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

DYK is almost overdue (remove this message once resolved)

In less than one hour Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the Next update if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo}} to the top of the page and save the page
4. When the next queue is good to go remove this entire message from the board

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKadminBot (talk) DYKadminBot is operated by Ameliorate! ^(talk)

Proposed standstill agreement on Bilateral Relations articles

There has been a huge amount of heat lately, and very little light, about articles named in the form "Foo-Bar relations" (hereinafter "FBR articles"), Foo and Bar being countries or adjectives derived from country names. This has led to divisive disputes at AFDs, DRVs, and across an assortment of talk pages. A discussion was formed at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force, but this has had limited success to date.

In summary, the same sets of people tend to show up at all the discussions, and some of them tend to !vote the same way on all discussions. This has the effect that the decision on any given FBR article, once nominated for AFD, depends on how many of each side show up to the discussion. If additional references are found in time, the discussion focuses on whether they are substantial, but because of the many ongoing discussions, views have hardened to the point that very little either side does convinces the other.

DGG and I want to jointly suggest that it would be a good idea to freeze all AfDs and related actions on these articles, and defer creating new ones. This is not meant to inhibit adding information to articles, working on deleted articles in userspace, discussing existing articles on their talk page, and discussing policy at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force. This would be enforceable as a community sanction.

This standstill, if agreed by consensus here, will apply up to and including the end of the month (UTC). During the standstill:

1. New AFDs and DRVs created on FBR articles are eligible for speedy closure with no action
2. New FBR articles created after the standstill is commenced are eligible for speedy deletion
3. Persons disruptively violating #1 or #2 are liable to be blocked for a short period
4. Existing AFDs and DRVs will be allowed to run off
5. Nothing in this inhibits improving existing articles or working on deleted articles or new articles in userspace

The principal objection to #1 above in the past has been that it would give free reign for non-notable content to remain in the encyclopedia. This may very well be true. However, the damage that the AFDs, DRVs, and other discussions are doing outweighs any potential damage caused by leaving potentially non-notable articles to exist for a month or two. Having seen the result of several such polarized topics in the past (Macedonia, Sathya Sai Baba, Ireland, route names, etc.), I am very keen to avoid this matter going down the same path.

Should it appear necessary to extend the standstill, this can be considered here shortly before the expiry.

Please consider not immediately going into support and oppose mode, in favour of a discussion as to the merits of this standstill. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

what exactly is the point of this standstill, what happens at the end of the month? Loosmark (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully people will discuss the issues and come to some sort of consensus on the notability of FBR articles and/or an alternative structure for them. I am going to be away for the next two or three hours but in the meantime I'm sure there'll be plenty more discussion. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is essentially a dispute over notability and sourcing guidelines, writ large. The best place to determine which of these should be retained is AFD. It is a mistake that wikipedia allow the creation of unsourced stubs of, in most cases, not even claimed notability, but that is the system at the moment. To both allow for the creation of unsourced stubs that quite frequently are not suitable for inclusion and not allow for an afd process on them (a process, i might add that skews in favor of retention since there are 3 possible outcomes, 2 of which yield the articles continued inclusion) is a rather radical departure from proven systems here, and for no clear need. To call something "disruptive" does not make it so. That people have strong feelings, one way or another, on this issue is not a good reason to shut down a process (and in service of nothing since all efforts to get consensus on this matter have failed). That there is a group of people who are more interested in this topic than average also does not seem a problem -- that's always the way wikipedia works. People work in the areas that interest them. There really is no problem here, and i don't see what the "damage" is. The various systems here should be robust enough to deal with issues of both individual editor conduct as well as determining what is, or is not, considered notable by the community. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I support this proposed standstill. To get a sense of how intense these disputes are getting, please note Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/The League of Extraordinary Deletionists and to see the problems with how some are "voting" in these discussions, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations#Article_copy_and_pasting. And we also had this recent incident. AfDs are being flooded by these nominations, renominations, and subsequent DRVs that are needlessly overwhelming our ability to focus on improving those that can be improved by forcing us to have to go back and forth in one AfD only to have them faced almost immediate renomination or DRVs. Why we would rather be a collection of AfDs and DRVs rather than articles that are relevant to someone always baffles me. Moreover, in these discussions, in loosely related MfDs and on user and article talk pages, the animosity among those saying to keep versus those saying to delete is escalating with little sign of decreasing. If Wikipedia does not have a deadline then there is no urgent need to rid us of all of these now, just as there is no urgent need to have to hurry up and create as many new articles as possible. Thus, I for one will not create any new bilateral relations articles during this proposed standstill, nor will I nominate any for deletion. If we do not take a time out from these disputes across multiple threads, I do not see how the participants will come to any understanding and how we will avoid an RfC and eventual ArbCom on bilateral relations. We should be here to build an encyclopedia. Let us stop the arguing and get back to improving our existing content in a mature and collegial manner. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - allowing the situation to cool down is certainly a worthwhile idea. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose immediate deletion of all unsourced stubs on this topic (no information is "lost" when it amounts to "x y relations are relations between x and y. Y has an embassy in z.") with no prejudice to recreation by any editor in good standing who sources and writes a proper start class article. In exchange, a one moratorium on the sourced x-y stubs can be declared, so that those who think these articles have merit can seek to improve them. I have no idea why any of this would ever end up at Arbcom or anywhere else. Again, when we have a system that allow sockpuppetss to serially and abusively create stubs, derailing the process by which the mess the sockpuppet created can be evaluated and dealt with (and an open, transparent process at that) is very much against the encyclopedia's best interests.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why we would want to force editors to start over when they already have a framework or foundation from which to expand. We should try to expand first per WP:BEFORE and then remove what we cannot. And yes, even if that takes years, that is no big deal as we hope to be around for years anyway. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily oppose it but I think that this standstill would only "move" the problem 1 month forward and then we would have exactly the same situation with the same "players" with the same attitude. Actually Bali ultimate hit the nail with his comment that the system should be robust enough to deal with these situations. At the moment it doesn't seems so maybe some modifications would be in order. Loosmark (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I would support this 100% if all the articles created by the banned user who cranked these out are removed from the main space first. Most of the discussions are between those of us who believe the subject of an article has to meet notability requirements and editors who think a collection of verifiable factoids constitutes an acceptable article. There are other complications but that's the primary issue. I don't think a moratorium on creating articles on a certain topic is appropriate nor do I believe it is appropriate to stop deletion of inappropriate articles, especially since no one has worked towards a solution on the real issue. I have a lot of respect for you, Stifle, but I can predict who will line up to support this or not. Drawn Some (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think some of the above commenters are missing the point of this standstill. This standstill has nothing to do with the suitablity of these articles for Wikipedia. The point is the escalating acrimony among the editors who are involved in this issue. The standstill would allow everyone to take a month and discuss the larger issue, gathering as much of a consensus as possible. Once a rough guideline has been formed on how to determine notability on these, then things can go back into motion, with individual AFDs determining how these articles meet the new guideline. While I hate instruction creep as much as anyone, new guidelines are written for exactly this reason: to provide a consensus document that people can refer back to in future discussions, whether they be WP:XFDs, move requests, or anything else. I think a standstill would be a good idea, so that the same identical issues aren't argued over and over in little discussions, but instead are addressed in a larger discussion where all interested parties can have input. That's my two cents, anyway. I like the idea of a standstill. I just hope a month is enough time to calm the raging waters. :)--Aervanath (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am generally no fan of the "sit still and wait" method of dealing with problems, but this is a special case. Given the vast number of articles, discussions, disputes and arguments covering the issue it is nearly impossible to centralize our efforts; there is little use in trying to tackle this issue piecemeal. Therefore I support the proposal of a cooldown period, so long as efforts to tackle this issue in a more centralized fashion are not stifled by the lockdown. Shereth 20:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's wider than just one user creating these. Too much effort has been expended on AfDs and all (as noted, often along party lines, and whichever side shows up in more numbers wins). It would be useful to let these all rest for a month or two. If they develop to include what editors (not all) consider notable content, then they live on. If they remain a stub, then they get AfD'ed for quick delete. All too often something is created and editors rush in to nominate for deletion, sometimes because they believe it deserves to be deleted, sometimes because they want to harass the editors they know don't think it deserves to be deleted. Support see comments further below PetersV       TALK 20:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's the problem in a nutshell, it's not enough for an article to have verifiable content, even notable content, the subject of the article itself has to be notable. That's the problem and a moratorium won't solve it. Drawn Some (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're hearing everything I said. The month is useful for an opportunity for notable content to be created—if there are notable items in a relationship then those should bubble up to the article/topic being notable. If content of a notable nature is not created, then after a month the AfDs come out again. The problem right now is that articles are being nominated because editors maintain the topic of a particular A-B relationship in and of itself is not notable. That is a personal, not editorial opinion. Only after content is created can a judgement of notability be made. There the moratorium will be a tremendous help. see comments below PetersV       TALK 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I understand exactly what your saying and it reinforces my point. Every day at AfD something like 100 articles are evaluated not on the basis of the content but on the basis of whether or not the subject of the article meets the notability guidelines in some way, most often through significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Frequently they are stubs and rarely are they big articles. The content is almost irrelevant. You can add 500 verifiable facts to an article and the subject still isn't notable. All of the bilateral relations articles are either notable or not, right now, today, regardless of content. AfD discussion determines which is the case. Waiting a month won't make any of them notable that aren't already. Drawn Some (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think the standstill is a good idea, but suggest that instead of speedy deleting any new entries, they be speedily userfied / projectified instead, so as to preserve the work of any editors who are unaware of the standstill. Part of the problem here is that there has not been enough consideration by the community before now about whether we should restrict ourselves to particularly noteworthy bilateral relations topics, or whether all such subjects are potentially worthy. The standstill would give a time for that discussion to take place, centralized, and publicized so that it draws in more than just the two active factions. Mangojuice^talk 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Vecrumba, I'm not sure you've really looked into this matter. Take a look at the article creation log for the indef-blocked sockpuppet Groubani (talk · contribs) here [1]. Also look at the total failure of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations which started sometime in the middle of April. Most of the articles have been around for a long time and there has been no "bubbling." In many cases where there has been bubbling, some of us feel that they are "puff-bubbles." (i.e. i once saw a reference that noted a passing similarity between costa rica and swiss banking laws that made "costa rica look like the switzerland of latin america" used in an effort to establish they had a notable bilateral relationship). There is no need for separate notability criteria for this class of article. The only reason this class has become "special" is because we tolerated serial, unsourced stub creation (it's amazing to me that we allow the creation of unsourced articles -- even BLPS -- every day by irresponsible editors) by a user making some kind of weird point. At any rate, an effort to create a special set of guidelines for these articles failed rather spectacularly, as any effort at the moment (not much time has passed since that resounding failure) will likewise fail. The answer is for users interested in the topic, to evaulate these articles on a case by case basis, with the outcome in some cases being deletin and others retention, just like every other article on wikipedia. I'm sorry people are upset that, well, that editors here might hold strong and opposing viewpoints. But wishing that away, or dismissing the real questions at play here about content guidelines as "disruptive" is not healthy for wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My response was based on my personal experiences in my neck of the "A-B relations". I did look through Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations since and I have to agree that as a whole it has been a spectacular failure. In all honesty, I did the math myself some time ago on the minimum number of articles (all combinations of U.N. members taken 2 at a time). I do have to observe that a more manageable solution might be—as has been suggested—"Foreign relations of A". Any significant relationship can be denoted with a "A-xyz relations" category being defined and noted for the article. That way one can answer "does Chile have any interesting relationship with Estonia?" without a Chile-Estonia relations article. "A-B relations" would revert to being reserved for those relationships which have merited significant scholarly study. PetersV       TALK 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes i agree that "a-b relations" articles should be "reserved for those relationships which have merited significant scholarly study." But you will never get consensus for this proposal at the moment. A number of people will even call you mean names for requiring that the topic of an article in and of itself be the subject of in depth coverage.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I also think a standstill is a great idea, since I believe (as do, I think, DGG, A Nobody, and others) that it is easier, more inviting, for editors to fill in the blanks, so to speak, than to start from scratch. That's how it works for me. The flood of AfDs prompted a bunch of people to get to work on the stubs with some decent results, but that initial enthusiasm to save them seems to have waned a little--certainly in my case. That these things were created en masse is unfortunate, of course, but these many, many nominations only antagonize editors. Let's leave them be. They're here, many of them are not great articles, many might be deleted later on. But let's leave it for now. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Some editors feel atagonized by the existence of non-notable "topics" unsupported by any reliable sources. Some other editors feel that any combination of x-y is, ipso facto, notable. Why should the AFD process be suspended to spare the annoyance of some, while adding to the annoyance of others? Is there some better community way for sorting out what should be included than afd? No one has proposed anything remotely workable in the months that this has been going on.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • • Cutting in here--Bali, you and I have butted heads on a couple of those, and have agreed on a few others. I personally take offense at unsupported articles, and I don't believe that every combination is notable. But it's a given that we have these stubs, and that apparently AfD is the only way to get rid of them (by deletion or by improvement--and I know that AfD is not for article improvement, but we all know that's how it often goes anyway). An AfD discussion should take some time, and I have not voted on a lot of them simply because I didn't have time to look into them. You may have noted that I did not copy and paste my answers, and have voted delete on quite a few of them. Oddly enough, I do agree with you that there probably is no better way than AfD--but if our interest is improving the encyclopedia, and if we agree that (at least some of) articles that were kept are now indeed worth keeping, and that improvement has come about precisely because stubborn editors (I won't name names, but I have been stubborn on occasion) have fought tooth and nail and have found and added sources and significantly rewritten articles *deep breath* well, if all that is true, then a slow trickle of those articles at AfD rather than a flood can only improve the project as a whole. Some will get deleted, some will be (improved and) kept. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think if anyone had stopped to do the math before thinking "A-B relations" were a good article to have, we wouldn't be in this mess. When articles are generated based on mathematical combinations and not topics explored in secondary source materials, nothing good is bound to come of it.
        In all of this I "voted" for Chile-Estonia as significant for my editorial reasons; that, based on "as long as we're going to have A-B relations articles, then there are items here of significance that merit being in such an article." If, on the other hand, that were a category (at best) and the normal thing to do was to document Chile-related items in a "Foreign relations of Estonia" article, that would have been just as fine.
         The mere existence of this type of article is what has led to the intractability of the morass.
         This issue can only be solved by appropriately combining the articles into the appropriate "Foreign relations of..." articles and then delete all A-B relations articles except, as mentioned, those involving areas of significant scholarly study. PetersV       TALK 21:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Drmies, you illuminate another problem: Wikipedia is created by volunteers and articles are created and improved because people want to do it, not because one user matches every object in a set to every other object in the set. 95% of the non-notable ones wouldn't have been created in the first place because they aren't notable and no one would have wanted to create them. The normal flow of article creation was interrupted by this one user in a cataclysmic event. Now we have all the articles to deal with. Why not move them out of the main space into user space and then let people work on them when and if they choose to do so? I don't have a problem with that at all. But some people don't want to let even one of these articles be deleted. Let's remember that they shouldn't exist in the first place and restore the status quo ante bellum by moving them out of the user space. Also, let's not forget that articles can be undeleted. Drawn Some (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I know, Drawn Some. But I'll say what I said before: a bad article is for many editors a reason to work on it. I would NEVER consider making something up out of whole cloth on, say, relations between Mexico and Belgium. (Never mind that I'm Dutch and am not supposed to care for the Belgians.) Yet AfD alerted me to the article, and it's really kind of interesting (the Belgians bringing beer to Mexico?), and I found a book (De Belgen en Mexico), and then Richard Arthur Norton, like a terrier, bit into the article and is not letting go... As I mentioned above, AfD is fine with me--I think it's fair, usually anyway, and for better or worse it's a forum of sorts. Yes, again, they probably shouldn't have existed in the first place, and maybe the majority of them might end up getting deleted, but they do exist, and my interest here is to make something good come out of it. Thanks, and I'll see you at the next one, I guess! ;)Drmies (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Full steam ahead on all fronts!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Time stands still for no one, not even a nobody. I don't think a work stoppage is enforceable. We're not a union. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What happened that made ChildofMidnight come out and speak up on a real topic? Ran out of bacon topics, did you? Drmies (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, I do not see why we should allow a handful of accounts to act as self-appointed policemen with regards to a certain type of article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My opposition to a break in the dispute is not adamant, only ardent. Consensus seems to be generally in favor of an informal peace. This will provide time to get started on the much needed multilateral relations articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

