected to explain their actions, respond to feedback, and otherwise engage in normal discussion and dispute resolution, and that the restriction on arbitration enforcement activity provides no exception to this standard.

    For the Arbitration Committee
    Daniel (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oi vey. So saying "If you do/don't do X I'll block you under AE clause" is not an action under AE clause? Is that what this means? Further, if Admin A says "don't do X per ArbCom" then Admin B says "no, that warning was way too much" where does that leave the user? Where does that leave the admins, more to the point?
    brenneman 02:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I'm having a heck of a time trying to figure out what the clarification actually means in practice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread should be deleted simply for having too many words in the title that end in the suffix -ion. And someone said Wikipedia was getting too bureaucratic to actually get something done. Ni, I say. Keeper | 76 05:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to Brenneman's concern, please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin#Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity clarification, subsection "Comments". The second and third comments were made (the second by the drafter of the motion) after very different comments were made on the motion by Elonka and myself. GRBerry 16:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Goethean : personal attacks, incivility, totally disputed tags

    Recently when I was reviewing the GAN of Ramakrishna article, I came across an editor, Goethean (talk · contribs) who has indulged in personal attacks, incivility and unexplained addition of "Totally disputed" tags.

    He is adding totally disputed tags for no particular reason. The Talk pages of Ramakrishna are full of personal attacks from Goethean, and when I was trying to carryout a review, he carried out a improper review (failing the article in just 2 days!) and when I intervened he attacked me as "wikilawyer". After this when the review was in progress, he repeatedly added totally disputed tags with no apparent reason and the justification he gave was that scholarship older than last 30 years are invalid, which is obviously incorrect. A quick look at the Ramakrishna#Notes indicates that this is completely false, every article has a blend of scholarship from different periods and so does this article.

    Here is the list of his last few edits to the Ramakrishna article:

    There are also plenty of personal attacks in the talk page, few ones easy to spot:

    • "What a mess. The new additions by Nvineeth are disasterous."[14]
    • "Frankly, your tactics are despicable and you should be ashamed of yourself."[15]
    • "If I were you, I would be ashamed of it."[16]

    while going through the comments of other editors on Talk page, I came across this report on personal attaks and disruptive edits as well. When I searched the admin noticeboard, I also came across several incidents of personal attacks, even against admins!

    Goethean will probably attack me saying that I am "wikilawyering", but his edits are clearly against the wikipedia community and guildelines. He is disrupting the article, indulging in personal attacks, adding totally disputed tags for no apparent reason.

    Admins please look into it. Thank you.Bluptr (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what you mean to accomplish by bringing up comments that I made back in September and earlier. The fact is that under your watch, the article has gone from something a scholar would be pleased with to something a religious propagandist would be pleased with. There are problems that need to be fixed. Rather than dismissing my claims out of hand, please begin working with me and User:Hipocrite to resolve the dispute and to fix the problems with the article. NPOV is a Wikipedia policy which must be followed. — goethean ॐ 15:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would concur with Bluptr's assessment. The article went through an extensive peer review three months ago, and through an extensive Good Article review during the last month. Multiple editors with knowledge of this area support the content, though the prose is needing improvement. Goethean's tagging and incivility are certainly an issue. User:Hipocrite has rather suddenly appeared to support the tagging. An uninvolved and neutral admin wouldn't be a bad idea. Priyanath talk 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? I don't support or oppose anything. I'm trying to find a way for you all to reach a solution that every one of you can support. I welcome additional eyes on this dispute, but a. Uninvolved and Neutral has already shown up (hi!), and b. Bringing it to silly noticeboards is not at all helpful at this juncture. Given that everyone involved has shown willingess to engage in reasonable discussion on the talk page of the article in question, why not continue doing that? Hipocrite (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hipocrite, you appeared out of nowhere, and supported the tagging in the non-neutral way, and have also added the tags again and also resolved the issue here. Doesn't it sound suspicious? If you start adding the tags again, to the stable article, I will be opening this discussion again. Nvineeth (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is utterly inappropriate for editors who have made significant contributions to an article in the past to make a GA assesssment on that article. If an article is not fit to be passed, a neutral reviewer will deem it so and fail it with much more sufficient reasoning; in fact, your own views would, of course, be taken into consideration - but you have no standing to fail an article. However, to the editor reporting this, digging up history that isn't directly relevant to the dispute at hand is not going to achieve anything - we don't punish users, so you're wasting time for all of us. The sort of commentary and lack of good faith exhibited by both sides is not appropriate and the amount of LAME edit-warring over tags on this article is unhelpful.
    I have an urge to get this article under probation whereby any editors who indulge in edit-warring, incivility, personal attacks, and other types of misconduct, will be swiftly sanctioned. Alternatively, if an uninvolved (and reasonably experienced) administrator volunteers to keep an eye on this article and handle behavioral issues, then this may not be necessary. That's up to the community - that is an issue that shold be resolved here before the behaviour (of those involved) keeps going out of control, particularly with regards to edit-warring.
    Both sides probably have valid concerns, but it's time you both found ways to resolve the underlying content dispute. Trying to create/find drama does not benefit this project, no matter which side you are on. I suggest you try mediation - but if either side is unwilling, then article RFC. This is what you need to try if you can't resolve it amongst yourselves. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    revert after 4th warning

