Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.93.213.191 (talk) at 20:50, 19 October 2010 (→Chia N Mustafa). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice


    Block review: User:Magioladitis

    Resolved
     – User unblocked, any underlying issues regarding templates should be discussed elsewhere.  Sandstein  22:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215#Block review: User:Yobot

    Yesterday, I informed Magioladitis [1] that he needed to stop his campaign of insignificant and trivial edits contrary to WP:AWB#Rules of use. This was another in a long line of cautions and requests I and others have left for him on this and similar issues between his account and his bot account (see thread referenced above, his talk page archives) to stop making these changes.

    Many of his edits stem from his apparent desire to have as few templates/template redirects as possible and he makes edits to articles that have no change on the rendered text (e.g.), spamming watchlists, and then jamming up RFD and TFD processes trying to have the templates that he orphaned in fait accompli campaigns deleted.

    Instead of stopping, he today engaged on another campaign targeting {{three other uses}} [2]. Since he is an administrator, I cannot revoke his AWB access - so I have instead blocked him indefinitely pending review. Any administrator may feel free to unblock him if they feel I have erred, or the user agrees to stop this pattern of behaviour. –xenotalk 17:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I commend him for cleaning up templates, we have way too many useless redirects, some house cleaning is needed regularity. ΔT The only constant 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If they were useless, they wouldn't be used. –xenotalk 19:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite often Template:A is created, then Template:B is created which is an extension of template:A (IE {{other uses}} when it had a single parameter) Template:B adds a second parameter to {{other uses}}. At some later date Template:A is modified to incorporate the features and parameters of Template:B, thus making B redundant to A, people sill use B, for a long time, until someone comes along, cleans up its usage and then deletes it as redundant. Normal house cleaning. ΔT The only constant 19:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the standard procedure is to simply redirect B to A. —David Levy 19:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we have a process for deleting them as G6, most of the time redirects dont work due to very minor syntax differences. ΔT The only constant 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're mistaken. Deleting wrapper templates/template redirects (that users might call from memory) is user-hostile and breaks old revisions. –xenotalk 19:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    CSD G6 is for "uncontroversial maintenance." This is far from uncontroversial. —David Levy 19:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also note that you are in a dispute with said user and thus should NOT be using your admin tools, (which you have already done in a conflict of interest case/involved administrator). ΔT The only constant 19:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My interactions with this user have been administrative in nature; attempting to enforce guidelines and AWB's rules of use. –xenotalk 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to state that I think that this is unnecessary and I personally agree with Magio's "crusade" against template redirects. Some of my reasons are listed below:
    • Template redirects can have undesireable effects on third party links such as Facebook, mirror sites, Wikibooks, etc.
    • There were a couple examples recently that have come up about certain templates not working correctly when Facebook displays the page. Unfortunatley I didnt write them down but I think it was {{Start box}} and {{End box}} that was causing WikiBooks to not print correctly and needed to be changed to {{S-start}} and {{S-end}}. --Kumioko (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template redirects can also have undesireable effects within WP. They make it difficult to account for when programming bots or scripts.
    • To use {{Find a Grave}} as an example. There were a number of redirects to this template including: findagrave, Findagrave and FAG. If you want to make a change to one of these using a tool such as AWB you need to take into account all the variations. that means you might have to add logic multiple ways to catch it. This is less of an issue with other data on regular articles because there is a limited number of times that data could appear but with templates, it could be on tens of thousands of articles a dozen different ways. --Kumioko (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template redirects can be confusing to the users. If you are a user and you are new to WP and you see a template listed 5 or 6 different ways it is easy to get confused into thinking they are all different. Add to that the hundreds or thousands of valid templates WP has and you have a big mess. The whole point of a redirect is to allow a link to the real article that intuitively could be done by the users. To an article though this can get really confusing because in some cases we really do have multiple templates that do similar like things. Additionally Magio maintains several bots and is one of the programmers of AWB. Too block him based indefinately based on something that is best described as a disagreement would be a serious blow to WP. --Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide some evidence for your claims. Oh, and indefinite=forever. (FYI, I have recently cautioned Kumioko about similar edits contrary to AWB's rules of use.) –xenotalk 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not merely a simple disagreement. In his reply to xeno Magioladitis said “The template is marked as ‘Deprecated’”. There was no such marking on the template or the template's talk page at that time. More than twenty-eight hours later Magioladitis nominated the template for deletion. This is only the latest incidence of this behavior and the only one that I can document. JimCubb (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for any confusion, but this was a different template we were talking about there. –xenotalk 19:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to add by paraphrasing something from an ongoing conversation with Xeno on my talk page. I think he is getting too worried about watchlists. If I was doing edits that somehow adversely impacted the server performance or was somehow affecting the site itself I could understand and would agree. But, doing so many edits that I am filling watchlists is not a problem for me. Personally I smile whenever I see my watchlist fill up because that means the pages I have on my watchlist (which is about 18000 BTW) are getting some love. The more love they get the better they are. Trivial or otherwise each improvement made to an article makes it a little better. --Kumioko (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason AWB has a rule against trivial and insignificant edits is in part because it clogs up watchlists. Just because you don't mind someone making an edit just to bypass a template redirect doesn't mean others want that on their watchlist when there is almost no net benefit. –xenotalk 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple solution, press the "Hide minor edits" option. ΔT The only constant 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should users change the behaviour of their interface to accommodate users who ignore guidelines, rules, and community norms? –xenotalk 19:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, why counsil an editor to use a function that also hides massive or malicious edits that are hidden as "minor"? An no, I'm not labeling the 'bot migration of templates as malicious - contentious definetly, but it is certainly not overtly or intentionally malicious. But everyone has run into editors that always mark their edits as "minor". In some cases that lets lots bypass watch lists - from honest errors up through blatant vandalism. - J Greb (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse block. Magioladitis is well aware that the community has rejected his/her logic (and just participated in some discussions in which this sentiment was reinforced), and he/she simply doesn't care. He/she is deliberately engaging in actions contradicting policy/consensus, attempting to force through his/her preferences by any means necessary. This is highly disruptive (especially for someone with the sysop bit, which he/she has used to speedily delete longstanding redirects not meeting any CSD) and needs to cease. —David Levy 19:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that this was a well-advised block. It seems to be rooted in a wikiphilosophical disagreement about whether one should actively replace redirected templates. I have no opinion about this, except that it is not a disagreement that should be settled by blocks among admins. The replacements are not patently disruptive and I imagine that one can disagree whether such edits are "insignificant or inconsequential edits" according to the AWB rules quoted by Xeno. In the apparent absence of a clear community consensus about this issue, and without any formal stages in the dispute resolution process (such as a RFC) having been undertaken, the indefinite block seems both premature and excessive to me. Any sanction, finally, would probably be more effective if it were not undertaken by an administrator who seems to be actively involved in the underlying policy/procedure/MOS discussions.  