If anyone has read this far, then it will be obvious just what kind of deadlock this dispute is in: both sides are talking at or past each other, & not at all listening to one another. This is why, after a month, I walked away from this mess. I tried to propose that some articles in this genre were notable, yet had my efforts rebuffed. I would rather spend my time working on content than arguing endlessly in AfD. Maybe if we subject all of this to a 12-month moratorium, the less reasonable people in this dispute will get themselves banned from Wikipedia for their habitual misbehavior & the rest of us then can come to a consensus on this issue. -- llywrch (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I cuncur with Llywrch that a 12 month stop would be better. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "A-B relations" is unworkable because it is simply an unusable framework. To read about the "Foreign relations of X" one has to sift through a 100+ collection of stubs and articles? Think about it. I struck my earlier comments supporting the moratorium (which were based on my earlier more parochial experiences). We need an elimination, not a moratorium. PetersV       TALK 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• No one has suggested that they all need to be deleted or that none of them are notable. There are hundreds or maybe even thousands of them that are notable but that leaves thousands of A-B intersections that aren't. No one has said Colombia-Venezuela or Israel-Egypt or US-Mexico relations should be deleted. In investigating certain stubs I have been surprised at what I have learned. Drawn Some (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually a few accounts have said to delete Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations when the countries in question actually border each other, have been the subject or reliable, independent sources due to their border conflict issues. It is from such discussions as this example that some indeed are indiscriminately saying to delete pretty much all of them rather than working to improve them. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations is not a good example, it was originally created in good faith as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea and referring to the combined land mass [2]. Many in the AfD said this was a misdirected create and that they would not support Indonesia and PNG but rather Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations including me and I have since changed my vote to keep. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How much better would it have been instead of saying to delete initially to have just proactively moved it as I did and started the article that everyone seems to think is now an acceptable start instead? I never get why anyone would say someone should do something instead of just doing it his or herself when he or she is indeed capable and able to do so. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

of course that is possible, but if the AfD was originally listed as Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations it would have got a lot more keep even if it was a stub. In fact, that's the first X and Y article I've seen nominated, and it's not in the same class as X-Y relations. so let's forget this example. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we are urged to be WP:BOLD and what I did to improve this content I am confident my colleagues in the discussion are also capable of doing as well. Please remember that deletion is supposed to be a last resort per WP:BEFORE and as such, editors should try renames, merges, etc. first and then when all else fails take it to AfD. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • That's why we have a discussion at AfD, to share ideas and come to the right decision. Also, just because two countries share a border does not mean that their bilateral relations are notable. The relations probably are notable but we use Wikipedia guidelines on notability to make a determination. Once again your entire way of thinking about these things differs from the consensus of the editors of the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Fortunately, my way of thinking about these things is consistent with the majority of our editors and readers, which is why we have no need to kowtow to a minority viewpoint that is inconsistent with established consensus, which overwhelmingly suggests these notable articles are worth including here. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Knock off the cheap shots at other editors. Your reply above is strong evidence of Llywrch's comment that too many editors are stuck on the rightness of their position. Also, cowtow, not cowtail. ThuranX (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree that Drawn Some should not make cheap shots at other editors. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Har-har. I was talking to you. Stop baiting him. ThuranX (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
              • An editor should not bait another by saying that "your entire way of thinking about these things differs from the consensus of the editors of the encyclopedia," which any reasonable editor would respond to in at least the manner that I did, although many might respond much more harshly. I can only take seriously any comments that first takes issue with that initial post. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
                • For a guy who spends an awful lot of time monitoring others, you sure seem unable to be the bigger man when you are involved in something yourself. Be the bigger man, and move on. Besides, DS is bringing up issues as he goes, and it doesn't look like you're in a vast majority. learn to move on, or stop commenting so often on the behavior of others. Hypocrisy's a poor color for anyone to wear. ThuranX (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • Yes, his post probably should not have been dignified by a reply in the first place and it is exactly hypocrisy that concerns me, i.e. saying something to me while ignoring the initial less than civil comment I replied to in the first place. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
          • It's really "kowtow". Drawn Some (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Well, I agree with you on that one per Kowtow. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support All of these articles have possible value. Until we've established how useful we think that is, there's no reason to get rid of them one by one. Shii (tock) 22:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That really doesn't make much sense. Some of the articles have value and some do not. How do you propose we sort out which is which if not "one by one?" I have seen no one with a proposal for a new method yet that would have any chance of adoption. Does anyone have one? Bali ultimate (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point of the standstill: to remove everyone from the immediate "must rescue/must delete this article RIGHT NOW" attitude and give everyone some breathing room to calmly work on a consensus guideline for this.--Aervanath (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The obvious solution is not a standstill or moratorium but removing the articles from the main space. That eliminates all time pressure. People who want to work on them may do so as they are interested and at their leisure. If a non-notable article is introduced into the main space it can be brought to AfD as all articles are. The problem is we have hundreds of non-notable articles in the main space that were dumped there by a rogue editor now banned. Undo that damage that he caused. No one is hurt, everyone is happy. Drawn Some (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

About two months was spent on developing this white whale of a special conesensus guideline. And that conversation was an epic fail. Why would it be any different in anothe month? Special notability guidelines (which will never get consensus) aren't what's needed. What's needed is case by case evaluation, which is ongoing. Some hopeless articles have been deleted, some have been demonstrated to be notable (i.e. PNG-Indo, which will rightfully sail through afd with hardly any opposition) and some have muddled through as no consensus and will need to looked at again in six months or a year. This is all a good thing. Ostriching over the issue (and the meta issue of unsourced content more generally, and the way we're allowing original research to proliferate) will not help matters. Awright, i've said my piece enough on this thread.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does the United States have a full set of bilateral stubs based on the US State Department website, and the same rational is used to delete other smaller countries stubs? Wikipedia "contains elements of an almanac" according to Pillar I. What good is an almanac if it only contains information on the United States? We are supposed to be eliminating regional bias, not increasing it. An almanac just has to be verifiable, we accept all townships as notable on the same concept and use a dump of census data from the United States Census Bureau as the sole source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually support deleting many of those US-very small country stubs as most of them can be merged into Foreign relations of Smaller country X. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LibStar, every article on a topic not notable by Wikipedia guidelines should be eliminated from the encyclopedia. Wikipedia incorporates elements of almanacs but see WP:NOT#ALMANAC. Drawn Some (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#ALMANAC points to raw statistics. You do know what a statistic is right? It is some numerical value. I don't see this at all in any of the articles under discussion. This is another red herring. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That shortcut should be speedily deleted as it is inconsistent with our First pillar. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In reference to the above comment, I would like administrators to note that A Nobody has already proceeded to change wikipedia policies in order to suit his own interpretations, by simply deleting the section reference to WP:NOT#ALMANAC Drawn Some cited above: here and again here. Is it clear by now that some users are pushing a marginal interpretation instead of consensus by any means necessary? Dahn (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Who added that minority and consensus lacking viewpoint to Not in the first place as it clearly contradicts our much older and consensus backed Wikipedia:Five pillars. In any event, we cannot have contradictory policies and guidelines. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, everybody is wrong but you. I know the drill. Dahn (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Five pillars has said we are an almanac since it was created on 4 May 2005. Now looking at WP:NOT from the same time, I am not seeing anything about not being an almanac. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

1. No guideline has ever said "we are an almanac". 2. The claim about time precedence is ignoratio elenchi and special pleading, misconstruing the mechanisms driving wikipedia. I shall ignore it as such. 3. The entire text accompanying that caption, which is the result of consensus, still evidently contradicts your claim about the "almanac" importance of factoids. 4. Not seeking every possible input at the exact same moment is not the same as lacking consensus, but time can verify that consensus. As it has. 5. My part in this discussion ends here, because I sense it won't be long before A Nobody will start over again with the same arguments (as has happened in the past), and following that trail will leads nowhere. I posted this here for other users, preferably admins, to assess what's going on. If anyone needs further comments from me, let them contact me on my talk page. Dahn (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What consensus backed discussion has ever said we are not an almanac? Also, the disputed addition only appeared on 5 May 2009, i.e. a mere month ago. Earlier discussions, such as Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_9#Not_an_Almanac.3F and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_1#Is_Wikipedia_an_almanac.3F and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_25#Wikipedia:_Almanac_or_not.3F hardly reveal any consensus supporting a notion that we are not an almanac. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody, the First Pillar of Wikipedia itself contradicts you. It says Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of... almanacs.... Elements of is important. If you're going to refer to text make sure it actually supports what your are saying, people are familiar with things and some even check on sources. Drawn Some (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It also says we incorportae "elements" of encyclopedias, so by your logic, we would "not" be an encyclopedia either. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#ALMANAC was a redirect using the wrong synonym to point to Wikipedia is not raw statistics. No almanac I know of is comprised of raw statistics, all info is in tables and comes with explanatory information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: 12 months? That is absurd on its face. A year of leaving non-notable articles in place? No thank you. A shorter date might be agreeable, but 12 months? Come on. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