    Resolved
     – Geeked by User:Oren0. -Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 08:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:145.103.246.233 edited Dracunculiasis as vandal - when I went to warn after revert, I saw it was already at 4 warnings. Don't think I can do anymore myself here. (let me know what I should do if I see this again somewhere) Ched (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) User has been blocked. In the future, WP:AIV is the place for this. Oren0 (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks .. I'll bookmark (just in case) Ched (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

    Can everyone please try and remember that AfD's are supposed to stay open for 5 days? Recently I've seen many discussions close after 3 days - it's great that we no longer have the closing backlogs, but people shouldn't be racing to close them like this because we miss a number of days of discussion. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 25, disregarding the speedy closures, you'll see many disucssions were closed on the 28th and 29th, 2 and 1 days respectively before they should have. Some were even closed as no consensus with just a couple of comments - they should be relisted after the full 5 days. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Many by admins and non-admins alike. There's no hurry to close these, especially the no consensus ones. If people are looking for something to do, Category:Articles lacking sources is fairly full and is more important. Majorly talk 13:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 26, you'll see quite a few have been closed within 2 days - that's simply unacceptable in my opinion. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of those were ok "early" closes. I see several that were clearly CSD material, plus one jiffy merged. Any non-admin early close should results in a little talk-page chat with the party in question, however. - brenneman 14:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. If interested in AfD why not rather weigh in on some that have little participation, or require research. Or drop by at WP:CSD, currently at 130 pages, images excluded.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you should warn any admin/user who makes such a mistake clearly and openly on their talk pages because it is breaking policy, if they make incorrect closes. Maybe that way they will notice it if they don't read AN (and not everyone does). Regards SoWhy 14:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The AfDs I've recently closed were mostly CSD material or WP:SNOW cases for either delete or keep. It is important to wait for a whole debate in case there are different opinions. Maybe we are a bit too generous with applying WP:SNOW when it looks obvious where the AfD debate is heading. The problem as I see is that some nominations don't get a proper attention at all so at the end there are only 1-2 comments. Seems most of the AfD patrollers focus on most recent days. An option would be to add some details to the closing policy, like that unless it is a clear speedy whatever, the debate should stay at least 3 or 4 days before early closure. At least informally. --Tone 15:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, the times I do an non-admin close of an AfD it is only when the article has been speedy deleted or merged with another article. I won't do a WP:SNOW closure, I would only do the non-admin closes when it's needed. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually this is covered formally at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion where it says that articles are debated five days and in Wikipedia:Deletion process which basically suggests only to work on the 'Old' section' that is where "the day page (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Year Month Day) that is more than five days old should be moved here. The decision to keep or delete a page is to be implemented only after this move has been performed." If respected, this process would ensure that even the youngest debate on the log file itself is at least five days old. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. (I've brought this concern up at WT:AFD, but since this discussion is now taking place here...) This is part of a shift that has been happening at AfD over many months. At first it started to become routine to close AfDs a few hours early, then a half-day, and before long it was routine to close them once they were at least four days old rather than the five days that the policy asks. It is not surprising then that more and more discussions then start to be closed even earlier. As things stand now, it is rare (unless relisted) that a discussion lasts the full five days. Cautious admins who want to close AfDs only once the full 120 hours have elapsed do not get to, because all AfDs now are being closed by admins who have at least a mild willingness to disregard policy. This was addressed previously on this noticeboard, but things have not changed so far. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Ryan here (wtf, I know). AfD discussions should by and large run the full five days. The only early closures should be for ridiculously obvious SNOW closures - and even at that, I think people misinterpret SNOW to mean "snowball", or a runaway string of similar !votes. it means "not a snowball's chance in hell", which should be reserved for only the most "oh, HELL no" discussions. Tan | 39 16:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. If we have a look at the January 24 and 25 log, almost all the discussions are closed already, and a great part of 26 as well. I support the suggestion that we should be more strict with not closing nominations too early. Meaning, not even starting to browse the log of a recent day with an intention to close AfD. And non admin closures should follow the same rules as well, except for obvious speedies. Reminding admins who close the debates too early is a good idea (worked with me, I rethought it all over again and realized that early closures are generally not the best thing to do). --Tone 16:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    so it seems that if we re-emphasize that in policy, as we should, we should not suggest 3 or 4 days. it should simply say 5 days unless speedy, and snow closes should go back to being IAR exceptions. DGG (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree with those above, AFDs should not be closed before five days are up in the large majority of cases. We should give people the full five days to give more chance for editors to find, for example, new sources to prove notability or find evidence to show an article is a hoax. Deletion Review sometimes get people coming with new sources after an AFD is closed and we should try and keep this to a minimum. Any admins (or non-admins) who are generally closing AFD before they go on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old should be pointed towards the Wikipedia:Deletion policy which is clear that "The discussion lasts at least five days". Davewild (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3 or so recent discussions I've read had editors consistently expressing their concerns that AfDs were frequently closed early. The next step is to identify questionable closures and contact the closers directly, pointing to these concerns. I expect that there will be push-back and more discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. One reason I hate sending anything to AfD is that I know I make mistakes, & too few people bother to do more than glance at the name of the article & the rationale before voting to delete. As a result, I know of a lot of doggy articles in my corner of Wikipedia that should probably go -- but I'm not going to send them to that abattoir unless I'm 110% sure they should be deleted first. Were people willing to let discussions run a full 5 days, it would make deletions a far more reliable act. -- llywrch (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a problem with that, despite WP:AGF; we still have WP:BURDEN. WP:AFD can have the effect of concentrating the minds of article creators, and indeed bring new editors into the arena. If nobody is that committed to at least minimally working on the article, there's a case to be made to delete it anyhow, and if anyone comes along later who is more committed, the article will be defensibly created. Five days seems to me to be a reasonable time to permit constructive criticism, and I've seen very few AfDs relisted for further input; most seem to me to achieve consensus within a day or so. --Rodhullandemu 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This has now also been brought up at the village pump and Ive invited editors there as well to remind closers if necessary they do not have the right to unilaterally shorten debate times unless there are specific reasons such as speedy or snow closures which should be marked as such.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cross-posted from WP:VPP These are some stats that I cooked up independently of this thread that you guys might be interested in:

    I also agree with the points brought up by Ryan. Lately, Mathbot goes to update the /Old page and it doesn't put any AfDs on the page, they've already been closed early. If anyone is interested in some more detailed stats over longer time periods, I have a script to analyse AfD pages, and if you ask nicely (;) ) I might get you your stats. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How about an update to {{Afd2}} to clearly show the expected debate closure date ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CSD caution

    I just removed Western blot from CAT:CSD. An IP editor had tried to add a reference to the article, but mistakenly used the {{web}} template rather than the {{citeweb}} template: diff.