Sandstein  19:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This block might be lifted if Magilatidis will agree to cease his usage of AWB until he obtains consensus in a proper forum. I suggest that Kumioko should stop as well, for the same reason. If Kumioko won't agree, I suppose that admins might revoke his AWB access, since his edits don't seem to conform to WP:AWB#Rules of use. People who are familiar with AWB might suggest where the proper discussion should occur. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems reasonable. Possible venues are WT:Template messages and WT:Redirect. –xenotalk 20:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandstein: WP:R2D has wide consensus and existed long before I even started actively editing here. However, please do note (and feel free to act on), my above explicit permission for any admin to modify this block. I've also told Mag that I will unblock him if he agrees to obtain consensus for these changes prior to making them. –xenotalk 20:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not seem to be a case of WP:R2D. That guideline tells us: "It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. (However [[redirect|target]] may be replaced with [[target]] if [[redirect]] is not a {{Redirect with possibilities}})." It is the latter, parenthetical, case that the edits at issue are more similar to, which suggests that replacing deprecated templates is just fine in the light of that guideline. Sandstein  10:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow your logic; but this is not the venue to have an extended debate on the meaning of R2D - will take it to the talk page there. –xenotalk 14:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand. The block addresses a long-term problem about which Magioladitis has repeatedly been warned, not an isolated incident that can be resolved by blocking for a predefined duration.
    And Xeno has agreed to unblock as soon as Magioladitis agrees to seek consensus before continuing the controversial actions. "Indefinite" doesn't mean "permanent" or even "long." —David Levy 21:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I'm just checking on that. As long as we agree it's not permanent. I guess as a patrolling admin on WP:AN3 who regularly hands out escalating blocks which serves as warnings, I was a little taken aback to be honest. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I understand why it might have seemed harsh in that context. —David Levy 21:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question seems to be what constitutes "overly trivial" in the AWB rules of use. I would not consider fixing templates and redirects to be overly trivial in the slightest, for example, though obviously Xeno and others disagree. As such I disagree with the block myself. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One cannot fix something that isn't broken. Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken (a longstanding, consensus-backed instruction). —David Levy 21:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You comment is misleading. By the plain meaning of its text, WP:R2D applies only to bracketed links, not to transclussions. Ruslik_Zero 08:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. –xenotalk 13:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading his response, I unblocked Mag and requested he engage the TFD process prior to orphaning further templates. [3] –xenotalk 02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This block has no foundation in policy. WP:R2D and by extension AWB rules of use applies only to (piped) bracketed links, but not to transclusion of redirects. WP:Redirect actually says that they may create problems with updating template calls. So, this block should be lifted. Ruslik_Zero 08:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      That line makes no sense and should be removed. Perhaps those who feel template redirects are a problem should consult the community to see if they share their view. Anyhow, I've already unblocked him, as mentioned above. –xenotalk 13:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some comments: I won't be able to edit in the next 2 days.
    In Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review:_User:Magioladitis, it was implied that this is related Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215#Block review: User:Yobot. This is not case. The latter was caused by a bug in WP:AWB's code that was fixed. Of course, it's everybody's right to believe that I was doing the edits in question on purpose. I have already written on the matter in Yobot's talk page.
    In the same discussion it's also mixes the action of bypassing redirects with the one of replacing a template with one other. I consider myself experienced on the subject of the DABlink and I think I have the right to add/replace with one that I think it's more appropriate. If someone checks I corrected many mistakes in DABlinks. Nobody, until now, ever reacted in my edits moving, updating, changing DABlinks. {{About}} with 70k+ transclusions is better established and more familiar for tenths of editors by a template with less than 200 transclusions which was not even used for its purpose other than in 4 pages. I consider my job the same with replacing {{About}} with Template:Tk in the case the first parameter of about is unnecessary or tautology. If someone checks the dits they are many that the dablink moved on the top per WP:LAYOUT or multiple DABlinks were merged. I don't understand where the WP:R2D stands on that but this is a discussion we did again. I would like also to note that TfD discussions (not RfD) usually ended with the redundant DABlink to be deleted. Check {{Otheruses6}}, {{Otheruses7}}, {{Otheruses8}} and probably more which I don't have the time now to do find. I willing to get more consensus on these edits if this is the problem but I don't think the problem is that the community isn't aware of the edits but the fact that sme editors disagree with the "The template is redundant to a better-designed template" reason to delete a template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the problem is that such AWB campaigns to orphan deleted templates skip the "deleted" part. If a template redirect is actually deleted as the outcome of a TFD, then of course that redirect has to be orphaned. But orphaning a redirect in order to later nominate it for deletion gets the process backwards.
    However, that also ignores the AWB rules of use, which I am sure you are aware of. I have also seen trivial edits lately, although I didn't point them out. I'll keep an eye out for more of them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for the lifting of editing restrictions

    Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment I have moved this discussion from the ArbCom to this venue for community input.

    Initiated by —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ at 04:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Case affected
    Koavf arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
    Clauses to which an amendment is requested
    1. Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.
    2. Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
    3. Koavf is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.
    • Suggestion: Repeal all.
    List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
    Other user templates:
    Koavf (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)
    • I do not believe that any other editors are directly affected by this proposal.

    Amendment 1

    Statement by Koavf

    I am under a community sanction editing restriction with three clauses. I am:

    1. Limited to editing with a single account.
    2. Prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
    3. Subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.