• Support my own proposal. Stifle approached me about this early yesterday on my talk page, and I was delighted to agree; I suggested some modifications in wording, not in principle, which he accepted. He and I tend to disagree about standards of notability and quite a number of other things, but from any reasonable point of view the situation was becoming intolerable. I can accept if necessary an encyclopedia with most of these deleted; I hope Stifle can accept one with most of them kept; what neither of us can accept is an encyclopedia with a random selection of them. Nor do we want to devote the bulk of our energies on WP to arguing about this particular group of articles. At present the settlement of these depends mostly on how much pressure the various sides exert, on on the very varied personal view of whoever chooses to close, and neither of these is sensible. The only people who would oppose finding some means of accommodation here are those who would rather get their own way on some articles, however few, than accept a consistent compromise, and that does not help build a good encyclopedia. In practice the arguments at present depend on whether particular sources found are important enough, but the views expressed on that depend not on the facts of the actual case, but the general idea of keeping or deleting the articles. As I see it, whether the sources are significant depends upon the intended scope of these articles--whether to accept relations in the broad sense or interpret it as formal diplomatic relations only, and if we approach it this way, we may yet agree. We must have a rational procedure for resolving stalemates other than mutual exhaustion. That is what we have used in the past, and I hope nobody will support continuing that way, because it decision essentially by trial by ordeal, more specifically ordeal of the cross. I'd rather lose arguments than have them decided that way. Civilized people rejected that method of decision in more important matters many centuries ago. It's time we followed suite. DGG (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying is not untrue but it misses the essence of the situation, that a bunch of articles were created without consensus and contrary to our normal flow of article creation and they were dumped into the article space and many of them are on non-notable topics and shouldn't be in main space. It would be better to remove them all from the main space to eliminate the time pressure and work on them at our leisure and on the ones we are interested in as we normally do. All of our processes and guidelines support that normal process and the problem is not with the process but with the dumptruck full of ill-conceived articles dumped into it. Remove that mess. Drawn Some (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am inclined to view this proposal favorably. The AfD process is perfectly suited to deal with articles on an ad hoc basis. This is fine for the normal random mix, but it can break down under the weight of sheer numbers. There is no good reason to burden that system with constantly re-deciding what is essentially one issue. As the proposers of this respite point out, the outcome of the AfD discussions currently is not a function of which articles truly are notable, but instead a function of who shows up to argue on a particular case. The repetitive nature of these discussions has the effect of self-selecting for the editors who feel most strongly about the subject, to the exclusion of those who have not become so firmly entrenched. I think it is worth a break to try to engage some of this latter class of editors into the process, and hope for a new perspective. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• A comment from a completely non-involved editor: I haven't commented on a single A-B relations AfD, nor do I have any real opinion on whether these articles are generally good or generally bad. I have read some, but by no means all, of the discussion on this topic and would like to offer a neutral observation.

First of all, some sort of calming of the situation is needed. There is no way anyone can cognitively evaluate dozens of relations a day (as has often sent to AfD). Not surprisingly, given the volume of AfDs, people on both sides will fall back on standard arguments and not truly evaluate the case at hand. Further, both sides are so entrenched in their view that any attempts to provide evidence in a particular case will mostly just be dismissed by the other side. The community is definitely not served by rehashing the same basic argument hundreds of times. At the current pace, good editors are bound to burn out and leave the project entirely.

Second, this thread is strong evidence of how deeply the conflict runs. People on the "delete most" will largely argue that a moratorium is bad unless the "junk stubs" are deleted first. People on the "keep most" side will argue against any attempts to move "junk stubs" outside of article space. As someone who doesn't really care if these stay or go in the end, I would say there is very little harm leaving things the way they are until people have had a chance to cool down. Wikipedia's default policy normally is to keep things the way they are when there is a dispute.

Third, a break from the daily AfDs might not resolve the problem, but it couldn't hurt. When a page is being edit warred over, we protect the page to force discussion. While not an identical situation, of course, I feel it would be a good idea to force discussion into one location, rather than hundreds of AfDs, for now. Without the pressure of "saving" or "removing" A-B "right now", there is at least some chance that the situation will calm itself and the sides can start working towards a reasonable compromise.

Now, some will say the stubs harm Wikipedia, or stopping the normal process harm Wikipedia. They may be right, but I feel far greater harm will come if the situation is continues on its current path. Wikipedia has no deadline and waiting a little bit to give the situation a chance to calm itself down is highly advisable, In my opinion. Thus I support the proposal as written. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2009 (aUTC)

You're greatly overestimating the number of bilateral relations AfDs daily.

6/10 - 2

6/9 - 4, one of which was shut down procedurally even though the relations are non-notable [3]

6/8 - 3

6/7 - 2

6/6 - 1

6/5 - 3

6/4 - 2

etc.

So the problem is not fatigue caused by evaluating "dozens" daily.

Neither is the conflict over bilateral relations articles, it's over whether or not Wikipedia guidelines for notability should be followed or whether anything verifiable should be in the encyclopedia.

If the default is to keep things the way they are, it should be the state prior to the dumping of hundreds or thousands of articles on non-notable subjects into the main space by a now-banned editor. When vandalism is committed the default isn't the state of vandalization, it's the state prior to the act. Same principle should apply here. Move the articles out of main space if you want to stop action on them but don't interrupt Wikipedia's processes in an attempt to "fix" an interruption of Wikipedia's processes, that's only compounding the damage. Drawn Some (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support with the proviso that someone get to work on developing Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations) during the month-long freeze. I am normally adamant against the creation of new notability sub-guidelines, but even I have my breaking point. We need community driven guidance, and while WP:N should be enough, it clearly is not else we would not be here right now. What the community needs is a clear set of guidelines as to which sets of articles are likely notable and which are likely not, or else this will all just start up again when the editing freeze ends in a month. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This appears to be an attempt to do an end-run around the results (or, to be precise, lack thereof) at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. There is no consensus at all that a notability guideline is needed (see, for example, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations#What's the matter with WP:N? and no clear views on what such a guideline should include. By definition, guidelines have no hope of being completed or adopted if editors don't think that they're needed and can't agree on their content. As such, there's no reason to suspend AfDs to facilitate something which isn't going to happen. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support—Provided that the freeze is time-limited, the moratorium on creating new X-Y relations stubs/articles is vigorously enforced, and AfDs that already in progress when the freeze comes into effect are allowed to run their course. These are all element of current/original Stifle-DGG proposal, and losing any of them would be a deal breaker for me. I would add that for AfDs already running if & when the freeze is affected, the existence of the freeze should not be considered a valid reason to !vote keep, and closing admins should disregard any !votes using this logic.

  Also, I do not support a freeze solely for the sake of a freeze. Let's use this time to draft some binding notability guidelines or at least try. I realize there is currently a large chasm between two camps, but I think that if we can come to some agreement around the edges, it will still be better than the current situation even if we still leave a large gray area in the middle . So a suggestion: rather than formulate competing sets guidelines, none of which are likely to stand much of chance of gainng consensus, perhaps we could come up with an array of elements of a guideline, and !vote on each one seperately. At the end of the freeze, which ever elements have consensus would become the guideline. That guideline would probably still have a huge gray area, and there would always be a need to deal with some, maybe most, pairings on a case by case basis, but I believe it would be better than what we've got now, which is just the WP:N. (WP:N would still apply, but the emergent guideline for X-Y relations would hopefully help apply WP:N to these specific cases.) Some examples elements of a guideline that I hope would gain immediate consensus include:

• In general, X-Y relations are not inherently notable.
• Relations between any two countries that share a land border are alway notable.
• Relations between states that, in modern history (20th century), were formerly part of the same country are always notable, i.e. relations among former Soviet states with one another, or relations between states that were formerly part of Yugoslavia.
• Websites of X & Y's governments can generally be used verify facts in an X-Y relations article, but coverage of the topic of X-Y relations in these sites does not, by itself, establish notability of the topic.
• Relations between countries having fought a war are generally notable, with the exception of fighting as part of a multination coalition. For example, the Falklands war is enough to establish that British-Argentine relations are notable, but that the fact Polish troops were part of the coalition in Iraq does not, by itself, establish that Poland-Iraq relations are notable.
• Etc.

So I think getting consensus on as many little points like these as possible would be useful. There's a lot a gray area in WP:N and disagreements about how to interpret it. Even if the exercise only narrows that gray area a little and/or clarifies it only slightly, I still think we'd be better off for it. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose There was already a lengthy discussion on what to do with the information in these pitiful stub articles without actually keeping pitiful stub articles on Wikipedia. Most of this work of merging was spearheaded by User:Ikip, but unfortunately he seems to be on an enforced wikibreak for several weeks, so I don't know the status of it or who's taken up the task in the interim. In any case, even then, bringing up articles with valid concerns against them to AfD was never decided to be suspended by concensus, and I see no reason to do so here, given the ability of these articles to be userfied or the ability of users to merge the (scant) information to another article within the week provided. I see no compelling reason not to continue to bring up these articles at AfD, only to end their creation. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The wikiphilosophical drama surrounding these articles is a waste of time only for those who choose to participate in it. Individual AfDs are a perfectly suitable forum in which to address the issue of their inclusion. Closing admins can give proper weight to the arguments expressed, so bloc voting should in principle not be a problem. We will probably end up with an encyclopedia with a random selection of them, as DGG fears, but these will tend to be the more notable or otherwise interesting ones, so I'm inclined to see this as a feature rather than a bug.  Sandstein  17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• We need to do something. Editors concerned with this matter are dividing into mutually-opposing camps, and it's having an unnecessarily divisive effect.

  Normally I would agree with Sandstein, but the trouble is that the results of the AfDs are not being accepted by either side. Instead, we have significant numbers of them ending up at DRV or being inappropriately relisted at AfD (in one recent case, less than a month after closure as "keep"!) because there's a determination among some parties to see these articles destroyed or killed with fire, and a determination among other parties to retain them, at any cost.

  What I'm saying is that this content issue is in danger of becoming a very messy conduct issue and inaction will not do.

  Also, inaction leaves us open to future editors repeating a similar exercise for purely disruptive purposes.

  So if you don't like the Stifle/DGG proposal, come up with a better one that doesn't involve trying to cope with the whole morass of articles via one of the usual routes.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose (as if it wasn't clear, but since we're in "It's not a "vote" it's a "!vote" mode...). Sandstein i think puts it very well. There is no better system for hashing out these kinds of disputes than the one in place. The insistence that i come up with some better system to replace this one because it's "messy" seems to misunderstand the fundamental messyness of people when they disagree. These disputes need to be aired and debated. And not airing and debating them in well-established (albiet creaky and imperfect) forums is a terrible idea.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Warn and then topic ban disruptive editors Continually ignoring Wikipedia consensus as expressed in notablility guidelines is disruptive and shouldn't be tolerated. Editors are free to disagree with guidelines and to try to change them but to continually disregard them at AfD in order to interrupt the process of deleting articles on non-notable topics should be grounds for a topic ban from the AfD board. WP:NOTE is very clear about the need for article topics to be notable. Let's stop pretending that a break or process change will solve the problem. We have a bunch of articles that are on non-notable topics and they need to be removed from the article space. If an editor tries to interfere with that process by ignoring consensus, warn and then ban. Drawn Some (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Because the problem really isn't an intractable one over nationalistic or ethnic feelings, but that two groups have gotten themselves stuck together like two mountain goats who have locked horns. Both sides simply need to walk away from this for a while, work on something else, then return refreshed & with a clean slate. I offer proof of this with one example: a while ago I created Ethiopia-Qatar relations because I found I honestly could not create it. (Unrelated to this dispute, I have been trying hard not to create any new articles; for the most part, I have succeeded.) Then someone I exchanged heated words with, LibStar, saw the article, and improved it. I left a note thanking him for it, & we've been able to collaborate more or less successfully on the article since then -- which is the ideal of Wikipedia. (The irony of this instance is that much of the content of the article is duplicated in 2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden, where it could be argued it makes more sense -- or Ogaden -- & in a less hostile environment we could have an amenable discussion about a possible merge.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• • The purpose of our suggestion is to not change the general rules for resolving disputes over article notability, or changing the deletion procedure. Normally, I;d tend to agree with Sandstein's overall position: the WP concept of deciding article by article has merit--it prevents a small cadre from trying at some obscure policy decision to foreclose debate on a general matter. Small groups may be best for deciding technical matters, but then whatever they do needs to be exposed by the community and supported by it. Similarly in the opposite situation, in cases where the need for a supermajority prevents making formal policy, as for schools, the practical consistent decisions at individual article discussions can be effectively broadly supported policy. This suits me fine personally, because normally I am much more willing to do immediate time-limited advocacy than trying to fine-tune rules in interminable policy discussions which come to no stable conclusion.