    Template:Web is a redirect to Template:Db-web, which means that the article was added to CAT:CSD as a non-notable website. Since the template was added inside a set of ref tags, it appeared down at the bottom of the article, in its References section. An editor who doesn't check that the reference was properly inserted – as this one didn't – won't realize that something has gone horribly wrong. The average CSD patroller might also have trouble figuring out how the article even got into the category.

    Off the top, I'll urge anyone who's patrolling CAT:CSD to watch for this problem. The quick fix is to find the offending {web} in the article and replace it with a {citeweb}: diff.

    I'm also inclined to suggest that we delete Template:Web altogether, or replace it with a disambiguation message directing editors to replace it with either {citeweb} or {db-web} as appropriate. Thoughts? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A reasonable idea. Certainly there should not be a redirect. --Tone 15:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In spirit of uniformity of all CSD-templates, I think {{web}} should be redirected to {{cite web}} instead. All CSD templates should start with db-. Regards SoWhy 15:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed. Propose it at the WT:CSD talk page. DGG (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided to be bold and changed it to cite web. If anyone really disagrees, they can always change it back. Regards SoWhy 17:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Old hoax article creator has requested deletion

    Hi there - question about something happening on the article Nocxangel network. During new page patrol I came across Joshua pang, an obvious hoax, which I nominated for speedy deletion. It was deleted by an admin, then recreated by the original author, User:Sqitnocx. I checked that user's other contributions, and found Nocxangel network, created by Sqitnocx back in July 2007. Some Googling revealed that Wikipedia and its mirror sites are the only sources online attesting to this company, and that is claimed NASDAQ symbol was fictional. I added a prod tag on the basis that it was a hoax; Sqitnocx then blanked the page (and Joshua pang), and added comments to the talk pages of both saying he was trying to delete them. Vandal patrollers keep quite rightly reverting the blanking. Sqitnocx has now added a {{prod2}} to Nocxangel network. So my question: does Nocxangel network still need to wait out its five days in PROD, or can it be speedily deleted? And how best to respond to Sqitnocx? Gonzonoir (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My understanding is that, if only one editor has made substantial contributions, then blanked or requested deletion, then the page can be speedied, exactly the same as if they'd put a {{db-author}} on it. Something like that seems to've happened. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I've deleted both. As they helped to clear things up, i am reluctant to block although they suggested as much at Talk:Nocxangel network.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what to do about File:Nocxangel.JPG, this author's other contribution. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess nobody will complain about deleting it as housekeeping.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers - it hadn't been entirely clear to me that Sqitnocx was the article's only substantial contributor, because there were some IP edits too - but I guess these could have been an un-logged-in Sqitnocx, and I'm not sure what the baseline for "substantial" is anyway. Thanks for the prompt attention. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Moulton becoming active