    While I have had further blocks (including two in the past two years), these criteria have only been invoked once and subsequently overturned through a good-faith appeal. Five prior cases involved 1RR/3RR violations, including ones that were related to Western Sahara only in the broadest possible sense (e.g List of states with limited recognition.) It is possible that I have made some other small edits to articles related to this issue (I have made many edits since then), but I have not made any substantial edits to these topics, nor has any user complained that I have (including blocking admins.)

    As I stated in my request for rollback re-institution, I am a reliable editor who has not recently engaged in edit-warring and is constructive in his edits. I have used my roll-back ability (as well as Huggle and Twinkle) to fight vandalism, I have made several thousands constructive edits, I have had articles promoted to FA status through my own work and collaboration with others, and if you speak with users who have known me over the last five years, you will find that I have been an increasingly thoughtful and trusted member of the community. I have helped new users and made several proper posts to AN/I and AN/V to help the community avoid edit-warring and vandalism. I feel like I have reached a level of maturity such that this edit restriction is not necessary in practice or theory; in the three years that it has been in place, I have become a much more sober-headed and constructive editor who is trustworthy. I do have a long block history, but note that there are other editors who have longer ones but have been recognized as reliable and helpful editors who no longer have editing restrictions--including editors who began as vandals.

    In regards to the three specific restrictions:

    1. I have never edited with another account and I have posted all of my anonymous IP edits on my userpage. The only checkuser investigation on me was closed as inappropriate.
    2. I have respected this content restriction and have avoided Western Sahara-related topics with the exception of reverting vandalism and the most tertiary topics (e.g. List of United Nations member states, where I have not edited on the topic of Western Sahara in years.)
    3. This restriction could still be placed on me at any time as appropriate, but--as noted above--it has only been invoked once and then rescinded.

    I look forward to these restrictions being lifted in part so that I can be recognized as a trusted editor and in part so I can begin to edit Western Sahara-related articles again (the quality of which has generally languished for several years, as I was the only active editor on this topic.) Both my ability to edit and the quality of the encyclopedia will be enhanced by the lifting of these restrictions.

    Discussion

    • I don't see any major issue with lifting these restrictions. Unless another user brings up significant concerns over this issue, I see no reason why the restrictions should continue. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I received a ping on this because I was involved in the arbcom case somehow (memory fails me how). I'm not in a position to offer any opinion either way, unfortunately, but I don't have any particular objections either way this may turn out. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will mirror what Swatjester just said. Kaovf has stayed off the radar for a long time, so I don't really have much of an opinion on his editing history over this time, which is probably a good thing. I can't come up with a reason not to rescind the restrictions, at least #1 and #2. I think #3 may be a good idea going forward, since its still a check on backsliding to former problems, but I'm not too attached. --Jayron32 04:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanctions Timeline

    Each of the numbered are blocks or enforcement of sanctions in relation to the user.

    1. October 2005 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
    2. Feburary 2006 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
    3. August 2006 - blocked for disruptive pointiness
      unblocked as it was unintentional and he agreed to use AfD and other venues to bring attention to his concerns
    4. September 2006 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
    5. September 2006 (6 days after the previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
    6. October 2006 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
    7. October 2006 (11 days after previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
    8. October 2006 (3 days after previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
    9. October 2006 (8 days after previous block) - blocked for using AWB too fast (he was making up to 10 edits within a minute; sometimes quite a bit less)
    10. October 2006 (5 days after previous block) - blocked for using AWB too fast
    11. November 2006 (9 days after previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
    12. November 2006 - block extended to indef for exhausting Community's patience
      Early 2007 - Koavf privately appealed to ArbCom
      May/June 2007 - ArbCom lifted ban and imposed 1RR on him (details). Although concerns were expressed at that time that community members were not notified, those concerned also respected the outcome decided by those arbitrators in the interests of assuming good faith. Did the outcome work?
    13. June 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
    14. June 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
    15. July 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
      unblocked to allow user to help correct problem and make show of AGF
    16. September 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
    17. April 2008 - blocked for violating 1RR
    18. May 2008 - blocked for violating 1RR
    19. September 2008 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring
      Community ban discussion initiated due to 19th block; 12 users endorsed a site ban; 7 opposed.
      Community sanction proposals put forward; unanimous Community support for sanctions.
    20. November 2009 - probation measure invoked to prevent disruption relating to categories
      March 2010 - appealed successfully
    21. late April 2010 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring ([4] [5] [6] adding the characterisation of 'demo' instead of 'compilation'). See his original unblock request, and the then amended unblock request with the administrators reasons for declining it [7] followed by his response which maintained he would revert upon the block expiring [8]. Another editor told him not to do so [9].
    22. October 2010: within the last few days, he has been using AWB in the same way he was warned not to in the past (making up to 12 edits using AWB within a minute; sometimes quite a bit less).
      appealing the Community sanctions in total.