But this is an exceptional situation. The sheer number of these articles prevents rational action. The quantity that are likely to be nominated for deletion and come to AfD greatly exceeds those we have already dealt with. The creation of these articles in this manner was wrong from the start, but given their presence , we must deal somehow with them. A method of sorting that gives 10% error is tolerable--actually I doubt AfD routinely does much better than that. sa method that gets 40% of them wrong is not much better than random, and not worth the detailed and extensive effort this is taking from dozens of people. In much simpler cases, this could perhaps be dealt with by batch nominations, but it has turned out in every batch proposed that some of two of them were much differently notable than the others & it can't really be decided without detailed work on sourcing each of them--sometimes discouragingly without success. This is not a fundamental dispute over the level of notability, but a question about a new type of article for which the old ways don't seem to work very well. The obvious thing to do would seem to be devise new ones. Not that I expect to like the new ones 100%, and neither would Stifle, but we can agree on something better. One cannot reach a compromise while the matters subject to compromise are unreasonably vanishing or unreasonably being kept, and where each decision reasonable or not is appealed individually. There are 3 rational things to do: throw them all out & wait till someone does them right, keep them all in and hope that someone does them right, or figure out how to sort them into those capable of rapid improvement and those incapable. This is not a topic I really care to work on personally, and I'd be glad of almost any stable compromise. The point of this is to free up AfD for the things we need to do there individually. DGG (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I only support this till June 30 and a review thereafter if issues resurface again. I do not agree that somehow during this time (or longer), a new bilateral notability guideline will be magically developed given that 2 months ago people tried to and it got nowhere. I think it would be really difficult to get any consensus on a guideline. So I support this solely for people to calm down and get over it. I do not support attempts by stop nominations from any other process except gaining consensus here or WP:SANCTIONS. I do not support any admins taking matters into their own hands and unilaterally starting to block people for nominating AfDs without community consensus. So on that token, if this proposal fails, people should feel free to nominate for deletion or create as per usual. I will however abide by any decision reached by clear consensus here. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support I agree with everything Drawn Some has written, but I still would be happy to have a break to see if some better strategy can be determined. I would like some forum to be established where DGG and Stifle could moderate a discussion (please). There is no point in having a long is so vs is not hands-over-ears argument. Instead, I suggest a page with a Reasons to keep section that is edited by those in favor of keeping (no signatures; just edit to achieve the best argument), and another Reasons to delete section to be edited by those opposing. I would pick just one or two examples to discuss, say User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations. Perhaps something could grow from that? I suppose those who want to keep many of the X–Y relations articles are frustrated with people like me who repeatedly say that a particular relation fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. But I am more frustrated because I don't see any response from the keepers other than to add a few more sourced factoids, then say that the source is notable, so the factoid and the relation must be notable also. There is no attempt by those supporting the articles to engage in what "notable" actually means, or to say what their favored outcome is (18,000 X-Y articles?). For example, there are no "keep" arguments at User_talk:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg_relations. So I want one page where one set of arguments can be tuned, and we'll what is the best from each side, and whether some compromise is possible. Johnuniq (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support We need a wikipedia wide vote on the rules. As it is now, the policies and guidelines are determined by whatever small group of people can camp out there arguing the longest and get their way across. What you end up with, is the same arguments being made at the same types of AFD, this time national relationship articles. Sometimes they are kept, sometimes not, depending on whoever is around at the time to form a consensus, and the opinions of the closing administrator. Some wish to delete things outright, while others say leave them be, and others may expand on them over time. Some claim government websites shouldn't be used as references, because they don't trust governments, even when its just an announcement of a treaty which isn't something any nation would actually ever possibly have a reason to lie about. Some believe one nation once being a colony of another, and strongly influenced by them culturally is a notable relationship, while others do not. Same for economic treaties, one nation's troops inside another nation for peacekeeping or other reasons, and etc. Different opinions. We need to decide on what is acceptable, and what is not, before moving forward. Dream Focus 09:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support We're having the same argument at WP:Afd every time. Then re-arguing it at WP:DRV. The policy obviously needs to be clarified. I think we should try to resolve what the words "significant" and "trivial" with regard to sources in the notability policy really mean because that's where I see most of the problems arising. Is a visit by a head of state significant? Is the creation of an embassy? A big football game? Organizationally speaking, would this information fit best on a foreign relations article, a state to state relations article, or a specific article about that visit or embassy or football match? Is it against policy to have all three or is it just an aesthetic judgment? These things should have been clarified months ago but were not. In the interim, the Afd discussions have continued, resulting in a large amount of well sourced information being deleted (when it could have been merged but was not) and the acrimony between editors has increased. The pressure, on both sides, to just add votes instead facts to the Afd discussions has increased with the tidal wave of deletion nominations. This flood also prevents adequate research from being conducted to save worthy articles by the Article rescue Squad.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no flood of articles. I listed the numbers for the last week above and it is less than three a day, usually one or two. This perception that there is some huge number or that our process is flawed is not based in reality. Drawn Some (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

tidal wave? how about the super mega mega tidal wave of Groubani in producing 100s if not 1000s of stubs that has soaked up weeks of editors' time in cleaning it up? Groubani was only stopped after being banned for excessive stub creation. If Groubani actually researched which were notable or not, we wouldn't have this problem. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support: the crux of the problem here is insoluable without wider concensus on if these topics are notable or not. The issue here is that one group of editors is convinced they are inherently not, and therefore can accept no outcome but delte, while another group of editors is convinced they are, and can accept no outcome but keep. This has devolved into a drive to nominate all such articles to be deleted and vote them up/down as quickly as possible so the otherside can't "win". The utter failure of the two group's attempts at compromise shows this issue must be taken out of their hands entirely, and a wider community concensus developed on these articles as a class. Note, that if this pause is not used by uninvolved editors to develop such a concensus (and the willingness to enforce it thereafter) this silly battle will just start up again. T L Miles (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support for one month. Beyond 30 days I would oppose. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support...kinda I opposed a blanket moratorium when it was proposed on WT:AFD (or someplace like that), because it seemed to me to be a tactical tool against opposition and a demand for inclusion masked by a call for consistency. I'm still worried that a similar freeze will result in the same outcome, but I don't really like the alternative. I will say that freezing these AfDs/articles and getting some centralized discussion will not resolve the dispute. I hate to shatter expectations here but the dispute isn't so much about the articles as it is about a philosophical stance regarding wikipedia. The articles themselves (like E&C articles before them and pokemon before them) are the impetus. we will not, at the end of 30 days, be any closer to agreement on where a line should be drawn demarcating the encyclopedia. At worst, we will sanction people who ignore this freeze and consider ourselves better off (the traditional DR result). At best we will come to some local agreement which respects BOTH sides as bringing points to the table. This "full speed ahead" crap or this "I think that nothing should be deleted" crap needs to be left out if any progress is to be made. I'm not optimistic, given that BOTH sides of the inclusion debate merrily torpedoed our last attempt at an amicable compromise over notability. But me being optimistic is not a necessary condition for action. Protonk (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support suspending this ongoing battle I'm not bothered if this is for twelve or two-hundred months but this ongoing battling at AfD, DrV et al is draining on the community and forcing them to civilly engage or desist seems the best option. There are hundreds of articles in these groupings and by the looks of things at leats a few editors won't be happy until they can remove everyone they don't approve. I have little doubt we'll soon see a merging war as well so please consider a moritorium on that as well. Staying just within community standards is actually still violating the spirit of why we have standards including guidelines and policies. -- Banjeboi 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support I propose that we form a committee of 2, DGG and Stifle, and let them come up with a way forward during those 30 days. (Oh, wait, they have lives elsewhere, damn). Seriously though, I do think the two of them could come up with something reasonable in a few hours. I personally think WP:N is the right way to go here. But the block voting is killer. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal

How about a mass-removal of all these articles from the mainspace into a special userspace where those who like these articles can work on them in the meantime? They can be moved into the mainspace when some reasonable criteria are agreed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You want to move all of them? That sounds like it'll complicate matters. I don't think anyone could realistically think that Russia-United States relations should be temporarily erased from a main article space and it will never happen. There would just be a fruitless discussion about which articles should be moved that would mirror the current discussion about which articles should be deleted. I oppose this proposal.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support I offered the same proposal and support it. It completely eliminates the problem and everyone is happy. The non-notable articles are out of the main space and none are deleted so if anyone wants to work on them they can. We don't even need a special userspace, I volunteer mine and I'll be glad to help move the articles. I should be able to do about two a minute or over 100 an hour so it is doable. Drawn Some (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Question some of them are perfectly OK by anyone's conceivable standpoint with respect to notability, eg Iraq – United States relations, so I suppose you mean that this be done instead of deletion in all cases? Or just that closers consider this more frequently? DGG (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's articles should remain in one place, one namespace. There are no special cases to be made for certain classes of articles; forking is not a solution. (You could create a bilateral relations wiki if you'd like, though.) Cenarium (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Many articles are drafted in userspace or project space. If the subject is notable the article should be in the mainspace, if the subject is not notable the article should be deleted, if the notability is unclear but there is a reasonable possibility it could be established through further editing, the article should be in user space or project space. In this case it would seem that project space would make the most sense. In fact we have WikiProjects with this in their scope, viz WikiProject International relations. Maybe a subpage or even a subproject of that project would be a good place to move these. Instead of a moratorium, we could continue with the current process but when an AFD consensus is unclear or particularly contentious move the article to project space for further work. When enough sources are available it could be moved back to the mainspace.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but in those cases, project space or user space is used as a sandbox for creating articles, or a workplace for improvements. There are a few wikiprojects doing that, but they plan to move the content in mainspace eventually. Doing so couldn't address the issue of notability for those 41 209 potential articles, anyway, which is the main problem. Cenarium (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in your assessment of the problem. You need to divide by two for the potential number to account for Greece-Italy and Italy-Greece not being separate articles. The actual number is much lower. You may not realize that these articles were created by a now-banned user. Removing the articles from the main space would restore the status quo before that vandalism. Drawn Some (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually it makes 20 503 articles by excluding relations with oneself (with 203 states, based on List of sovereign states). But that would be much work to move them somewhere else. And I don't see how it would address the main problem, their notability and the ensuing disputes, and there's the problem of which ones should be moved, I'm sure people would disagree and we may have arguments and maybe even move wars over this. Limiting the number of AFDs to give time to improve or merge those articles would be a better solution, in my opinion. Cenarium (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Zelenoff/Vintagekits

I would like to bring to your attention Vintagekits (talk · contribs) edits to the Charlie Zelenoff article and subsequent behavior. It's a spoof article that was just deleted for the third time. I was not aware at the time that two other editors had already separately deleted the article before I stumbled upon "see also" links to the article on a notable MMA fighter page (Kimbo Slice). Vintagekits claims he is not the UCLA student using the alias Charlie Zelenoff in a quest to become an internet sensation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Zelenoff&action=edit&redlink=1

Charlie Zelenoff is supposedly a notable boxer, however, upon investigation I found that the he only had 1 spoof fight that went half a round before he gave up against a fighter with a losing record. Vintagekits left a note on my page making it clear that we will have to endlessly delete the Charlie Zelenoff spoof page. He seems quite eager to continue wasting editors time.