    This IP, and presumably others in the range, are being used by User:Moulton. His account is globally locked, but he's been using dynamic IPs for a while now on Wikiversity. As of yesterday we've blocked the ranges (info here). Just worth keeping an eye on, since he might become more active here now that WV is less accessible to him. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've replicated the steward-recommended rangeblocks here for 31 hours, so either he'll find a new way or we get to do it again in 31 hours. MBisanz talk 15:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a number of ranges, unfortunately. See Special:Contributions/68.163.110.239. If folks could add my talk to their watchlists, I'd appreciate it.
    OTOH, is there any reason I can't just protect my page to autoconfirmed? --SB_Johnny | talk 16:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your talk page? That's usually reserved for pretty severe situations, as nonconfirmed editors will often have a legit reason to want to talk with you. User:Moultan can usually be dealt with fine by simply not reading what he writes. WilyD 16:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know :-). He's got a considerable history with me though, so it might end up being the more reasonable option as a short-term discouragement. I was thinking that would cause less collateral damage than rangeblocks. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI: there is an open meta:Steward requests/Checkuser#Moulton@enwikiversity which lists ranges and sockpuppets that he has been using. --mikeu talk 16:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a temporary semi-protection of one's talk page is fine under some circumstances, though it's probably better to wait for evidence of an actual problem rather than doing it pre-emptively. MastCell Talk 17:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think MBizanz is on the ranges (thanks!), but if he continues to go around, I'll semi-protect for a few days. For whatever reason, I rarely get messages from unreg'd contributors anyway, so probably won't be much of a problem. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to semi your talk page, simply make an alternative talk page for IPs. 18:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    I'd ask interested folk to keep an eye on the meta page meta:Steward requests/Checkuser#Moulton@enwikiversity ... Spacebirdy and I did some digging last night and more may be needed, updates will happen there, no doubt. ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CSD backlog

    Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has a large backlog. Please remove this message when the backlog is cleared. Thanks! seicer | talk | contribs 15:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Santi6666

    Santi6666 have several times added pictures on Klaas-Jan Huntelaar in Real Madrid ‎to Wikipedia, claiming them as his own creations, however some of them appear on other internet sites, including Fifa. com [17] and on Realmadrid.com [18], some pictures dont appear on this pages but appears to be out of the same picture serie. Santi6666 have been told that he is posting unfree images as hes own, but keeps on creating new ones once the earlier have been deleted. Wonder if their is a way for Wikipedia admin to prevent this? --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 16:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

    Note: unsure if this is the right place to post this, but did not find anything on list above that redirected me to another page.

    Wikipedian looking for help

    Hi, can someone help at User talk:Mecha13? He's got a {{helpme}} on his talk page (I welcomed him initially) but it is for something which I can't help with. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mecha13 is being affected by a proxy hardblock. I've declined his request to have it removed, as it was just recently blocked and still appears to be open. He is a new user, and so I was wondering if an WP:IPBE would be in order. The only thing that worries me is that this isn't normally done for proxies unless there's a good reason for it, and Mecha claims not to know what a proxy is. Some opinions on this, please? Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael IX the White

    Resolved
     – Content dispute; reported user has been engaging in discussion on talkpage, nothing to see here

    //roux   17:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Michael IX the White this user is removing parts of the 2008 civil unrest in Greece article based on his POV when I prompted in his talk page why this was done? the user cited that : We do not have space enough for details. the page is already semi protected but I don't think that the users behaviour is correct according to WP:policy.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Whatever removed is justified in the talk page.
    2. This user, Sadbuttrue92 did not make any reference in the article talk page to this whatsoever, when any disagreement in changes should be done there.
    3. This user did not discuss with me in any possible way" why my edits seem POV to him.
    4. The article is way too long, and we have agreed in the talk page to shorten it.
    5. I've had no warning of this here.
    6. Personal attacks (with warning):[19],[20]

    --Michael X the White (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh, "WP:Policy". Anyway, I see nothing but a possible content dispute, and Michael seems more than willing to talk about it on the talk page. As far as I'm concerned, there is no admin action necessary at this time. Tan | 39 17:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/October 2008#User:A State Of Trance

    Since this last report was filed, this user has continued to behave disruptively. I reported the user at that time because I suspected that there a number of accounts being used by the same person for malicious activity.

    The outcome of this last item was that all four of the accounts that were suspected were indeed sockpuppets of the same user. User Rlevse blocked all of them indefinitely. I felt like that was an appropriate action to take considering the user's disruptive behavior, including the over-the-top vandalism of the very report that I had put together. These bits of vandalism to the WP:ANI report are clearly labeled in the subheading link above.

    Since that time, another user (SunDragon34) made a request to work with User:A State Of Trance so that that user wouldn't be indefinitely blocked. To my surprise this request was granted, and User:A State Of Trance was unblocked based on the notion that Sundragon would mentor A state of trance and that User:A State Of Trance would stick to one account. I saw no interaction between these two users after that request for unblock was granted. This bit of mentorship failed.