    Although I was ready to accept his March 2010 appeal regarding the categories specific enforcement, I'd certainly oppose lifting the probation altogether. I don't mind lifting the account restriction bit, but really, that's dependant on the Moroccan/Sahara topic ban, and I'm going to leave it to others who encountered issues on that particular topic to decide whether the scope of any such problems can be dealt with via probation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Striking per my comments below - although I'd have favoured keeping probation (term 3) in place for 6 more months, I don't oppose the lifting of the sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect What would I have to do for you to be comfortable with lifting these sanctions? Should they be in place forever? For that matter, I honestly don't understand what the purpose is of the third clause, as this stipulation would be true regardless--if I was making a series of disruptive edits to (e.g.) Western Sahara-related articles, I could be topic banned from them again (more likely, I would have a more serious punishment, considering my block log.) Having this as an editing restriction seems redundant as any user making a series of disruptive edits to any set of articles or topics could be barred from editing those topics.
    Regarding my AWB usage, I see nothing in the documentation about speed of use other than to be careful (correct me if I'm missing something here.) The initial reason for the request to make slower edits with AWB was users who check Special:RecentChanges. This was years ago, and if anyone is manually checking that today, it's impossible to keep up with the flood of new edits from all users and my contributions are a drop in a bucket. If someone is using Huggle, then I am whitelisted anyway. In point of fact, I got a barnstar from one user precisely because I was rapidly tagging these talk pages with AWB. I can't see how adding tags to category talk pages at the rate of (e.g.) 17 a minute is really a problem, but I'm willing to concede that it might be if you can explain to me how this is unhelpful.
    Finally, while your assessment of the final block is not inaccurate, it is (unintentionally) misleading, as you omit the fact that I did not revert as I planned after my block was lifted for precisely the reason that you cite. (And the edits I did make were reverted as "vandalism", even though that was a false charge.) We ended up discussing that issue on talk and found an acceptable version of the page. Again, this is the difference between my editing five years ago and today and I would like to think that it shows that I am a mature enough editor that I don't need any active restrictions or patrolling of my edits. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Justin, should you make disruptive edits again, then:
    • if probation remains in force, an administrator will ban you from certain pages/topics and only block you for violations.
    • if probation is lifted, an administrator will block you for the edit(s) and/or the Community will ban you from editing Wikipedia (due to the history/context/pattern here).
    That is, in the case of the latter, you must remember: these 3 measures were imposed as a last chance good faith measure so if these are lifted, the Community is unlikely to contemplate coming back and going through a full discussion to reimpose more of the same if there are any relapses; it would come back to discuss it if a site ban is the only way to get through to you or the only way to deal with the disruption. On the other hand, obviously, if there are no issues, then that's the most ideal outcome for all.
    Absent any concerns about 2, I was not going to stand in the way of 1 or 2 being lifted, but I was going to suggest that the third term operate for another 6 months in which you time you should edit without other issues (that is, without anymore blocks/bans due to disruptive behaviors). But if you accept the likelihood of what will happen in case things don't go to plan, then I'll strike my oppose and not stand in the way of the appeal (which means I would not actively oppose all 3 being lifted now). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah Now I understand your position. I am confident about lifting these sanctions because any "disruption" that I would make at this point would not be the type of inflammatory edit-warring or WP:POINT-style POV-pushing that I would have engaged in in the past. Anything that would constitute disruption on my part now would be bold editing that is misguided. If someone simply asks me to stop or explain myself, I will (and I have.) As far as six more months go, we would still be in the same boat then, right? The only difference is that I could say I waited six more months--that's fine, I suppose, but I'm not sure that it's really necessary nor that it will do anything in my favor in case there is some issue in the future. In sum, my problem in the past was edit-warring and I'm not going to deal with that now. If you prefer a six-month trial from this point forward or immediately lifting restrictions, either is fine with me. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the fact that he was blocked 4 years ago for using AWB too fast seems irrelevent here. Both AWB and the mediawiki software has changed so much in the past four years that the conditions which would have led to the AWB throttle have changed drasticly. I can't see where this behavior, of itself, is a problem. If THAT is the only actionable objection to his behavior in the past 6 months, then I don't see that as a problem. --Jayron32 02:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What happens in the present cannot be viewed in a vacuum. They're informed by a context, either of a pattern of behavior or history - after the history we see here, I'd have expected the disruptive behavior to stop after these measures (short of a full site ban) were employed, and it should be clear; the 3 sanctions being appealed at this time were the alternative remedy to a full site ban that was to be imposed two years ago; it was a good faith last chance. That is, one should try to avoid engaging in the same disruptive behaviors; unless an unjustified block was made, or a sanction was imposed unjustifiably under the probation, there should not have been any other issues. Incidentally, misuse of rollback (if it occurs) is a lot easier to handle than the other problems encountered so far. In November 2009 (a little over a year after the probation was imposed), the sanction was invoked to prevent certain behavior that was disruptive. Incidentally, if we'd lifted the ban after a year, and he engaged in this behavior afterwards, he probably would have faced a harsher outcome than the sanction that was imposed on him. Still, by March 2010, we accepted his assurances and removed the additional restriction.
    A month later, in April/May 2010, he was disruptively edit-warring and was blocked. The main issue I find is this block (which was imposed less than 6 months ago); I think that is a problem. If the block was unjustified, and either the blocking admin, the admin who declined the appeal, or even the community are ready to come to that view, or at least there was not a strong consensus in support of imposing a block (despite the context), that needs to be considered. If the mitigating factors are sufficient that another editor should also have been blocked, that may also be worth considering (but unless I have missed something, the issue (again) was Koavf disruptively edit-warring in April/May 2010). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am grateful for the thoroughness of Ncmvocalist's analysis, but I'm not certain of his bottom line. I agree with Ncmvocalist that Koavf's block in April of 2010 (and the ensuing unblock dialog) are a concern because it suggests that the old problems from 2006 and 2007 have not entirely gone away. I myself would be OK with the lifting of all the restrictions, but suggest that Koavf voluntarily observe a 1RR regarding Western Sahara articles and be aware that any renewed problem in that area could lead to bad consequences. I didn't see any actual violation of the AWB terms of use but putting project tags in article talk space is not recommended by some projects, and I recommend that he consider whether all his AWB changes are truly valuable. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure I would be fine with being extra vigilant about my Western Sahara-related edits (as a strictly practical matter, I have to, or else face some certain disciplinary action.) As far as the tagging goes, I have checked these WikiProjects and they do not have any guidelines about not tagging non-article namespaces. In point of fact, the other person in the discussion that you cited acknowledged that there was no precedent guideline for this and changed his mind about the tagging based on this fact. The only other person who responded to me about this was from the Simpsons WikiProject, which also had no guideline about tagging and still doesn't, in spite of the fact that there banner explicitly includes an NA parameter, as well as one for books. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Justin, the wiki-past is gone. Now, could you tell admins on this board that you are serious enough about observing the 1RR rule and wp:consensus? So far you've just talked about how you have been respectful of sanctions and restrictions. I am asking you this is because all what has been talked about here is your editing style but it seems that the discussion has ignored your attitude toward WP:CONSENSUS on talk pages. Probably because you have not been explicitly sanctioned for it but the 'consensus' issue is still bothering me. It's a core policy of this business. Officially, it is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. If you still believe that one single user has the right to sabotage a consensus of 9 nine other users and still insist that he's within his rights then we'd surely have problems in the future. I'll appreciate if you could offer some assurance regarding this point. After that, there'd be no reason for me as a concerned user to object to your appeal.
    P.S. I'd have liked to be notified since I was the user who brought the complaint to AN/I which resulted in the community sanction in question. Justin, everytime you appeal for something you miss notifying concerned users. It's just a courtesy matter but it has to be mentioned since this is the third time it happens. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus As a for instance, the last disagreement I had with an editor, I counseled him to speak with the appropriate WikiProject(s) to reach consensus about contradicting a guideline. (The other half of the discussion is on my talk page.) Other recent examples of my editing raising a red flag and me respecting consensus include User_talk:Koavf/Archive021#Edits_to_November_18 (where consensus was against me, and I ceased editing) and User_talk:Koavf/Archive020#Categorization (where consensus favored me, and I continued editing for several weeks.) Alternately, here is an example of me following consensus and asking a user to do the same with the resolve to respect that process: User_talk:Koavf/Archive020#Category:Jews_is_correct. And these are all examples of boldness on my part rather than POV-pushing or sheer recklessness. I haven't had anyone complaining about me flaunting consensus lately and I don't do it.
    In terms of reverting, I don't have much of a recent history for it or the prospect of it due to the types of edits I have been making lately—that is to say, I have been doing a lot of maintenance, such as categorization, tagging, etc on pages that I do not watch rather than substantial edits to the text of articles. Off hand, I cannot remember any instances within the past six months where I've had a prospective edit-war, and I certainly haven't actually engaged in one. This prospective 1RR restriction would be self-imposed and (apparently) limited only to Western Sahara-related articles, so for this, I guess you have my word and your gut.
    I really didn't know who to alert about this, since I don't have anyone on Wikipedia who would be directly affected by this—no one with whom I have had any Western Sahara-related edit-wars is still on here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, Justin. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed partial removal of restrictions on Δ/Betacommand