Here is what he wrote on my talk page:

"I'll take it that you actually havent got an answer as opposed to not wanting to continue the discussion. I think you are mixing up the terms "spoof" and "non-notable". In a !vote of 4:3 it has been deemed that at this moment he is not notable. However, with an upcoming fight next month there will be more material on Zelenoff and the likelihood that the article will be recreated. Personally, I look forward to it!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)"

I'm the third editor who has had to deal with vintagekits on the Charlie Zelenoff article alone. I believe he may have a second editor alias that he uses to agree with himself by the name of LiamE (talk · contribs)

I've encouraged him to move onto greener pastures, but he seems intent upon being a disruptive force on Wikipedia and reposting articles that have been deleted multiple times. I propose that he be banned from editing the Charlie Zelenoff page and that a quick search be done to see if he's using multiple editor names to create a false consensus. Lordvolton (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you want to be careful who you are accusing of what there matey. I think your lack of assumption of good faith on my part and that of Vintagekits does you no favours. A quick glance at the edit histories of myself and Vintagekits would assure any sane person that we are most certainly seperate individuals. As for your assertions that Zelenhoff's fight was a "spoof" I think you need to look a bit closer at the facts of the matter. The fight was reffed by a professional judge who has reffed fights for the likes of Bruce Seldon, Donny Lalonde and Iran Barkley and was licenced by the state board. It was, most certainly, a pro fight. Furthermore your dismissal of his notability flies in the face of the great deal of internet chatter about him. I have seen a single forum discussion thread on him with over a third of a million hits and something like 55000 replies. Now I realise most of the chatter centres around how remarkably bad he is at his chosen profession but the fact he is more infamous than famous should not be a bar to having an article on him. If it were we should go ahead and remove articles on Eric Crumble and Eddy the Eagle for starters. Now, I won't recreate the article as it was deleted but it is only a matter of time before someone else recreates it as it is exactly the sort of thing that some people will look to find here. The deleted article was factual and sourced and pretty well written. He is a current pro boxer with another fight lined up. How many fights will he have to have (and most probably lose) before you accept he warrants an article? --LiamE (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• A. I am not quite sure what exactly I am being accused of here to be honest. is he saying I am Zelenoff?
• B. One point that sticks out is that Lordvolton doesnt seem to know the difference between "non notable" and "fake"/"spoof". Its something I have asked him to explain on a number of occasions without success. One thing that cannot be argued is that Zelenoff exists!.
• C. I participated in the recent AfD of Zelenoff and the closing admin made some rather interesting analysis which I dont really consider valid but hey-ho thats the way it gos sometimes. I have no problem with that and actually had a rather muture discussion with him here about it.
• D. Actually it was Lordvolton that nominated Zelenoff for deletion. Again I have no problem with that - the guy (Zelenoff) is an idiot and has had only one fight and lost that - so he is entitled to do that. However, what he also did whilst the AfD was proceeding was remove all the redirects and references to Zelenoff on other pages. He was asked to stop this and explain his actions on two occasions, here by Willking and here by me but continued and never answered. Infact I really struggle to have any kind of policy based discussion with the guy and find him pretty irrational (like I find being reported here for this a little absured!). I am not sure I could have interacted with the guy in a more patient and balanced manner.
• E. I notice that this seems to be a recurring theme with Lordvolton who seems to consider AfD as personal attacks. In the last AfD he was involved in that it followed a similar pattern and that he was blocked for incivility and warned about canvassing.
• F. It reminds me of the situation with Kimbo Slice when that article was AfD twice prior to sufficient secondary sources worked there way through to mainstream media - the difference being that Slice is pretty good and Zelenoff is embarrassingly bad. What does this LordZolton guy want? a complete ban on the article ever being created again? That isn't going to happen in my opinion - Zelenoff has a second professional fight coming up next month and hopefully there will be new sources that come forward to justify an article - if not then it will stay deleted. I would be happy if more and better sources do come forward. Until then he will just have to stay an internet forum hero.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As the admin who closed the Charlie Zelenoff AFD, I think I'll add a few comments. I have no evidence that either Vintagekits or LiamE have behaved inappropriately here. While they disagreed with my closure of the AFD, and quite strongly, both of them were civil about it, and have abided by the decision. The deletion log does not show any recreation of that article since the AFD was closed.

The first deletion was an A7 speedy delete, and recreating an article which does assert notability is routine practice. DGG who deleted the article a second time made a selective restoration of the article upon request, so I see no edit-warring or other inappropriate behavior there either.

I gather that Vintagekits and LiamE have an interest in reposting an article when the person becomes more notable (i.e. fights more matches), which is an accepted Wikipedia practice although a draft in userspace for community review is perhaps the best approach.

There is clearly a measure of disagreement on whether "internet fame" is a sufficient grounds for calling someone notable, as well as whether boxers like Mr. Zelenoff who are officially "professional", yet have not produced results which they can build a career on. In the AFD I closed, I felt the consensus, as well as the arguments, supported deletion; but it was not a unanimous decision. The people who argued to keep the article were not being stupid in their arguments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sjakkalle, I will create a Zelenoff page in my user space and as and when new sources come to hand I will add them. I will then give you and the Boxing Project a heads up as to when it is in a fit state to be recreated and discuss uploading it again then. p.s. thanks for your input. --Vintagekits (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion a few thousand views on a YouTube article is not "internet fame". Simply stating there is "disagreement" doesn't answer the question of whether that disagreement is reasonable. One of the YouTube comments states that everyone has been duped and that the whole thing is a hoax, a hoax perpetuated by Vintagekits on Wikipedia. A student at UCLA working on a school project who fought half a round against a guy who with 1 win and 13 losses is not notable. The question we have to ask is why Vintagekits would work so hard to post and repost an article for this UCLA student? This is not debate about whether Vintagekits invests incredible amounts energy defending his actions after the fact -- he seems to enjoy exploring the limits of notability and the patience of other editors. The facts are far more important than the fervency of his defense.

There are scores of legitimate fighters with a single fight who lost. They're also not notable even if they have a YouTube video of that loss. To defend his actions Vintagekits references Kimbo Slice, an MMA fighter who has fought for EliteXC and appeared on CBS. Kimbo Slice now fights for the UFC. But let's assume Vintagekits had a basis for his unfair comparison, which is YouTube.

Kimbo Slice has millions of views of actual fights prior to his MMA career. Tbe UCLA student posing as Charlie Zelenoff has 20,000 views of a media experiment for class with a lot of negative comments. That's just a blatant attempt at failed self promotion which is continued here on Wikpedia - Vintagekits even promotes this activity by creating "see also" links on the Kimbo Slice page. There are plenty of other fighters with losing records who Vintagekits is not constantly creating article for in the state of Arkansas. Why Charlie Zelenoff? The comparison itself is flawed since Kimbo Slice was not attempting to create a spoof and participated in street fights for money -- not in a boxing ring for half a round as a hoax.

Vintagekits tells us he thinks Charlie Zelenoff is an idiot, but his actions speak otherwise. A person you think is an idiot is not the person you faithfully defend and create articles to promote and link to on legitimate fighters pages. The only reasonable action is to ban Vintagekits and any other editor names he may be using from recreating the Charlie Zelenoff page and whatever other actions are deemed necessary given his past history on Wikipedia. Otherwise we end up condoning spurious articles and countless hours debating with Vintagekits about their notability. Lordvolton (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be taking this matter WAAAAY to seriously and are throwing accusations around like confetti. Have you ANY evidence WHATSOEVER that VK is in ANYWAY related to Charlie Zelenhoff? Have you got ANY evidence that I am an alias / shill for VK? Have you got ANY evidence that either myself or VK has acted in anyway that is not entirely reasonable with regards to this matter? Have you got ANY proof that the fight was indeed a spoof as you so fervently claim? "A few thousand" hits is a bit of an understatement dont you think when a single thread at East Side Boxing about him has has upwards of a third of a million views and 55000 or more posts. That alone puts him head and shoulders above other 1 fight novices in terms of noteriety. Now dont get me wrong I am a not stupid and can clearly see that Zelenhoff's career may well be a staged stunt but that does not make his pro fight any less real nor his noteriety for ineptitude and the less. Frankly you appear to acting in bad faith on this matter and seem to have a personal grudge with VK. You have made your mind up its a spoof and wont listen to anything else and want to have bans thrown around for no oither reason that someone dares to disagree with you. Can we be clear here... why should anyone get a ban from anything over this issue? And what are you actually here to complain about? --LiamE (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's extremely safe to say that Vintagekits is neither Charlie Zelenoff not a student at UCLA, if that's what's being alleged here. I don't think there's any outing involved (given that a quick skim over his history will show it) to say that VK is from Sligo (and has uploaded numerous self-taken photos of the Sligo area). VK can be a pain in some areas, but in almost three years I've never – as in, never – known him to be wrong about anything related to boxing. – iridescent 21:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In the few days I've had to deal with him he's been wrong multiple times: 3 times with regard to the Charlie Zelenoff article alone. He's been unable to explain his zeal for reposting an article on a fighter who went half a round as a spoof. Worse, he tells us that he's looking forward to it being REPOSTED -- only days after it was deleted for the third time. In the next breathe he tells us he thinks Charlie Zelenoff is an "idiot". It doesn't add up.

I believe the only reasonable response is to ban him from the article. Lordvolton (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain exactly these 3 things I said that was "wrong". 1. I havent "reposted" the article. I may to in the future when the article is in a stronger position. I posted the article - once! 2. My "zeal" - I believe he is notable at the moment per WP:ATHELTE but I will wait until he actually fights again and she if the bring more sources to the article and discuss it prior to I or others colleagues posting the article. You dont seem to be able to discuss the issue in a logical manner so I probably wont be replying again. In the mean time enjoy this piece of journalism - hopefully you can add to it and make it better. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You should keep in mind that Wikipedia is an ongoing process and that new facts or evidence can of course justify the recreation of a previously deleted article. By the way, I don't think that one must have a positive opinion of an article's subject to consider it notable - otherwise Wikipedia would surely have no articles about murderers, war criminals or dictators. Futhermore if the time someone has spent on an article would be suitable to make assumptions, then you would put up with speculations, too. Overlooking User:Vintagekits actions, I can't see anything he has done wrong, therefore I reckon this discussion redundant.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If Vintagekits hadn't reposted the article multiple times and communicated his desire to do it yet again only days after it being deleted for the third time we could have given him the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe posting and reposting and then stating this will continue should be rewarded. At a minimum, a ban from the Zelenoff spoof article should be enforced. If you think you're dealing with someone who is reasonable, this is what he had to say to another editor named BastunnutsaB regarding some of his other edits:

"A request for Arbcom enforcement concerning you has been made here. BastunnutsaB 11:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   You are an absolute dick! Talk about trying to cause hassle and drama where there isnt any.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)"

Is this the voice of a reasonable editor? Lordvolton (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not the words I would have chosen but the sentiment is pretty representative of a reasonable editor on the receiving end of your accusations and ramblings on this matter. You are continuing to make a drama where none exists. You have continued to throw around baseless accusations and you continue to push an OR POV that the fight was a spoof. I've asked if you have evidence to back up your claims and accusations. Where is it?? --LiamE (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And while you are at it please let us know why VK being involved in an entirely seperate Arbcom discussion has any bearing on this matter. --LiamE (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

They're not baseless accusations - they're fact. Did you watch the single Zelenoff fight on YouTube? He went half a round before his corner waved off the fight against an opponent who had 1 win and 13 losses. Have you read the comments? It was a hoax. It's time for you and the other editor named Vintagekits to stop promoting Charlie Zelenoff and wasting our time. The joke, of course, is on us since we continue to give you and the other editor named Vintagekits our undivided attention. If the UCLA student posing as Zelenoff cannot become an "internet sensation" maybe he can become notorious on Wikipedia for frustrating editors. You're the same editor who was has repeatedly supported Vintagekits in his efforts to promote Zelenoff stating it's "definitely a keep".

Vintagekits has little respect for other editors as evidenced by his harsh words for BastunnatsaB. And his edits reflect that of a editor that is not mindful of other editors time. I'm the third editor forced to take this issue up and absent a ban on Vintagekits and whatever other editor names he may be using on this article we'll be back here again. And I expect we'll see fervent defenses by Vintagekits with consensus from LiamE, as has been the case in the past.