    Since then the user has made more multiple accounts. The most recent one is a malicious attempt to make an account that is ridiculously similar to my own account. In fact he's duplicated my personal userpage which goes against WP:UP#NOT #5. I don't know what the purpose is, but the user's failure to work with a more experience editor, and his failure to stick to one account is my reason for re-posting this user as a problem user.

    The new accounts that, in my opinion, should not have been made are:

    The account that attempts to replicate my own is:

    This behavior is so over-the-top that I am asking that the user be indefinitely blocked and the contributions made by User:E dog96 be removed permanently.

    I am attempting to build this encyclopedia, but more than half of my efforts go into cleaning up the poop and other unconstructive edits of others. This issue was temporarily resolved, then hosed again nearly immediately with that request for mentorship that failed.E_dog95' Hi ' 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked ADV45, Kaio-ken x10, E dog96 and re-blocked A State Of Trance. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hermaphroditus

    I attempted to create ʽἙρμάφρόδιτός as a redirect to Hermaphroditus because it is the Ancient Greek form, but I received a message stating that the title was on a blacklist. Would it be possible for an administrator to create it for me? Neelix (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done and fully protected since I'm pretty sure I know why that was on the blacklist. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AshrafRana, Arab/Israeli NPOV problems, bordering on political vandalism

    User:AshrafRana has been removing references to Isreali culture from various Middle-Eastern food articles, and replacing them with Arabic references. one of his first edit summaries mentioned "Zionist Occupiers". In one case, user replaced an "Israeli" photo with an "Arabic" photo. User then flatly rejected my attempt at NPOV ("lets just put in BOTH photos", I even put his first). and claimed that any reference to Israel in reference to these foods was not NPOV, regardless of numerous mentions of arabic culture in the same article. (for the record, I am not a member of either culture, and have never even tasted these foods). Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Left a warning. If this behavior continues unabated, then a block would be appropriate. Importing inflammatory political rhetoric into a discussion of photos used to illustrate various foodstuffs seems to violate WP:BATTLE. MastCell Talk 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Revision and log suppression now enabled for oversighters on enwiki

    Hi all. I'd just like to state this here, before people start to notice anyways. Brion has now enabled the Revision and Log Suppression functions on the English Wikipedia, and that this is currently available to oversighters only. You can see an example of it in action here. The official MediaWiki page is here.

    What this means to admins and other editors is that people can now report potentially libelous comments in move logs, block logs, etc to Oversight where they can be evaluated and removed according to policy. It's been a major issue that movelogs, etc cannot be oversighted when the contents of the edit summary are problematic. This issue has now been addressed with this function & personally, I'm absolutely delighted that this feature is now enabled here. Thank you, Brion! - Alison ❤ 23:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed; another tool in the armoury. In the last week I have seen Flagged Revisions move a step closer, today, AbuseBot doing what is is meant to be doing, and this is yet another indication that Wikipedia is maturing. Open editing is fine except when we do not adequately defend against viable threats. Goodwill of volunteers can be stretched, you know. --Rodhullandemu 23:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to see that it still leaves a timestamp in place to show that something loggable happened. That should help satisfy the paranoid wing - which is a good thing in this case. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given this basically means we no longer have to bug the developers to do the same task as we can now do ourselves, this sounds great. Daniel (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lol @ Rodhullandemu's comment given the thread below. ViridaeTalk 04:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Which is entitled Malfunctioning adminbot, and refers to a malfunction of AntiAbuseBot. Just noting that in case the archive bot changes the order of these two threads. Graham87 07:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hallelujah! I recall the incident that led to the changing of A7's deletion text in the drop-down menu and I recall all the libelous vandal pagemoves against Ledger; hopefully now I don't have to see them for ages. One question, though: How would one go about reporting a log change to OS? -Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 05:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you mean? If you find a movelog or a block log or whatev, with non-public, personal information or potential libel in it or even copyvio, just email Oversight with the URL to the logs. Simple as that. Note, too, that this is not just for logs but can also hide edit revisions, too - Alison ❤ 07:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC) (Thought you'd be pleased all right ^_^ )[reply]
    Thanks, Alison. That's what I mainly needed to know. (goes off to Heath Ledger, if Alison doesn't get to it first) -Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 07:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - by about four hungry oversighters, all at the one time :) - Alison ❤ 07:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Malfunctioning adminbot

    Resolved
     – Operator informed, account unblocked Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AntiAbuseBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just indefinitely blocked my old account IsleofPlan (talk · contribs) [21] for a minor formatting error [22]. Hope this isn't block evasion in posting here. IsleofPlan2 (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Log back in to your now blocked account and request a unblock there on your talk page using {{unblock|your reason here}}. Tiptoety talk 04:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He can't [23]. No warning, no block notice either. DuncanHill (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblocked. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot operator has been made aware of this - it seems this was a one-time thing that has now been resolved. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Undeletion for historical purposes

    I request that an admin restore the old history (from 2005 and 2006) to the Encyclopædia Dramatica and Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica articles. Please notify me if this is not the right board to post this.

    NOTE: I am not a troll and this is not meant in any way, shape or form for trolling. The request is entirely out of personal interest and for historical purposes. Egebwc (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You have a fascinating editing history. I find it highly unlikely that your request will be honored. Keeper | 76 05:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was a vandal from a long time ago, but these days I don't care about either Wikipedia or ED that much. I don't really plan to do anything here anymore. However, it would not hurt anything to restore the old history to that article: as I stated above, it is entirely out of personal interest and not in any way meant for harmful purposes. Egebwc (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Welp, I say no. Maybe someone else will say yes. You've given no compelling reason why, other than "historical purposes," the deleted history of one of our most controversial articles should be undeleted for your "personal interest." I'm leaving this to others, it's not at all entertaining. Keeper | 76 05:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any need to do this. Several versions of ED were deleted through discussion at AfD and so should not be restored. Unless there's a really good reason (and it would have to be REALLY good), the answer would be no. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no problem with restoring the page history. (Although I think Andrevan may have already beaten me to the punch.) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I just did so and merged the revisions from the "æ" version with the non-"æ" version. Andre (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So rather than showing the door to vandals, trolls and wiki-anarchists, we now give them what they want. I suppose it's an idea, but I'm not sure it's a good one. The history was of zero value, since a new sourced version was written. The request made absolutely no case for restoration, and there is some crap in there which I think we probably don't want. All this will do is facilitate any future attempts to revert to the deleted-as-crap version rather than the kept-as-marginally-notable version. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Replacing sourced information with unsourced information

    Hello! Could someone please take a look at Slavica Ecclestone article. A user keeps removing sourced information along with sources without explanation and replacing them with unsourced information. I assume good faith, but it's vandalism anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's going to be kept anyway, then it should include references. Surtsicna (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Needless hostility over edits

    I have been working on cleaning up , and one "project" I have been working on is making sure that the articles with {{1911}} on their talk page are tagged with {{1911}} at the bottom of the actual article (which is what is supposed to be done, as per the instructions on the templates' documentation pages). I am doing this because I had nominated {{1911 talk}} for deletion earlier in the week.

    User:Wetman, has, for reasons unknown, taken issue with this. I responded to his earlier message on my talk page, and he then launched a rather scathing set of responses on his own talk page. And as if that weren't enough, he then left me this joyous nugget of civility, which IMHO was completely uncalled for.

    I am a longtime editor with rollback permission, and I have contributed a large amount of content here, including starting over 100 articles. I don't think there is anything wrong with what I am doing here, which is why I told Wetman that he can undo my changes himself if he feels I was wrong about tagging anything. I just don't understand why I am getting this level of resistance and hostility when all I am trying to do is improve the encyclopedia and make sure attributions are noted. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 11:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=267384198"