    Δ (talk · contribs) (previously User:Betacommand) is currently under a series of community-imposed restrictions (listed below, see also original list here and discussion that led to them here):

    • Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand [Δ] must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand [Δ] must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.
    • Betacommand [Δ] must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.
    • Betacommand [Δ] must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.
    • Betacommand [Δ] is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. Blocks should be logged here.

    I am proposing that the first two of these restrictions be rescinded, and the third be amended to read "Δ must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time while editing under his primary account." The reasons for this are several. Firstly, Δ is most valuable to the project for his work on bots and automated scripts. He has done outstanding work in these fields in the past, and remains one of the more experienced bot operators Wikipedia has. While it is in part the operation of these automated tools that led to these restrictions, this brings me to my second point. Δ has demonstrated that he is able to maintain and operate a bot within the expectations of our community. As a result of a community discussion here and a subsequent Arbitration Committee motion here, he manages User:Δbot, which does a good job of clerking the (frankly overcomplicated) pages at WP:SPI. Thirdly, these changes to Δ's restriction continue to restrict him from operating scripts from his main account, which in large part was what led to difficulties previously. Δ would still be required to obtain approval from the Bot Approvals Group (and/or ArbCom, as appropriate by their previous motions) before operating any other accounts or adding any more tasks to his existing bot.

    I have asked Δ to come and explain what he would like to do on the project if these restrictions were lifted, although he has stated that he will have intermittent internet access for the next few days, so please be patient if you have questions for him. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I really would like to be able to say I support this, but I have reservations. On the one hand, Beta (or Delta now. Whatever greek letter he wants) has skills which are very useful to the project. On the other hand, Beta has two very serious problems related to the running of his bots which led to the above restrictions. The first is that he has, at times, made poor decisions regarding the running of his bots for sometimes nefarious purposes (such as making thousands of dummy edits to make a page undeletable under technical limits of the Media Wiki software). He also has shown, in the past, problems with personal interactions which are not helpful in a bot operator. Basically, he doesn't interact well when asked to explain his actions, his attitude seems to be "I know better, so leave me alone". This sort of inapproachability is part of the reason for the civility parole. I have concerns about expanding his bot-running privileges given these past problems. I would like to hear from him directly, and especially would like to hear about what he has learned from his troubles and how he intends to operate differently. I am open to being convinced here, I am just not there yet. --Jayron32 04:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ive spent a long time reviewing my past actions, Ive also spent a considerable amount of time reflecting and analyzing both my actions and the communities (actions and re-actions) and have learned quite a lot. I've since adjusted my approach, and I have changed quite a bit personally. If you would like we could take this to a private conversation off wiki. (I do not want my personal details public). I could write several essays about what I have learned, and about how I fucked up and what I could, (and should have) done differently but my skill with a pen just is not there to give it proper justice, so I would rather just go back to doing what I do best, gnoming. ΔT The only constant 13:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: These restricitons cause nothing but problems Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, this was never asked for at VPR, and 50-60 edits in 10 minutes from 20:28-20:37. Relevant thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive643#Unauthorized bot: Δ again. I was fairly forgiving because I didn't know his restriction, but I'm not happy to hear about it now. I'm going with no; if you can't edit according to the already agreed sanctions, you shouldn't have your previous ones lifted, because we can't trust you. Period. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Jayron's initial sentence. How many times has Δ/Betacommand been given an inch, only to take a mile? There have been too many secondsecondsecond chances here. He can continue editing under these restrictions (though as Magog points out, he actually hasn't), or he can go elsewhere. → ROUX ₪ 04:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally per Jayron32. I'm OK with "triangle" and have asked him to help collate information in the past (when he was just Betacommand), he is really quite skilled in that area or at least has a decent framework to execute tasks on. I've seen no positive indication that he will interact better with the general community though, Hersfold, can you point to a successful execution of a WP:VPR request for leave to make a series of edits? Did that ever happen once? Franamax (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with others, I have reservations. These restrictions were put in place to protect the community, and certainly not without reason. He drained far, far too much from this project in the past because he had useful skills, and I have no desire to go down that route again. As of yet, I've not seen compelling reason to lift these restrictions, and in fact has broken one of said restrictions just recently. Resolute 05:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based upon the available evidence, Betacommand/Δ seems no more trustworthy now than he was when the restrictions were enacted, so I oppose. —David Levy 05:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per problematic history of unauthorized bot activity, incivility, and negligent operation of automated and semi-automated tasks. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I've detected absolutley no change in attitude that would justify this as yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Point of order — further information about this request, need a statement from Delta; please. I'm a bit confused about how this request came to be here. I don't see any discussion between Delta/Beta and Hersfold on their user talk pages about this request, though I gather that there was some communication between them in other fora. It's rather unusual for an unblocked, unbanned editor not to make requests for changes to paroles and sanctions on their own behalf. It also seems less than helpful – and kind of disrespectful to the community, Hersfold – for such a third-party request to be made while Delta is going to have limited connectivity. (Why couldn't this have waited a week?) At this point, there's no visible participation at all by Delta in this process; we don't have any information about what he wants, or why he believes that this request should be granted. I'm disappointed in Hersfold for bringing this forward under such inopportune circumstances, in Delta for going along with it (presuming he agreed) and with the editors above for being willing to jump to judgement without input from Delta.

    Hersfold, you should withdraw this request until such time as Delta is able to participate fully in it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I discussed and requested Hersfold to do this for several reasons, He was a mentor of mine for a year, He has always been better at drafting request that me (I make the same points but just not as well worded), I have been doing quite a lot of gnoming lately and I have noticed several areas where I help improve the encyclopedia in some of these cases automated processes would drastically improve the process, and I have also seen quite a few Bot requests go stale due to a lack of qualified willing bot operators, while I sit around twiddling my thumbs. As for my connection issues, I let Hersfold know that I would have intermittent connection for a short time, (knowing he would post the request soon). That ended last night, however when he posted I was already offline for the day. As I stated above I just want to go back to doing what I do best, gnoming. I have a project Im working on right now that appears to me a fairly large task (15k+ items) that Ive been slowly working on for the last few months manually. I know my actions of the past have caused drama and that is something I don't like, and I am trying to avoid as often as I can. As I have stated I want to go back to my roots (running non-controversial, useful bots) and avoid the drama that led to my burnout (dramafest). ΔT The only constant 13:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have thought it's more likely for specific exceptions to be agreed for specified tasks than a blanket lifting of restrictions, if you can show that the tasks have community support and how the restrictions limit your ability to do them. Rd232 talk 14:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. We did that for the SPI bot, and I see no reason why we can't also consider another exception for your "fairly large task". Define this task for us and we can consider it. Resolute 17:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. "I want to perform an unspecified task comprising 15,000+ items, so please turn me loose!" (scare quotes) is hardly the best approach. —David Levy 17:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't misrepresent this, I am not asking to "be let loose", rather just the freedom to file request for approvals for tasks that cross my path. Each task will then be assessed by the community, and BAG to determine the feasibility of each task. I am not asking for blanket approval on any bot activity, rather the ability to seek approval through the normal methods. As for my current project, a full listing of affected pages can be found here which is just over 15,100 pages. It is a listing of all articles which include deleted/non-existent files. I've been going though that list slowly for the last 6 months doing the cleanup myself. Ive got several other ideas on the drawing board but no clue if they will ever leave that. ΔT The only constant 19:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The restrictions in question were enacted with very good reason. Please explain what has changed to warrant their removal. How will you behave differently than you did before? If someone objects to an ongoing task, how will you respond? —David Levy 19:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to take a look at my response to Jayron32. As for objections, that is a loaded question, it really depends on what the objection is, almost no two objections are the same and thus cannot be responded to in the same manor. ΔT The only constant 20:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, Beta, but vague statements about having seen the error or your ways don't cut it anymore. Not after all of the chances that you've been given. —David Levy 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You could perhaps take the time to discuss the objections (without causing trouble in the process) and coming to an agreement with the editor. Then you could ask for input from a third party (WP:3O) if you and the other editor cannot come to an agreement. That's just one possible route to take, though, and I'm sure that each objection will have a different best practice for dealing with it, however, most of the time, what I recommend here (civil discussion) would be involved somehow. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats just one of a dozen different approaches that could be taken depending on the user, their objection, and why they are objecting. ΔT The only constant 21:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. My point was, in essence, that of the many different paths you could take in dealing with an objection, civil discussion must be involved. I raise this point because of some editors' concerns seen above about civility, and not necessarily because of my own opinion (I haven't looked deeply into the recent or far history of this, and so I do not have an opinion to share on this request attm.) Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, for you Beta, that's the only approach to take. The big question is, if someone objects, will you stop your bot? Franamax (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With any issue there are always multiple resolution solutions, however like Ks0stm stated remaining calm and civil is key. I actually used to have a feature enabled in my code that shut the bot off when it received the orange bar of death, I ended up shutting that off due to abuse. But with the ideas and tasks that I have planned, re-enabling it shouldn't be that much of an issue. ΔT The only constant 23:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For me to even consider supporting the proposed modifications to your restrictions, you would need to agree to stop your bot immediately upon receiving a complaint from a user in good standing, not restart it until the issue has been resolved or a community discussion has resulted in consensus that it is not grounds to halt the task, and revert any changes that the community deems harmful (irrespective of whether they were approved in advance). —David Levy 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that David Levy's suggestion is a good one; there needs to be assurances that, when reasonable objections arise to a bots activity, the bot is stopped until such time as the objections are dealt with. Given Beta/Delta's past, we need to take the default action to be to stop the bot activity if there is ANY doubt about what the bot is doing. Unlike David Levy, I am very willing to be convinced that Betacommand's restrictions can be relaxed in limited cases. To be fair, other than the recent glitch noted above, he's kept his nose clean since his return, insofar as I haven't seen his name on the dramaboards at all. At some point, given a long period of good behavior, we need to consider slowly relaxing restrictions, regardless of our personal problems with Beta. I would be the first to admit that, especially in the past, I did not like him. I will not mince words on that issue. Still, my own personal tastes need to be put aside, and we need to consider what can be good for the Wiki. It would be good to see some trial relaxations. One posibility I could propose would be that all bot requests at WP:BAG would need a notice posted to WP:AN, so that the wider community could review his requests; more eyes would be a good thing. --Jayron32 00:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually am quite willing to be convinced, but I haven't been yet; Beta's statements have been far too vague. Given his propensity to exploit technicalities (both real and imagined), it's important to eliminate any ambiguity. —David Levy 01:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As am I, which is why I would rather we moved to discussing the specifics of what BC/Beta/Delta hopes to accomplish. Discussing lifting the sanctions in vague terms accomplishes very little. Resolute 06:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My first major task, which I have manually been working on is removal of deleted/missing images, as I stated above, my goal is to file a BRFA for missing/deleted image removal using AWB. (I cant seem to figure out a good regex myself for removal). I was hoping for general relaxing of the restrictions so that I could avoid a majority of the knee jerk reactions that people have when me and bots are brought up. I actually think Jayron32's proposal above makes good sense. One of the main reasons Ive avoided VPR is just like this discussion, there are a flood of users who regardless of what I may say or do, just think that I should be banned from bots forever, regardless of how the circumstances may change. For the most part its just not worth the drama fight necessary to get small scale projects done. (Ive privately poked a few bot ops with ideas in the past). If anyone would like clarity on anything specifically let me know or just ask for it. Also if anyone wants to see how I respond to objections draft a situation up and an objection and it can be "role played" though. Short of someone objecting its the best case example that I can come up with. ΔT The only constant 20:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, if someone wants to see how you respond to objections, they can check e.g. this discussion on your talk page from just one month ago, where you reacted to being called "Betacommand" with "Since you cannot show me the basic respect to use the right username I think this conversation is over with." (emphasis mine). Fram (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In sum, if Delta follows the terms of Restriction 1 and proposes his specific task at VPR, he can as part of that proposal explain why restrictions 2 and 3 would be a particular limitation for that task, and ask for them to be relaxed for that specific task. A general lifting does not seem on the cards, at least at this point. Rd232 talk 10:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved
     – The user in question has never edited an article, only talkpages. Nothing to see. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 08:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It may be an idea to watch 58.168.136.97 (talk) who is adding opinion pieces of questionable value to articles related to Adolf Hitler, and in at least one instance to an editor they seem to consider a Hitler apologist. Britmax (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, well that's the thing about opinion peices, they're hitler miss... 23:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    Durrhurrhurr... Grandmasterka 23:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying my best here; can you nazi that? HalfShadow 18:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's only edits are to talk pages; I don't see any mainspace edits. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I should have said "the talk page of Adolf Hitler and an editor they think is a Hitler apologist". Anyway another admin has removed some of them as trolling which is probably what they are. Thanks, guys. Britmax (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bug in Category:Candidates for history merging?