We will eventually see another "see also" link on Kimbo Slice to Charlie Zelenoff. Vintagekits will no doubt play other Wikipedia editors for fools prefacing his comments with things "sadly, he is for real". It's a spoof and we need not waste any other editors time playing nanny for Vintagekits and whatever other editor names he may be using on this topic. Again, I believe at a bare minimum a ban is appropriate given his unwillingness to stop reposting the article and creating "see also" links on legitimate fighter pages such as Kimbo Slice. He's also gone through the trouble of listing Charlie Zelenoff as a notable person from California and Los Angeles -- quite a bit of energy for someone that he claims he holds in low regard? Lordvolton (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Your assertion that the fight was a spoof despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary is a comment on a youtube video? And because some editors dont agree with your stance bans should be handed out to editors that have acted reasonably in this matter? VK's behaviour in other matters has no bearing here. I've asked for you evidence to back up your claim and accusations. So far all I can is see a comment abut a youtube video. Seems to me like you reaching a bit. Again I ask you where is your evidence I am an alias or shill for VK? If you want to drag my name through the mud man up and back up yoru accusation with something. Where is you evidence that the fight was a spoof? Where is your evidence taht VK has repeatedly reposted the page? Where is your evidence that VK or myself intend to submit the page again without more information being available? In fact where is the evidence for ANY of your claims taht have any bearing on this matter?? --LiamE (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

We need more admins watching this category and responding to unblock requests. Only a handful of admins seem to be responding to unblock requests, creating a situation where some requests sit for a day or more. This is especially true with requests that require more review than one admin can offer or when a blocked user makes more than one request. We should be able to address most requests within a few hours at most. --auburnpilot talk 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I used to be more active at CAT:RFU, but recently most seem to be spam/username unblock requests that are a variant of "please rename me to Joe Schmoe and let me continue to add information about our wonderful business". I generally find it not worth the bother to find out whether these editors are interested in making non-COI edits about something else than their business, because they are generally not. If we can find some schematic way to handle these people, that would cut down on the backlog.  Sandstein  18:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I do a lot of work on unblock reviewing, and I'd say the number of admins active in unblock reviewing is about 15. If anyone is interested in getting into this area but feels like they need help, please let me know, I'm happy to give advice and/or mentoring. Mangojuice^talk 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I created User:Mangojuice/COI unblocks to explain my approach to that common situation. Maybe this will help us find a united solution? Mangojuice^talk 19:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The approach you describe is ideal in the sense that it ensures that all such editors who deserve to be unblocked will be. But it involves a lot of work for admins willing to follow it, and may yield comparatively little benefit for our project, if - as I assume - relatively few of these people are interested in any useful editing at all.

Might we come up with something like {{2ndchance}} tailored to this situation? Such a template would serve as a block notification, explain the problem and invite the editor to choose a new username and to draft a useful non-COI edit of some substance. Should the editor not follow these instructions, they would not be unblocked.  Sandstein  19:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it much. But I could help develop one for others to use. I don't know why, but a lot of these users are pretty nice about wanting to get to know Wikipedia's rules and I feel like they are owed a response in my own words. (Though FWIW, I detest {{2ndchance}}). Mangojuice^talk 20:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and draw something up, probably as a change or alternative to {{Uw-spamublock}}.  Sandstein  21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll do a bit more too. Yours, H.Ross Esq 86.153.37.232 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have rewritten {{Uw-spamublock}} in a form that should produce more immediately useful unblock requests. I suggest that we continue any discussion about this sub-aspect on Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Rewrite of Uw-spamublock.  Sandstein  22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In the same vein, we need a few more administrators active on the unblock-l mailing list. In recent months, there has often been only one administrator active on the list at a time, and there have been gaps when no one was seemingly fielding the requests at all. We promise blocked users a prompt review, whether via unblock requests on their talkpages or via the mailing list, and this promise should be honored. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In principle, yes, but this is after all a gratis and volunteer-run website and no actual harm is done if somebody can't edit for a few additional hours.

IMHO, the most practical way to reduce unblock wait times is to help users write better unblock requests, so as to reduce the time and effort needed for lengthy explanations and dialogues between users and administrators. That's the reason for which I wrote the original version of WP:GAB, too.  Sandstein  22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I'll look in on this from time to time and have subscribed to the list-serve too. I'm not around much though.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale deprodding by new account

New user:Rockyview has just deprodded Persian Student Association of UC Merced‎, Royal Roads University Student Association‎, Wisconsin Student Nurses Association‎, ADVANCE Student Organization‎, Floyd Hughes‎, St. George Asian Business Association‎ and one other not prodded by me. I view this as wikistalking and disruptive. Opinions? Thanks in advance. Abductive (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly someone's sock. Might be a Biaswarrior (talk · contribs) / Biasprotector (talk · contribs) sock.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Although, to be honest, i also have my doubts about a new user whose first action was to nominate for afd, Abductive (talk · contribs) [4].Bali ultimate (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a new user; this is a new account since I regularly forget my passwords, but I'm not a sock. Abductive (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: new user knowledge -- I'd just like to point out that my wife made her first few edits the other day, with me kibbitzing. Needless to say, she didn't come across as a n00b. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for an Admin to undo these deproddings? Some or all of them were past their 7 day expiration date when deprodded. AfDing those articles will just be annoying to all concerned. And I will have to do it, those articles are seriously lame. Abductive (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You would either have to prove the user in question is a banned one or invoke IAR as current policy is perfectly clear: any user may challenge any PROD at any time (including after it is deleted). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the after-it-is-deleted rule. Sigh. Abductive (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale deprodding with no rationale is a hallmark of banned sockpuppeteer User:Azviz, so that's a possibility too. DreamGuy (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder a little how anyone can survive in the real world who regularly forgets their passwords and get locked out of accounts because they don't activate the email that would retrieve them. Abductive, it would be helpful to know what user names have you used in the past, if you remember all of them? DGG (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

All that would reveal is my current pattern of behavior, with different account names. The whole idea of editing from accounts rather than IPs is faintly annoying to me. How would it be helpful? Abductive (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, let's wait again and see what happens and to see if there are any other signs that pop up such as any types of reverting, incivility, reports of harassment/stalking to ANI, stuff like that before we hit that button (yes, I am paying close attention, as well). MuZemike 17:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

New noticeboard suggestion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Administrator abuse

Thoughts? –xeno^talk 21:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think you would get a ton of noobs complaining that an administrator deleted their article, or blocked them for vandalizing.  iMatthew :  Chat  21:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• WP/ANI will have a broader cross-section of people watching it, so responses will be more balanced -- this one will probably have either people looking to get admins in trouble, or admins looking to defend each other against accusations. I'd have to say "no" on this (especially considering the past couple of weeks I've had). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Only it keeps it off of this page. Frankly I'm pissed off ^WP:CIV with the number of editors who have no bloody clue ^WP:NPA and shout admin abuse at every opportunity. I'm also pissed off with the admins who seem to think they are above anyone, and can use their tools and ask questions later ^WP:NPA. I'd support an admin abuse page but only if it refers directly to use of admin only tools. All other complaints about the bastard admins stay at the main ANI page (or better yet somewhere else but I'm not that innocent as to think that will happen) Pedro :  Chat  21:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• I am also afraid that it would only be an invitation for whining. It seems to me that the vast majority of "reports of administrator abuse" that I see here (and elsewhere) is completely unfounded and downright silly. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. Shereth 21:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• I think that would be largely redundant to ANI, but it can't hurt to give it a try. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Against. Practically every accusation of "administrative abuse" I see is trolls abusing admins, and those that aren't usually end up requiring ArbComm. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Terrible idea. Keep the whining centralized here. The last thing this type of whining needs is decentralization. The more eyes, the better.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• ^^^ Tan | 39 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• I generally agree with I think Pedro suggested. There's a world of difference between abuse from an editor who happens to be an administrator and an abuse of the administrative tools. I guess some will object on the basis that administrators ought to be the paragons of all the virtues, and never snap at another editor, but they're (mostly) human, like the rest of us. The important stuff is the abuse of the tools, and that tends to get lost in what I see as the far less important stuff often brought up here. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That's what I said, just you said it better :) Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• I thought the places to discuss Admin behavior/actions/deportment/sanity/insanity was . . . here and WP:AN/I. I see no need for another drama board. Use of the tools is appealable on a number of boards besides this one. Leave it here. If the complaint is baseless or founded in ignorance, consensus to that affect should quickly emerge. If an admin or any other editor has erred, then that will become appearent here as well. Dlohcierekim 22:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • (I suppose I've been lucky. I've had very little abuse hurled my way for being an admin-- a volunteer, unpaid, time consuming and draining yet rewarding job. What some other admins have had to put up with would try the patience of a saint.) Dlohcierekim 22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• We don't need a dedicated place to abuse admins.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you sure? If you change your mind, I propose we place it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Pillory. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep it redlinked and I think it's a great idea. Otherwise, I agree with Pedro. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Some people here may be interested in Arritt's Second Axiom. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Mmm... Perhaps not than. But I think we need to look at how we deal with complaints of administrative abuse. ANI doesn't cut the mustard when it comes to raising concerns, it's like throwing shit into a ceiling fan: no real end result except that everyone has to take a shower afterward. Anyways, I just think that the growing discord between editors who feel admins are untouchable and admins who feel like they can't try and solve problems without getting accused of abuse is one that needs to be mended. –xeno^talk 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose – encouraging cesspits of drama is not constructive. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 12:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• The title is wrong. It's fine to have a place to appeal administrators' actions. These are not incidents, and I'd agree to separate the stream into two different boards. Perhaps Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Appeals. It is almost always best to focus on actions rather than people. Jehochman ^Talk 12:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  Sure, that's a less loaded title. I'd support that. –xeno^talk 18:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds like a new WP:CSN limited to sysops. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Bali ultimate made a good point. It shouldn't be decentralized. It would create more drama, and I tihnk things would get out of control, especially with less eyes on it. hmwithτ 13:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• A place to deal with incorrect admin behaviour that sadly happens all too often is not a bad idea in itself. But to keep it the form of a noticeboard is not solving the problem, just moving it away from here. Instead, we would probably need some kind of system in place where a group of neutral editors review concerns brought up there and then issue rulings, something like a small ArbCom for every day use that just serves to issue rulings like "admin X is found to have violated Policy Y section Z when deleting page A" to see where problems really exist. Also, such a system could allow us here to direct all those people screaming "admin abuse!" to it where the complaints that merit review can be separated from those that are just whiny cries for attention where an admin just did his job, thus allowing ANI to close all such threads immediately and all those meriting review can be reviewed without needless drama. But alas, I fear I'm digressing into utopia here... Regards SoWhy 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, something like that would help as well but I doubt it would ever get off the ground. –xeno^talk 18:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS - - with one restriction all administrators are banned from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.198 (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid it will end up in a boy who called wolf syndrome. If it gets filled with non-valid complaints most people will ignore it, and then if there's a valid complaint no one will see it.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• It would likely only further the trend lately of shrilly claiming wanton admin abuse/involvement/arrogance only as a means of wikilawyering towards breaking policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• #REDIRECT WP:AN/I. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• My first thought on reading this title was "Oh great, finally a noticeboard for people who want to be insulted by admins." On reflection, there are other interpretations of "admin abuse" and now I'm not even sure who that joke is directed at. I don't think the solution is that kind of "board"; I think what's needed is a group of people who're trusted to fairly review admin conduct. Trusted by editors in good standing, that is. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• There was an attempt at a community driven board, to be found at User:Tony1/AdminReview, earlier this year. While it appears that the momentum has not been maintained, I don't see much point in duplicating what appears to be a sound basis for hearing cases and determining if there are grounds for the complaint. What happens after the finding was not part of the remit, so any Admin Noticeboard variant could be for the consideration of what to do with admins found to have abused their flags. In any case, I think Tony1 and his page should be included in any further discussion around this point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Statement by Tony1. Thanks to LessHeard vanU for alerting me to this section (and congrats on a successful RfA). We need to face up to the fact that there is significant discontent in the community about (i) occasional admin breaches of admin policy, and (ii) the current processes for dealing with them (mainly ANI, ArbCom). These processes are dominated by admins (and ANI is host to a fair few non-admins who would like to be admins and who wisely want to expose themselves to situations they might find themselves in as such). This leads to the perception of bias and "sticking up for colleagues", although it is hard to make a definite allegation of the extent of this phenomenon, and I won't try: the perception is enough to attract our concern. ArbCom is a big deal, is horribly logjammed, and rightly tries to head off all but the most egregious cases involving individual admins. ArbCom is not the way to resolve most instances of admin policy compliance.

  These are the reasons for the drafting of the User:Tony1/AdminReview process, which still faces four challenges: how to handle multiple complainant/admin parties; the mode of electing coordinators (not hard); how to locate skilled candidates for coordinatorship (maybe hard); and how to gain community acceptance and forge a productive relationship with ANI and ArbCom. Another issue, which may well be dealt with after AdminReview is up and running as a "good-faith" process without teeth, is whether to give it teeth.

  Responses to individual comments above.Pedro, above, says: "Frankly I'm pissed off with the number of editors who have no bloody clue and shout admin abuse at every opportunity. I'm also pissed off with the admins who seem to think they are above anyone, and can use their tools and ask questions later WP:NPA. I'd support an admin abuse page but only if it refers directly to use of admin only tools." AdminReview is designed to balance the needs and obligations of all parties, without favour or COI. It is strictly constrained to the matter of compliance with admin policies, which are codified on the page. Shereth says: "I am also afraid that [xeno's proposal] would only be an invitation for whining." AdminReview is designed to head off trivial/vexatious complainants and whiners by politely telling them to sod off (with brief reasons) at an early point. TreasuryTag says "encouraging cesspits of drama is not constructive". Taking the drama off project space and dealing with it in a respected process seems like a good idea. Xeno's original idea suggests that ANI currently does not provide a solution, but I do not believe that a dedicated page on ANI for resolving admin compliance disputes has any hope of gaining the confidence of the non-admin community. Lenticel says "We don't need a dedicated place to abuse admins". AdminReview is to improve relations between admins and non-admins in the project by providing a process that both sides generally trust. Gwen says: "... shrilly claiming wanton admin abuse/involvement/arrogance only as a means of wikilawyering towards breaking policy." I appreciate how annoying shrillness must be, and we don't want it. AdminReview parties are warned that coordinators will remove incivility from statements by parties, who will soon learn to take the emotion out of it if they don't initially understand. On "wikilawyering", wherever powerful remedies (blocking, deletions) can be used to enforce policy, and certain people are entrusted with applying such remedies, there need to be open, clear rules. Both sides can use the written rules to their benefit, and can't be stopped. If there is something wrong with the rules, they should be fixed.

  Bureacracy.A word about criticisms of AdminReview's "bureacratic", "bloated" appearance: well-designed rules are essential for any fair and efficient process. ArbCom is starting to realise this WRT the lack of time deadlines and evidentiary limits of its own hearings, which are gobsmackingly inefficient and seem to encourage bloated warfare among the parties rather than healing it. While AdminReview may look long and complex, by contrast the actual process is designed to be fair, prompt, and reasonably simple for the parties. There is good bureaucracy and bad bureaucracy: if anyone has suggestions on trimming or otherwise improving the page, I'll be pleased to hear them.

  The development of AdminReview has been held up for a while, but I would be pleased to move it forward over the next few months. And no, I don't want to be lord of the manor, or to host it live on my user space. I don't want institutional power. Tony (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeking comment if appropriate DR process has been followed

Most are probably aware of the long-standing issue on WP:NOT#PLOT - I am not asking for input on the policy itself, but if the recent to try to resolve it is flawed or not, hoping to use past experience to help out here.

The most recent action was a straw poll that became more like an RFC when it actually got going. [5] It ultimately asked "should NOT have a section about plot summaries" but the intro included various wordings of the policy, arguments for and against. The poll closed pretty much 50/50 (if you want to exactly by numbers, 66 in favor, 69 against, 10 abstaining). Now, a number of users tried to reconcile the results, including the user (Shoemaker's Holiday who has now left WP as I understand it) that started the straw poll as well as a failed attempt to bring in Arbcom ([6]). Because it descended from a straw poll into an RFC, there were a lot of comments in the objecting votes that we were able to pull from (not all of them, but a good number) a few issues that were common themes and came about and rewrote a suggested replacement for NOT to address those points that we'd (primarily myself, Shoemaker, Hobit and Gavin Collins) agreed was an acceptable replacement. [7]. When this was initially established, NOT was protected (from previous edit warring over PLOT), but shortly became unprotected. One of the editors involved in the rewording went ahead and substituted the new version, though I did advise that maybe a second straw poll to test that version will help knowing if that didn't work, we'd have sufficient reason to remove it from policy. Of course, there are still editors strongly against its presence, and pointing to the narrow winning margin of the straw poll as the reason to remove it. (see, for example [8]).

Again, I'm not seeking actions by administrators or the like, but I am seeking advice if the steps take to resolve this are correct (that is, taking a straw poll that provided enough rationales in the feedback to establish new wording), or if we should consider that poll binding on the numbers alone, or what another step would be to assure that there's community consensus for this? I'm hoping to figure this out before it breaks out into edit warring again. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the next step in the dispute resolution is mediation. Perhaps bringing it to WP:MEDCOM (given a pressing issue like this, not sure of the MEDCAB would suffice) would be a good way to get some closure, since the purpose of mediation is to help provide solutions that both sides can agree on. MuZemike 22:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

the discussion above presents the dispute as one over wording of a policy. It is not; rather, it reflects the general attitude of Wikipedia towards the inclusion of detail about fictional subjects, a disagreement between those who want the coverage to resemble that of a conventional encyclopedia, and those who want a much more expansive scope. The only reason there was any agreement at all was that both sides intended to interpret the wording in their own way. I do not see what a mediator can do about this. A mediator will at best, if things go very well, be able to find a neutral policy statement--certainly I would hope a more internally consistent wording that the most recent proposal. But the disagreement about scope is not just over fiction, rather about the meaning of a contemporary comprehensive encyclopedia, and affects other subjects also. The mediator will not be able to resolve the basic issue, because I think it is not capable of a single resolution. (My own proposal is to abandon the idea of a single unified encyclopedia--an inherently pre-internet environment-- and adopt a multilayered structure--not as separate wikis not under our control as with Wikia, but a means by which a reader could choose between different sets of content, in the same way they now choose between different languages.) Short of that, the most useful thing to do would be a very broad based attempt to gather the overall view on inclusiveness of our editors and readers. Myself, I'm willing to help give the users whatever sort of encyclopedia they want to have, to the extent I can do it.

Despite my interest in the subject, I did not participate in the latest round of exchanges, essentially because I had said it all already many times over that anyone who wanted to take account of my views knew them perfectly well already, & it did not seem useful to reword it once more into a policy that had no real chance of being effective, since our system does not permit any solution to be stable, or compel any actual decision to follow article policy. DGG (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree we need to find a way forward and frankly I've no idea how to do it. (Thus I've left off being involved in that discussion). That said, I want to disagree with Masem on one thing. It's not the narrow winning margin that is the issue, it's that there isn't consensous for NOT#PLOT to exist (per that RfC). Even a narrow losing margin would have established that. And WP:POLICY is fairly clear that policy that isn't consensous shouldn't exist (old or new policy). We've gotten a fair improvement in the policy over the last few months, but inertia is taking its toll. Hobit (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, I'm no crat...

Resolved

 – Just a display issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AFuture_Perfect_at_Sunrise

Any ideas on how I managed to do that? I'm confused. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You're an administrator. Administrators can add rollback. Edit: Ah. You're talking about how he got is +sysop back, I assume. Good question. ÷seresin 22:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a display bug. He doesn't have administrator rights. So this is nothing urgent. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 22:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What Deskana said: Rights log and User entry. لennavecia 22:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is some odd entries, but UserRights does not show admin for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess it's just a really weird quirk then. Sorry for panicking. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a messup associated with the hack that allows stewards to manipulate enwiki user flags from meta. Probably worth a bugzilla, but I can't be bothered. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. A summary of the case may be found at the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard.

- For the Committee, Mailer Diablo 22:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny, the above link says the case is open. XD. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What link are you talking about? Tiptoety ^talk 06:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Was fixed by Danielηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Vassyana/Difficulty

If you have knowledge of difficult areas of wikipedia, contentious topic zones that cause the burnout of good users, please help by contributing to User:Vassyana/Difficulty. Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, if you know how to remove ArbCom from ruling on civility in content disputes (without resolving to break the content dispute), please offer your suggestions. While "Declare The Great Wheel War", (wherein the admin corps rises up and blocks the ArbCom membership before turning to breaking the stalemate in contentious content disputes with a hefty dose of blocks) would be the obvious, quickest, and arguably most entertaining solution... I somehow doubt that we have the resolve to maintain such an effort through the weekend.

In light of this, a discussion thread to nowhere is the best, and apparently only alternative. Key areas of focus: differentiating between good editors and admins acting badly, bad editors and admins acting badly, and bad editors and admins pretending to act good to cloud the issue. An interesting side discussion could also focus on removing the bit from admins who are not abusing the tools, but rather are "not nice" in a contentious area, while failing to add a replacement bit to that area while Admin #1 is absent. After all, a blocked or banned POV-pusher can return with a new account at will. While an admin without a bit can obviously remain in an area, they cannot return with a sock mop, and if there are no equally engaged admins working in that area, then you have effectively turned that section of Wikipedia over to the lunatics. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for review/ FYI

I just deleted this article. It didn't fit neatly into one of the CSD categories, however, I felt it was inappropriate and probably a legal threat. I'd appreciate it if other admins could take a look and let me know what you think. TNXMan 13:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the deletion. It was a legal threat, and WP is not a webhost. hmwithτ 13:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the deletion. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it falls under the definition of G10 as an attack page. G10 does not make a difference between how the attack is made and a page full of negative content without any sources and threats and verbal attacks is probably covered by this definition. Regards SoWhy 13:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This deletion's ok, it's both a straightforward G10 soapbox attack and an A7, nothing to hint it's an encyclopedia article about a notable topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for the comments! TNXMan 13:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account misusing my username

This new user has copied my username with only one non-capital letter difference (small "r")

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bullrangifer

and has vandalized by userpage and some of my subpages. Please block and perform a CU as this is likely a banned user taking revenge. Is there a "vandalism-only" template to use on his user and talk pages? -- Brangifer (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) (and heartily endorsed). Can't see a CU will help though, to be honest. Pedro :  Chat  14:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can name the banned user to give the CUs something for comparison, it might be worth a look, for other accounts as well. Without a name its much tougher to find socks. Thatcher 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

Per these motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Please moderate the Regine Velasquez page. So many false claims, there are no citations.

So many users in that page keep on putting false claims about Regine Velasquez' achievements and talent, to the point that they make up fake 'achievements' about her so-called 'reign'. Velasquez is not famous all over the world, she has not sold one million records all over Asia. They keep sensationalizing her page by writing over hyped and false claims such as having a 'palatial house', albums selling over 10X platinum, that Regine rejected the Miss Saigon role, and so much more. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.22.195 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What admin action is needed? While glancing, I don't see anyone that needs blocked, and the page doesn't seem bad enough to warrant protection, in my opinion. Try starting some discussion on the talk page, and make sure to let users who add unsourced information that WP does not allow original research and that reliable sources are needed. hmwithτ 05:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC bot deleting RfC tags prematurely

The user who runs the User:RFC bot acknowledges that the bot has a flaw that sometimes deletes tags prematurely, but continues to run the flawed bot. I request it be blocked until the flaw is corrected. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a flaw that is only triggered when there is no timestamp in the first paragraph of the description. You will have to put the timestamp in the first paragraph until I can release a working fix. —harej (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Uploading an image

I was trying to upload an image with the name of ℃-ute - 2 Mini ~Ikiru to Iu Chikara~ but I got an error. I was trying to upload with that name because the file here is tagged for renaming. The error told me the file name I chose was blocked and to request an admin to upload the image for me. The source I used was the image here and used on this page. If an admin would please upload that image at a size of 200x200, it would be most appreciated. I'd be willing to fill out the rationale, etc. Thank you.--Rockfang (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Try it without the tildes (~) in the name. Just a suggestion. --LiamE (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. I may do that if this request doesn't go through for some reason. I'd rather keep them in there though because they seem to be a part of the "official" name of the album.--Rockfang (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), the unusual characters should not be used in the title. It should be named File:Cute 2 Mini - Ikiru to Iu Chikara.jpg or something similar. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Rockfang (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Block evading sock

• TeePee-20.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LatinoAussie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

LatinoAussie appears to be indef-blocked TeePee-20.7: same incivility, same concentration on Australians with Latin American heritage (see Talk:Latin Australian throughout). Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

An SPI case would be the way to go here, but in order to do that you would need to be more specific. Could you provide us with a few diffs? Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 05:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, it's more of a "look and feel" thing. I think if you look at the Talk:Latin Australian page and compare the posts by TP at the beginning to the posts by LA from the middle down, you get the smell of it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize that TP was a sock of Cazique. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(out)Just want to note here that LatinoAussie has gone to User:Henrik, an admin, looking for a preventative block against me. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a sockpuppet investigation request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Cazique. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bruce01 - block request

Resolved

 – Users involved indefed for pupperty (confirmed by CheckUser), IP blocked one week. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring to the communities attention User:Bruce01. This user, during a recent AfD, started getting abusive towards myself and OIEnglish.