    Binocular vision and Stereopsis

    Resolved
     – Not an administrator issue, please use the article talk pages to discuss such issues.  Sandstein  22:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    We have a problem. Two articles Binocular vision and Stereopsis have interwiki, for example: nl:Binoculaire dispariteit have en:interwiki Stereopsis but pl:Widzenie stereoskopowe have en:interwiki Binocular vision & nl:Binoculaire dispariteit.
    All language articles about topic:

    I believe that this is the wrong place for discussing this - I would say place it on thetalk page of one of the articles, and link to the discussion on the talk page of the other. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    New essay - Wikipedia:Not everyone who disagrees with you is a vandal

    I've created a new essay, linked above. I'm rather proud of it, to say :D. I've noticed it quite a bit as a patrolling admin at WP:AN3. Anyone feel free to edit it, add images, link it, change the name (I was thinking Wikipedia:You sir, are worse than Hitler, but turned it down), etc. Enjoy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like something I wanted to write during the BADSITES controversy a few years ago. "Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll". The main point being, "no matter how logical or sensible you think your proposal or idea is, there are going to be those who will have good faith reasons to oppose it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If we renamed it "You're a big stupid dick" we could have another MfD over that in which users would call those with opposing views vandals who are worse than Hitler. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GIANTDICK is already taken... --Jayron32 05:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fiction and the relevant noticeboard

    If you look above at the noticeboard navigation, you'll notice a "fiction noticeboard". No it's real, not fictional... Anyway, I've looked and that noticeboard is attached to the fiction page, which is currently marked "failed". There's no reason for us to have a noticeboard if it's a noticeboard of a failed proposal. But hold on, it gets even more complicated, the failed notice was added there by an IP, with the reason that it's failed because it hasn't been edited in three months. The noticeboard is largely inactive, and even if it was active, we don't need it, since fictional issues can be discussed on the relevant project. So, should I mark both as historical? Start a discussion on their status? Note: WP:FICTION goes to a different place. Netalarmtalk 02:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that the Content noticeboard can handle the low amounts of fiction stuff. So I'm in favor of merging the fiction noticeboard to the content one, and marking the fiction one as historical (or whatever should happen to it). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would actually prefer to see it activated. It would be a good place to hash out, in one spot, topics that span many separate articles, e.g., Transformers. If it could be used effectively in this manner, regardless of how FICT has failed or not, it would take a load off AfD and reduce inconsistent outcomes. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Chia N Mustafa

    I'm not sure how to deal with this. An IP editor put an afd template on Chia N Mustafa, but since they're an IP they can't finish the nomination process. I can't do it either, since I'm an IP editor. Where would the appropriate place have been to bring this up? 216.93.213.191 (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    checkY Created now. I'll notify the IP so they can add their rationale, although the tag was added two days ago and they haven't edited since. If there are no comments for a while someone can just apply speedy keep here. Jafeluv (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Was this the appropriate place to bring this? 216.93.213.191 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia Upload Picture Redirect

    Hello, when I first joined Wikipedia I had a lot of trouble finding out how to add pictures to articles and thought it would be very helpful to have a page titled 'Upload Image to Wikipedia' which is simply a redirect to a FAQ or wikimedia commons. I tried to create this, but it is a banned term.

    Currently it is very hard to work out how to add an image just by searching wikipedia and seems very obscure and unfriendly to new users. Indeed a sidebar link to Commons would be just as helpful.

    Ion Zone (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Here you go. -FASTILY (TALK) 17:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Questions re. User:Mario96

    Moved from WP:ANI
     – GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought I'd run up a couple of trial balloons regarding our latest young user with an overactive imagination and multiple IPs. First, I think a ban is warranted. Second, I think he's just about ready for his own LTA page. I don't particularly care to give a vandal his own page, but I think he's become enough of a pest to alert others to his presense. Thoughts? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh, if that's his year of birth, he'll grow up or get bored soon enough. It's the adult nutters that seem to be the real LTA nuisances.  Sandstein  19:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ^Lol. Well put. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but I would also point out that this user has been revealed to be a ninth-grader who had been at this since he was in middle school. This utterly evil little monster may have finally been shut down and believe me when I say that I'm being polite when I describe him, especially after that cross-wiki stalking incident he put me through a couple of months ago. Jimbo himself got involved with that issue. This is probably nowhere near as bad, but I wanted to take no chances after what I went through. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that is Bambifan we're talking about here. FWIW, he's almost as bad as Grawp. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no problem with a ban as there are almost fifty socks and banning streamlines the whole WP:RBI process, but since the original account was only blocked in May I would suggest we hold off for now on the LTA page. It looks like most of the socks were detected fairly quickly so far. Any change of a rangeblock having the desired effect? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We should do something; I just clobbered a loudly quacking example as evidenced by the user talk page and deleted contribs. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: I'm pretty convinced that BF is/was worse than Grawp. Most of the Grawp damage was caused by copycats and BF did all that cross-wiki damage on his own. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm good with that. Consider him banned. He's simply not going to contribute meaningfully. Thanks, Fetch. Diggin' the new signature, BTW. :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Certainly a ban is warranted. He's defacto banned right now: I can't imagine an admin granting an unblock request.—Kww(talk) 05:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Category for Template:Sinn Féin/meta/color

    Resolved

    Can an admin add [[Category:Northern Ireland political party colour templates]] to the template Template:Sinn Féin/meta/color please? Just for ease of navigation from a UK/Northern Ireland perspective. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I note you also brought this up on the template talkpage; note that the talk page is the correct venue, and you can use the {{editprotected}} template to get an admin's attention. I have added the template to the request for you. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Ah great. Thanks for pointing that out! All sorted Zangar (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    TIme for WP:RFRD?

    Note: The previous discussion was archived here. Can an uninvolved admin look at the comments and evaluate consensus? Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This needs a community-wide RfC. The straw poll is an inadequate in terms of consensus to implement a new community discussion board. -FASTILY (TALK) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a nice opinion, but pointless bureaucratic delay. If it was inadequate, there was plenty of time to say so here before it was archived. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the vast majority of Wikipedia editors do not actively watch and comment on this board. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As a proponent of the board, I must say that the concerns raised by sitting members of ARBCOM would give one pause before implementation. Has anyone actually asked the Foundation for a view, or Mike Godwin? It seems that this may, and I use the word "may" with due dilligence, be potentially outside the community's remit. Pedro :  Chat  19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't ask for someone to go rubberstamp it and start it, and you'll note (upon review of the archived discussion) that I've expressed concerns about the titles (vs. numbers) of people opposed to it. What I DON'T want to do is just let this fade away into the archives while the original problem (RFRD requests posted to ANI) continues unabated. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel that way, start an RfC. You've got to be kidding me if you think that the ~30 editors who commented on the aforementioned thread creates an accurate representation of the opinions of the whole Wikipedia community. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see consensus there. There are lots of tentative supports, and the only truly certain ones appear to be about equal to those voicing concerns. There are legal implications, and there really ought to be a RFC. Status quo is fine for now, until it can be properly and widely discussed. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw assertions of legal implications, but none that were anything beyond vague fears. I saw some enthusiastic support, numerically superior, with some oddly imprecise "concerns" expressed--exactly the sort of situation where a neutral observer would be welcome to summarize the discussion and move on to next steps. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not like we need a decision, we just need someone who didn't participate to formally close the discussion and add a brief statement summarizing the results. I'd do it but I participated. I notice it is becoming harder lately to find admins to do stuff that actually requires them to write something themselves and not use some template. I have had two such requests here be ignored in the last few weeks. I ended up doing one myself since it seemed nobody would step up, and this one [11] is still sitting with no closing statement. I know it's nobody in particular's sworn duty to do this, but c'mon guys. If you can close an AFD you can evaluate consensus in other conversations. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, any admin who doesn't mind being contacted individually about RevDel can add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to fulfil RevisionDelete requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:MIRROR issue

    Probably the wrong venue to bring this up, apologies, but after seeing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Olbermann_catch_phrases I followed the google link and the first hit is to http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Keith_Olbermann_Catch_Phrases which is a rip-off of the wikipedia page without any attribution. Sorry to palm this off, but thought I ought to alert someone, somehow! Bigger digger (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tons of pure vandalistic userpages that aren't noindexed

    Seriously, just search for "cunt" or "fuck" or something similar and limit the search to the user namespace to see what I mean. I've been going through tagging as G3s but there are so many that I'd appreciate if some admins could just go through and help delete all these. They aren't noidexed AFAIK and the absolute last thing we want is for one of them to appear at the top of a google search. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How about we just NOINDEX all of userspace? Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have waded through such searches in the past, it is time consuming but there is an awful lot of userpage vandalism that takes place, I've tagged or deleted plenty of G10s there as well.. Sometimes you just just need to revert to the userpage of a long inactive user, other times it seems an account was just created to use a userpage as a Graffiti wall. Rollbacking and then Semiprotecting the vandalised userpages of long absent Wikipedians is also useful. It might be possible to get an editfilter look for some of this, or perhaps get Huggle or Igloo to look for the use of certain words in userspace - though of course there are also plenty of legitimate uses of any profanity you can think of. ϢereSpielChequers 04:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Igloo has profanity highliting, and is good at detecting userpage vandalism. I also set up a filter that makes any user namespace edit appear at the top Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 05:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They should be deleted, but I wouldn't be in a rush to NOINDEX them. What set of search terms would bring those pages up on the first page? Protonk (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Fuck you", "cunt", "nigga", etc. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 14:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC) (Search within User: Namespace only)[reply]
    Those are searches on wikipedia's search engine (which works even if we don't allows compliant bots to index the page, which is what NOINDEX does). what google searches will bring these pages on a google search page? Protonk (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Out of scope user page ?

    User:Marvin fant is it out of scope ?--Musamies (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional userpages can be tagged for speedy deletion as advertising, so you can do that in the future if you catch one like that. I accordingly speedied that one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking for uninvolved editor to close merge discussion

    Per Help:Merging I would like an uninvolved editor to look at Talk:Cherem#Merge Herem into this article to see if a consensus has been reached in the merge discussion. It's been active for seven days. StAnselm (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baker's Cross

    The nominator has now !voted "keep". Would an uninvolved admin please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baker's Cross? Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Done! JodyB talk 11:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=391711991"