During the AfD, the user in question attacked several users in the AfD, using quotes such as "If it concerns you so much that [the Latrobe City Pacers] don't [have a article] and the 42ers do, may i suggest you write a page for them yourself." (diff) and "OK so there are some, excuse the term, wankers that exist within wikipedia who obviously have no brains (not [OIEnglish] of course), and the article was deleted." (diff). The user has also said he will continue to 'help' Wikipedia by "certainly going to redirect this effort in a number of different ways. I will actively discourage any potential editors from contributing to any articles to ensure their valuable time, unlike my own, is not wasted, and i will also give a couple of users, who looked to laugh off my attempt rather than appreciate it, many more tedious jobs and edits to do that will not stop." (diff)

If this was not enough, the user may have also resorted to meatpupperty or sockpupperty during the AfD (diff).

I am all for assuming good faith towards the user, however I believe the user has started acting in bad faith towards us, and deserves a block for personal attacks and possibly meatpupperty or sockpupperty. I am also considering starting a WP:SPI case against this user. Thanks -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't want anything to do with this whole thing, I just wanna edit in peace. I don't think this user will be making any more edits anyway but if they start trolling then just block them. -- œ^™ 05:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please take note of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bruce01. Tiptoety ^talk 06:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

William S. Saturn

A year ago, while I was away, my previous account, User:Southern Texas was blocked for sockpuppetry. The user talk page was protected after another member of my household used the account in an attempt to get me unblocked out of guilt for her actions as a sockpuppet. She was asked to create a new account by User:Sam Korn. After I returned from my trip, I found that my account had been blocked and the talk page protected. I had my sister log in as "Uga Man," (her main account) and I gave an explanation of what had occurred. This explanation can still be viewed at User talk:Uga Man. Administrators did not believe the explanation and declined to unblock the account. So I decided to start over and took Sam Korn's advise. That is when I created this account. If one looks at the edits of User:Uga Man and compares them to my edits under Southern Texas and William S. Saturn, they will see that the accounts belong to two different people. This month, I decided to return as an active editor, and I explained the situation to the admin User:Happyme22. He advised me to post the situation here. My request is for the Southern Texas account to have the sockpuppet label removed and for it to be redirected to my page. If possible, I would like for the edits of Southern Texas to be merged to this account. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Southern Texas (now William S. Saturn) and I interacted with one another on pages including Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008. That is why I was shocked to see that he had been blocked for sockpuppetry. He recently came to me as William S. Saturn seeking a copyedit on Tommy Thompson presidential campaign, 2008, revealing that he was Southern Texas and explaining the situation to me with his request.[9] I suggested taking it to WP:AN to gather other opinions. He was relunctant at first, fearing that admins would misundestand his quandry and promptly block his new account.[10] Thus here I am, informing all parties that I have had a history with Southern Texas/William Saturn and believe him to be telling the truth. The edits of Uga Man (his sister) and Southern Texas are starkly different and does give some credence to Saturn's claim that the two truly are different people; Uga Man edited a wide range of articles while Southern Texas' edits were usually contrained to presidential campaigns and political figures. I am unaware, however, if merging the edits of the two accounts and redirecting the old Southern Texas information and user space to the new William S. Saturn page is even possible -- I'm not an extremely experienced admin. Happyme22 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever the background on the claims of the actual human using the cited accounts, there is a constellation of sockpuppet accounts that were banned from use, and the history of the banning should not be obfuscated, nor should the fact of their banning be made confusing or obscure by merger of the account's history into other accounts. As such I oppose the request of William S. Saturn, whose accounts in the past, apparently more than a few times have broken past promises on the topic of intention to behave according to Wikipedia standards. This history should not be hidden. The constellation of sockpuppet accounts participated in editing, among other things, high profile political biographies and political article templates during the 2008 U.S. Presidential election campaign. I urge reviewing administrators to look at the the background made visible in this posting on the Administrators noticeboard:

Incident Archive: Case of good hand/bad hand sockpuppetry Reported at 19:24, May 13, 2008 -- Action by admin: User: east718

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Given the length of time elapsed, I have no problem in having the user page for the old user redirect to the new user page, but I oppose merging histories or anything like that, for the reasons that User:Yellowdesk has articulated above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

• Technical note: From Wikipedia:Changing username#General notes, "It is not possible for bureaucrats to merge [editing histories of] two accounts".--64.85.217.144 (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Article writers' noticeboard

Per a dicsussion at User_talk:Peter_Damian/Established_Editors#WP:Article_writers.27_noticeboard, I'm working on a draft noticeboard at User:Juliancolton/AWN. Feel free to help out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:I Seek To Help & Repair!

Is this chap's userpage appropriate? It doesn't exactly make communication between users easier... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

His userpage is fine. His 'feedback' system's cumbersone, but nothing requires other users to jump through his hoops. The 'new section' button's still there, so it can be used instead of his charts and graphs based triplicate TPS report style. ThuranX (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

He should probably be told about the WP:UP#OWN per the statement at the top of the userpage, other than that, I don't see a problem. It's over-the-top-, yes, but you don't have to look at the userpage. –xeno^talk 17:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dear God, my eyes. You should warn people before doing that. Some of us have hangovers. //roux   17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm. His sig signs his username as 'Sought', which is actually the name of another, albeit never-active, user. My memory is hazy on this, but I was under the impression that one must sign with a username that is at least somewhat related to the account name, and definitely not with the username of somebody else. Am I wrong on this? //roux   17:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think someone suggested to him in his recent RFA that he change his name anyway, I would echo that; especially given the ampersand which can cause issues with templates and the like. Perhaps he would like to WP:USURP "Sought". –xeno^talk 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Signature forgery: "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents." There are established users who use a signature totally different from their username (like older≠wiser or the numerous people who sign with their real name which is not their username). I don't think it's a problem at all really. Jafeluv (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• I will change my signature (I was planning on a new signature anyway), but I currently have no desire to change my user name, also I agree with Xeno, you don't have to look at my user page, also, I keep my talk page at soft colors so it does not visually offend anyone, my talk page is necessary to all, my user page is necessary to some. My feedback system: Are you able to leave me feedback? Yes, then isn't that enough? Aren't there other Wikipedians that have far worse, more offensive user pages +? I am aware of the WP:USURP, I also am aware of the ampersand, so if my user name is changed I would like it to be something I like that doesn't contain an ampersand, and I would rather not have a user page that everyone contributes to. If you don't like my user page, then you don't have to stay on it, also, I made the main color yellow, when clearly the harshest colors are blue and red. Thank You, Please contact me if you have anymore concerns Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 21:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Feel free to check out my signature and maybe edit it for the better, remember the character count Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 22:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • There you go, it's changed ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 22:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fairly incomprehensible. Kind of reads like Ishtar. Have you thought of a simple "I Seek" - short, memorable, reference to the actual name. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please my usurp notice Thank You, ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 07:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I need help

Could somebody delete my userpage, please? Thx, --MARK S. (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Nakon 18:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delete this file I added

Resolved

I added picture File:Cigarettes brazil.jpg, and later uploaded the same picture on to Commons. Please delete its redundant page here. thanks. Missionary (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Next time you can just tag the image with the {{nowcommons}} template. Thanks, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

120+ edits within the last day

Resolved

I have a question, which is unclear. I have been wondering if there's actually a limit on how many edits you can make in a period of time.

One editor, SpectrumDT (talk · contribs) has made more than 120 edits within the last day. These edits occurred within less than five hours of editing. According to the edit summaries, all of these edits are category edits, although that's not really important though.

Here's a question. Is there a limit on how many edits you can make in a period of time? If there is a more appropriate forum, please feel free to take this somewhere else. I am pointing out who raised the question in case it is AN worthy. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not notified the editor of this thread. Can somebody drop a note on the editors talk page? Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

heh... well you probably should have, myth! - I've done so, but must let you know that your request for someone else to drop in a note could come across as a little bit rude, although probably well intentioned :-) - I think the correct response to this thread is 'lurk moar' anyways (or is that 'rtfm'?) - your question isn't a great fit for this board (answer - 120 edits in a day is no problem, no technical limit to edits per day, folk who work with bots will prick their ears up if you start to do 120+ per minute) - there's nothing wrong with using talk pages for such questions, so feel free to drop me a line directly (or someone you know, or someone friendly) if you'd like to chat more... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In future you can use the help desk, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

On 14 January, I made more than 5600 edits. No one complained, so it's probably okay to make as many as you want, even as a human. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Were those "5600 edits" all in one day or was that a milestone? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats just a day for J.delanoy. His edit count is in the hundred thousands, I believe. ~fl 03:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely it's not unusual to have hundreds of edits in one day's time if you're using AWB or Huggle (even for a brief vandal-hunting session) for instance. MuZemike 00:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What about how many of which are allowed? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? How many of which what, hmmm? (edit #156 for this date). Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How many edits are allowed to be made in a period of time. For example, is it okay to make more than 100 edits in a minute? Is it okay to make 2500 edits in one day? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just did a batch of 10 edits in less then a minute. I think there is a rate limit but it's higher than 10 edits per minute, so with that math, you could theoretically perform 14,400 edits a day (10*60*24) without rate limiting. ~fl 02:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've made at least 200 edits per day for about a year now, with the exception of a couple holidays. It's not a problem. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I used to pile up 100+ edits in the days I got started on vandal fighting. I guess there's no problem with high edit counts within a limited time unless the editing rate is too high for a human :) Anyway I hope there's not going to be a limit, because J.delanoy has already confessed to a rather scary number of edits in a single day, and he can't get away from us now if we decide to go hunting :P Chamal ^talk 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I once got 1337 edits in one day. (No, seriously 1337...). I've also gotten over 400 edits in 45 minutes when the vandalism was particularly heavy. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 03:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember young grasshopper. Its not the quantity of your edits but its quality that counts.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. A low quantity with a good quality is better than a high quantity with a low quality. But, you should also know that quantity also counts in many aspects. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may advise - we are all, supposedly, here to build an encyclopedia, so one should strive to edit in the mainspace as much as possible. Your contribution count, for instance, show 5,204 edits overall, but only 2,076 to articlespace -- which is 39.89% I'd say that's not a particularly good ratio. You need to work a little more and talk a little less (and start frivolous threads on AN nevermore). Wikipedia isn't about having rollback, it's about editing the articles and writing new ones. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:FUC

I know WP:FUC is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Where does the 'U' come in? I may be over thinking it here, but to me, WP:FUC seems kind of, almost offensive ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There?

The answer is in the page's history -- "Fair use criteria". Warren -talk- 22:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This would be a WP:Helpdesk question, for future reference. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sanity Check please

Johnsy88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This guy has been inserting tendentious and poorly-sourced information into Unite Against Fascism and has been reverted and advised on several occasions. I have now blocked for 31 hours for edit-warring but I think a fresh pair of eyes would be beneficial. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 23:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The blocks looks legitimate, but I don't think those warnings that Andrewrp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left Johnsy88 were appropriate. I also warned Andrewrp about participating in the edit war, and I noted that comments like "WE WILL NOT STAND TO SEE THIS DONE. STOP NOW!!!!!!" (diff) are not helpful. hmwithτ 05:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia

People are asking to close this AFD discussion per WP:SNOWBALL. I've participated in the discussion so I am unable to do it myself. Is anyone willing to provide a little assistance? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Closed by User:Xavexgoem. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Valued pictures

Resolved

Can somebody please close this disaster of an MFD? By my count, it's been open for ten days, and in my view there's absolutely no chance of anything even remotely resembling a consensus forming there anytime soon. I'd close it "no consensus" myself, but I've commented in it myself, so I don't believe that would be appropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

concur, and have done so. Privatemusings (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thankyou! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC).