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 Reverse Gear (talk | contribs) at 09:31, 2 January 2007 (→Problems at Category speedy-renaming: I volunteer to help). 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)



    #wikipedia-en-admins

    The recent Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) matter has directed attention to the behavior of administrators on the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins. A discussion needs to be held regarding this matter regarding the questions raised. Fred Bauder 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Treat #wikipedia-en-admins as if every word is being said in public (it isn't, but IRC clients tend to log by default these days). It's not somewhere to let off steam about what a fuckwit you think someone is.
    • Be collegiate. Respect each other's judgement. YOU'RE ADMINS! You were PICKED for your JUDGEMENT!
    • ...
    Basically, "here are ways not to be dicks. You know, just to remind you." This doesn't address the current soap opera, but it's probably a good approach going forward - David Gerard 15:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I never use IRC, if you say something somewhere else, you should be just as accountable as if you said it here, so long as it can be proven. But you aren't usually (Everyking) held responsible, so all IRC really shows is that some admins lack the outlook on Wikipedia that they should have. Prodego talk 15:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While discussing this the arbitrators found Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. Fred Bauder 15:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a lot of contention even on just that. Prodego talk 16:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Whilst we could agree that logs should be published, or widely available, in future, I would have strong objection to any retrospective change. I've chatted personally, and given some details of my family on IRC. I chose to do that on the understanding that a few dozen people, all of whom were named and understood IRC rules, might overhear. But the notion that the logs of such conversations might be published (and searchable) on the open web, or given to people not party to the conversation was not part of the deal, and if allowed retrospectively is an horrific invasion of privacy. Change the rules for future use if we must (although I'll probably stop using channels that are that public), but not retrospectively. --Docg 16:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, but if someone were to then create a private channel, and all the admins went there instead, we would be right back where we started. Prodego talk 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is already happening. And worse, such channels, being private, will only include like-minded admins. Now that the forces of darkness confer in one, and Geogre et al in another, divisive groupthink will only increase.--Docg 16:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    People should treat IRC like a very large conference call. On-wiki actions which arise out of IRC discussions should be justifiable in absence of any agreement or discussion on IRC (ignoring WP:OFFICE actions for the moment). Then again, the same should really be said about the Mailing Lists too.

    As for the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel, in spite of its apparent lack of confidentiality it continues to be a useful forum for messages like "I'm having some trouble with vandals on Steve Irwin", which obviates the need to interrupt the usual gutter talk in #wikipedia. Sure, there is a multitude of pages on Wikipedia proper which serve such functions, but to be honest, over my dialup connection they usually take ages to load, because the people who haunt such pages (including this one) have a tendency to write essay-length posts about absolute wank. IRC is much easier on my connection than pages like WP:AN, and much more interesting at the same time.

    If #wikipedia-en-admins were to be shut down, it would simply shift the "sensitive discussion" to less publicised forums, and make it more cliquey (rather than allowing access to all admins). I think that would be counterproductive, but that looks to be the way it's heading.

    For those of you who are desperate to know what goes on in #wikipedia-en-admins, you'll be disappointed to know the conversations therein are quite similar to those in #wikipedia, and only half the time are they actually on-topic. - Mark 16:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion, we need a massive thrashing out of this somewhere—not necessarily to get a conclusive ruling (impossible, anyway, because people are free to do and say what they like off Wikipedia), but because I'm sure it will result in an informal code-of-conduct and some principles of etiquette (and hopefully moderation) emerging consensually among the majority of administrators which will serve in future to stifle most outbreaks of nastiness, sneakiness, or inappropriate specificity on a small group of agreed channels. The nasty few will have less effect on Wikipedia if their behaviours are as a result of this wised-up moral majority pushed off into channels where they are unlikely to mix with most decent-thinking administrators. But this discussion does, in my opinion, need to be centralised somewhere (if it already is, could someone guide me there, please). qp10qp 16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion

    IMHO, the problem with the #wikipedia-en-admins is not the medium itself but that it is too big and important a forum to ignore the discussion there and at the same time it is protected from scrutiny.

    I would suggest: to allow postings of logs (obviously sanitized from the personal info and WMF legal business) if it is needed to assess onwiki activities. It could apply to any off-wiki communications (including various chats, blogs and E-mails). A usual off-wiki WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks principles would apply: you cannot be blocked only for the off-wiki activity but the good faith of your actions may be evaluated based on the off-wiki evidence. E.g. if an admin on IRC was searching for a "clean kill" instead of solving a disruption problem, then his or her block may be seen as issued in the bad faith.

    The other problem is that a few extremely productive users see the #wikipedia-en-admins as the place there a clique is plotting intrigues against them. I would guess that the easiest solution would be just to invite the editors to the channel. They could see the matter for themselves as well as solve their problems from within. As I understand very productive editors are more rare species than admins, they also tend to be devoted to editing rather than chatting, so I do not think their inclusion would significantly increase the noise level on the channel. Alex Bakharev 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, no reason Giano should not be on the channel. Fred Bauder 03:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In principle, yes. I could see the consequences of that heading in either of two diametrically opposed ways. Either he sees that nothing much really goes on there, or he blows his top completely. At the end of the day, much as people have been arguing on the Esperanza MfD, people editing Wikipedia have to be able to cope with the environment. As a community, we should try and keep the environment as pleasant as possible, but there are limits and people have to insulate themselves to some aspects of the environment (ie. ignore some things as beneath them, or whatever). Carcharoth 03:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We are talking about the admin-user interactions here. The primary (and in a sense the only duty of an admin) is to provide maximally comfortable environment for the productive users (and uncomfortable for the vandals and trolls). Alex Bakharev 07:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have no opinion toward Giano, and have tried to stay out of this topic as much as possible, I would not support Giano being on the channel; while he's certainly a productive user, there are occasionally sensitive topics discussed on the channel; I can think of at least one discussion regarding a sensitive office action that I was involved in, with Jimbo and many other admins. As far as I've always believed, access should be granted to people we trust not to leak logs or publish sensitive information; while I don't think Giano would, I think he has been involved in enough conflicts that his trust would be questioned by at least a few admins, which I think would lead to more back-channel discussions outside of the main channel. Ral315 (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that he's already violated all of the rules of the channel by posting logs everywhere. I can think of very, very few people on the channel who would be okay with him joining now. He's already burned all of his bridges. --Cyde Weys 16:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The way you say that bothers me. It gives the impression that the bulk of these people aren't commenting on the IRC question on wiki for themselves—in which case, why not? It adds to my paranoia to think that our discussing this stuff on Wikipedia is a waste of time because the "real" discussion may be somewhere else: that's almost the essence of what worries people about IRC in the first place. I don't go on IRC, so I can't judge, but so far I have been willing to believe the assurances here that most admins are simply using IRC to speed up and improve their efficiency, in which case I don't see why the question whether Giano had access or not would bother them. I can only really assess what IRC users think by what they say for themselves on wiki: is that naive? qp10qp 18:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As with any discussion on Wikipedia, there is no need to comment if you have nothing to add. There is no point in a comment that says "I agree with Cyde, bye" (and adding empty votes like this on unanimous AfD's, etc. is also stupid). —Centrx→talk • 03:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a little naive, but the fact there there were extended discussions on the arbcom list is why this is here so that everyone can get in on the conversation. Fred Bauder 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A note about -admins and Giano I am an IRC user of that channel and yes I dont support the request to have non-admins in the channel. there have been Times where I will go there an seek advice from other admins. There are times where I am unsure of what to do and I dont want my asking about it or other request to affect the users in question or how the Issue is finaly issued. there was a case about how to handle some admin actions in general and some specific advice on other areas but sometimes these conversations can feed a vandal or make the situation worse if some of the involved parties find out that you were thinking about taking one action, but when I discussed with people in -admins I decide to take a different action. My first action Could have made the situation ten times worse. But in any given situation if a user asks me about a event that happened on IRC that I was involved with I will freely post the given conversation IF AND ONLY IF I have the consent of the involved IRC parties. I have done this already with one BRfA. I would have done so in the Giano case but due to technical reason I was unable to retrieve my logs and review the situation and get consent. I think that there should be a policy that users in good standing may request the conversation, But the admin in question must get consent from the involved parties and should edit out all conversation not within the scope of the event in question Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As a non-admin, how would I even know that an admin's actions are the result of an IRC discussion in order to request the log? If you decided you choose option A instead of option B, why is the rationale behind that decision secret? If your actions are consistent with policy and practice, explaining your motives shouldn't reveal anything that isn't already described on-wiki somewhere. In my view (as a non-admin), all potentially controversial on-wiki decisions resulting from any form of off-wiki discussion (IRC, email, AIM, telephone, what have you) should be accompanied by an on-wiki explanation, accessible to all users. It could be as simple as posting a summary of the discussion on your own talk page. This is an action that admins can undertake right now to increase transparency and trust and debunk claims of conspiracy. –  Anþony  talk  11:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is usually exactly what is done. The objections to IRC seem to be about 'hidden motives' and 'conspiracy'. Not leaving explanatory log reasons would be the same problem after IRC discussion as it would be for an individual admin making a decision with no discussion. —Centrx→talk • 03:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is sad that IRC people does not want to invite Giano and could solve a chronic problem and benefit the project. Betacommand's idea of a system to officially request logs (probably sanitized from the personal info and WMF business) might be useful in some cases: suppose a friend of a user reads the IRC log and suspect something fishy was going on, then requests the official log and starts and ON-Wiki process. To be workable this solution at least require an IRC culture of inviting diverse productive users instead of kickbanning them. Alex Bakharev 11:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He is perfectly capable of coming on IRC. —Centrx→talk • 05:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Esperanza MfD

    The MfD of Esperanza has now reached 150kb. As the overwhelming consensus appears to be for deletion, can someone please consider closing the debate now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Several things:
    1. MFDs run for more than two days.
    2. Most users agree it should be deleted, but there is still considerable discussion as to what should be deleted, and how.
    3. Debates are usually not closed early unless they satisfy a Speedy keep or Speedy delete condition, and neither one applies here.
    Titoxd(?!?) 00:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflictx2)I am perfectly aware of that, but WP:SNOW says that that if there is overwhelming consensus one way or the other, a debate can be closed early. We're up to 150kb of discussion now, little more can contributed. Most people are just repeating what's already been said now anyway. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-sysop opinion) Although I don't care about this MFD to tell the truth, an administrator could apply WP:IAR right now, and delete it early (if they wanted to). Iced Kola 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that opens the door to WP:DRV and other unnecessary wikilawyering. I don't see what the hurry is... Titoxd(?!?) 00:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, you guys do know that WP:SNOW isn't a policy, that WP:IAR just says that we need to respond to emergency situations dynamically, and that very little harm comes from letting a debate run, whereas great bitterness and bad precedent comes from cutting it off early? Geogre 00:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And Wikipedia:Five pillars isn't anything at all. WP:IAR says nothing about emergencies. This discussion, like any discussion on Wikipedia, is about what is best for a situation. —Centrx→talk • 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to say the same thing I said the last MFD: It's the wrong place to discuss such things. You don't deside whether an organization can be here on not on a deletion debate. It's stupid! There's got to be a better place to discuss this. We can't just go deleting organizations. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh? —Centrx→talk • 00:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Royalguard does make a good point. Maybe we can learn from the way WikiProjects and even entire wikipedias are deleted (there is a page on meta that deals with deleting inactive WikiMedia Foundation wikis). In those cases, inactivity seems to be the only criterion. There has been talk of Esperanza beoming less and less active, so maybe if left to itself it will die a natural death? Has there ever been precedent for deleting an active organisation with this much history? Carcharoth 00:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything that harms Wikipedia gets deleted. Esperanza is slowly dying anyway, all of the senior members were leaving, with only excitable new users with no sense of history or wikipedian policy left behind. It's becoming more and more dangerous, and if there is no precedent, better to set one than to keep something around that a lot of people want deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Dev920, it is considered bad form for the originator of an XfD to ask for it to be closed early. It is terribly easy for people to get the wrong idea and think you want it closed at a point where the nomination is succeeding. I realise you aren't, but for appearances sake it is best to leave things to take their natural course. Anyway, "more and more dangerous"? Some of those attracted to Esperanza may be misguided, but they are hardly in the same class as the vandal who has been targeting the main page and the featured articles on the main page. Carcharoth 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    New Wikimedia project goes through a preliminary testing phase and the "Wikipedia" project itself is already unequivocally decided to be appropriate for Wikimedia. The concept of a "Wikipedia" has already been well-tested and is a fundamental project for the Wikimedia Foundation. These projects are shut down for inactivity because that is almost the only reason why there would be any reason to shut them down. A Japanese Wikipedia would only be at odds with the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation if all the other Wikipedias were also at odds with it. With a Wikipedia project, anyone can create it and it could be about anything at all, as the various subpages of Esperanza have shown. I don't think there is much history of the concept of "deleting an active organisation", because there is no other "organisation" that has decided to separate itself so much from Wikipedia at large. There are no other "organisations" like this, because if you want to do something on Wikipedia you can simply create a Wikipedia page and do it—without gated access, without a sense of superiority, and without bureaucracy, and then possibly it gets deleted at MfD just like any other such page. —Centrx→talk • 00:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See my links below to how this is handled over on meta. Carcharoth 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In any case, this probably shouldn't be closed as a normal Mfd would. Maybe there should be some sort of admin "vote"-ing to determine what the Mfd discussion has determined (delete, keep, no consesus, inappropriate for Mfd, whatever), though that does seem a touch silly and bureaucratic. In any case, it seems like too major of a Mfd close to be done by a single administrator. Wickethewok 00:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the options and consensus is somewhat. The question is whether leaving it open is going to generate anything else that a summary would not. No commenter now is reading that whole discussion, and some appear to have only read the nomination statement. At a certain point, any new comment is just going to ignore the progress that is already made, with new commenters just giving visceral reactions about the project they love or hate. Given that it is not a vote, but a discussion, the question is whether the MfD should be closed and the discussion points summarized and reviewed elsewhere, with decisions about where and what to move being done more slowly and carefully than any 5-day MfD or any mostly ignored 2-day MfD. —Centrx→talk • 01:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    NB. The meta page and methods are only provided as an example. Obviously, Esperanza is an internal matter for the en-wikipedia, and as such we can deal with it however we want. Do note though, that there are several Esperanza clones on Wikipedias being written in other languages. The inter-wiki links show at least two: Bokmal (Norwegian) and Simple English. Carcharoth 01:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the Simple English one had a massive ruckus over it a couple of weeks back. Can't recall what happened, but someone got debureaucratted over it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Was that a ruckus over the Simple English Wikipedia as a whole, or just the Simple English Esperanza? Carcharoth 01:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Esperanza. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Such a monumentous MFD definitely shouldn't be speedy-closed, it would be immediately challenged at DRV on technical grounds and require another one. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 01:02Z

    Exactly my point. Titoxd(?!?) 01:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I concede. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I certainly wouldn't close it early, but I'm thinking that when it is closed normally, the consensus result per the discussion should be to turn all of the subpages into protected redirects to the main page and then write a historical essay there about Esperanza. Note that this doesn't actually delete anything; all of Esperanza remains in the history for everyone to see. It's an important part of Wikipedia history, and shouldn't just simply be deleted. --Cyde Weys 02:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the number of votes to delete outright, I don't think the consensus result should be to do that at all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes a compromise is the best solution. --Cyde Weys 03:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And other users don't mind having the Esperanza front page deleted, but don't want the subpages to be redirected to WP:ESP and protected, but rather moved out into the Wikipedia namespace... Titoxd(?!?) 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If that happens, you first move the subpage in question (to preserve the edit history), then return to the original page (now a redirect) and redirect that to the Esperanza front page, and add a note there saying that that subpage that redirects here was continued at whatever location it was moved to. If there are only a few links in "what links here", bypass the redirect manually for them and point them at the correct location. If there are hundreds of links, leave people to correct them themselves. I've looked at what links here for the Tutorial Drive, and there are around 660 links, but the vast majority appear to be user talk pages, probably from a copy of the Esperanza newsletter left on members' talk pages. The Tutorial Drive was created on 31 October 2006. The what links here for the Alerts program is surprisingly similar, at around 556 links. Again, mostly user talk pages or user pages. This program was broken off from the Esperanza main page on 19 September 2005. So far, just looking at these two programs, it seems that the links are mostly (though not all) contained to social interaction on user talk pages. The Reach out program has around 300 links, again, the vast majority being user talk page links. Reach out program created 11 November 2005. The Calendar program is similar. The Happy Birthday program page is not heavily linked as most activity seems to be on the subpages. The Collaboration of the Month has less than 50 links, but it was only created on 11 November 2006. The Admin Coaching program has around 700-800 links, which are mainly user talk pages. Earliest version of that page is 30 January 2006, though there is history before that at other locations. It would be interesting to find out what links to Esperanza programs are not from user pages or user talk pages. Carcharoth 16:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking of the history, when exactly did it start? I noticed the link to a September 2005 Signpost article, but was that merely a relaunch? I found the earliest version of Esperanza here from 12 August 2005, but I was mightily confused by Cyde's comment here, where he says "even after years and many, many, second chances". I can't make a year and four months "years", no matter how many times I count on my fingers. I checked the deletion log, and I don't see any signs of it having been deleted before. I can only assume that Esperanza hasn't been around for years, which is strange because I seem to remember it being around before then (not that I was around very much before then). Carcharoth 02:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All I know is that Esperanza was around before I started getting active on this site. Maybe "years" is an exaggeration, but it's been an eternity in Wikipedia time. --Cyde Weys 03:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The August 12 date is correct; the project didn't really pick up until early September. Ral315 (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Come on, we can afford to leave the long MfD page as a testament to how so many editors have become disillusioned with Esperanza. Just let the MfD do its thing and give Esperanza the coup de grace using our normal processes. --210physicq (c) 06:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All in all, deleting the history of these pages isn't going to achieve anything useful, but will make many discussions on Wikipedia that link to the pages incomprehensible to new readers. Redirecting all subpages to the main Esperanza page and marking the main page as rejected is a much better solution. We don't even need to protect the redirects preventatively. We can get to that if anyone actually tries to resurrect them after the obvious consensus to discontinue Esperanza. Zocky | picture popups 13:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I completely agree, now go say that in the MFD instead of here :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 13:58Z
    • This may already have been addressed, but WikiProjects get deleted for more reasons than simply inactivity. We've seen projects which the community has felt to be in bad faith deleted at mfd before now, which should create the precedent for this deletion debate. Esperanza is basically a WikiProject. Steve block Talk 16:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for answering the query I raised about whether WikiProjects have been deleted before. Can you remember any off the top of your head? What other alternatives have been proposed? I know that content-focused projects (or at least the associated articles) have sometimes been transwikied to a wikia wiki. As Esperanza is so focused on Wikipedia, I guess that makes no sense at all. But it is the previous WikiProjects deleted for non-inactivity reasons that I'd be interested in. Carcharoth 18:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like it's over. All that's left is a little bit of cleanup work to go through and either delete or redirect all of these hundreds of Esperanza subpages. Man, they certainly put out a sheer amount of verbiage that none of the rest of us have ever read. They had entire debates over internal elections, for instance. These are being deleted. --Cyde Weys 04:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD Discussions Resulting in Merge

    When an AfD results in merge, do we delete the merged page or keep it to preserve the history? Cbrown1023 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Replace the old contents with a redirect to the target page, unless the consensus was to specifically merge content and delete. The history should be retained for GFDL purposes and there's no need to hide it from non-administrators normally. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 02:19Z
    Do you want a longer answer? :-)
    You might want to make sure the text was actually merged properly before replacing with a redirect at the original page. A very important step is to say in the edit summary when adding in the text being merged, where the merged text has come from. Otherwise, someone years later looking through the page history sees a chunk of text appearing as if from nowhere. They might even think the merging editor wrote the text, but in fact for the full edit history and to correctly attribute who wrote which bits of the text (ie. the GFDL requirements) you need to be directed back to the original page. So put something in the edit summary like "merged from example per AfD discussion". If the merge has already taken place without a properly informative edit summary, find a minor edit that you can attach the more informative edit summary to, and consider putting a note on the talk page of the article. There is something called merging page histories, but I believe that only tends to work if the edit histories can be easily synchronised (which is rare).
    The other thing to consider is what to do with the talk page. Obviously if the article being merged doesn't have a talk page, then no problem. If it does, then you can (a) add a note to tell people that the redirect (which is now where the merged text used to be) must not be deleted because it contains relevant edit history, and (b) move or link to discussions and archives of discussions. One way is to go to the page into which the text has been merged, and put a link in the talk page archive box (create one if there isn't one) to the talk page of the page where the merged text came from. An alternative is simply to move the talk page to an archive talk subpage of the page where you merged the text to. For example: move Talk:Page 1 to Talk:Page 2/Archive 2.
    The final point to consider is that all of this can be done by anyone. None of it requires admin tools, though an admin is required to close the debate. I'm not certain, but I think the general procedure has been to just close the debate and leave those involved with the actual editing of the page to do the actual merging and tidying up. Though invariably when people in general move text from one article to another, they hardly ever stick to the detailed process I've outlined above, though they should. Uninformative edit summaries is the most common error, breaking the chain of attribution. Carcharoth 02:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points about edit summaries. As for talk pages I would just tag with {{oldafdfull|result='''Merge''' to [[foo]]}} and leave it; I find that talk page movements generally cause confusion and as an archive it might as well stay at the old location. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 02:49Z
    That's basically what I thought should be done... thanks. Now you know why I hate closing merge debates! Cbrown1023 02:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD is not the places where merges are decided (the clue is in the third word of its name), so closing admins are in no way obligated to carry out the merge - indeed, IMO it's something best left to regular editors of that article/subject area. To avoid confusion, I simply close AfDs with a large proportion of 'merge' opinions as 'keep' (which is what they are basically arguing for) and note that editors are free to merge as usual. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When I was more active in closing VFDs (yeah, that's a good clue of how long ago it was) I asked about what should be done with merges. The answer I received, and the method I have used since (including about a week ago when I closed an AFD archive) was to subst: the merge tag on the page to be merged and then alter the text to specify that it should be merged per AFD, rather than is proposed for a merge. Whether any of these were ever carried out I cannot say, but it certainly isn't the responsibility of the closing admin to do the merge. Essjay (Talk) 23:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I merge the easy ones, but if I don't feel like doing the actual content merge I do this: redirect the merge source to the merge target, then leave a note on the talk page of the merge target with a link to the pre-redirected version. This way, if nobody does anything the default is the source stays as a redirect, otherwise if nobody does anything it'll just linger around until another person AFDs it (it's not uncommon to see "previous AFD resulted in consensus to merge but nobody merged it, so now delete"). The template {{merge per afd}} can be used for this note. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 00:26Z
    Such merges are not always welcomed at the target pages. When this AfD resulted in a 'merge' decision, the response was this. As of now, Glambi redirects to DePauw University, but "Glambi" is not mentioned in that article. -- Donald Albury 02:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A modest proposal in the Giano mess

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop#.28Dec_2006.29_A_Modest_Proposal - bring on the rotten tomatoes - David Gerard 18:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I appreciate the effort at getting a clean sheet of paper for the discussion, but I should like to warn folks that that particular sheet has already been written on. (The /Workshop pages to the old "Giano" RFAR (it wasn't much about Giano) were very, very, very, very long.) We might need a better spot and a merge. Geogre 00:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alkivar (talk · contribs)

    I just thought that I should point out a comment that this user made on my afd for the American Nihilist Underground Society (see here). The comment said that I was a troll for afd'ing it and that he would like to indef block me for it. I think that accusing me of being a troll is definitely not assuming good faith and treatening to indef block me just because he disagreed with my nom is definitely an abuse of administrative powers. I think that if this user continues in this behavior, he should at least be desysopped for a period of time.--Azer Red Si? 20:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Only ArbCom can desysop people. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. Dannyisme desysopped Geni (later changed back), while Jimbo desysopped Carnildo (later backed by the ArbCom). Of course, those were extreme circumstances, and this looks hardly extreme. Hbdragon88 01:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides it does look like trolling to me too. At the very least a bit pointy, the GNAA article was deleted due to lack of verifiable sources, not because it is a trolling organization. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say delete it just because it was a trolling organization. I thought that notability was an issue about the GNAA article being deleted and ANUS doesn't get any more google hits than GNAA. I mentioned that I didn't think that Wikipedia should give unjust publicity to trolls, but just because ANUS is a troll organizion is not why I nominated it for deletion.--Azer Red Si? 20:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth noting, perhaps, that "notability", at Wikipedia, has nothing at all to do with Google hits, and everything to do with the existence of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, that comment was way out of line. -- Renesis (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The return of PalestineRemembered

    User:PalestineRemembered, is just back from a 1 month block for Serial violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NOR and WP:BLP" Since his brief return he has

    It seems to me that PalestineRemebered has not understood the purpose of his original block (see here; to emphasize to him that Wikipedia is not a battleground for fighting for his own POV, or for insulting other editors, but an encyclopedia. At this point, I'm not sure whether another 1 month block, or a permanent block is in order. Comments? Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Geez, some people never learn. I've reinstated the initial block and added an additional month for ignoring the warnings given him the first time. FeloniousMonk 00:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had some (limited) contact with this user prior to their first block. If they've picked up where they've left off (as Jayjg indicates with the diffs, I checked a couple of them and it looks like they have), endorse block fully. To be honest, it wouldn't suprise me to see this user blocked indef/community banned within a week of the current block ending... Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayjg forgot to mention this gem that PalestineRemembered posted yesterday: "[I]t's impossible to insert any evidence against Zionist politicians [on Wikipedia without it being reverted], no matter how well referenced and indeed proud they may be of their murderous racism." --GHcool 20:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the block as well, I'm not sure what was going through his/her mind what he said all that. Khoikhoi 21:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Block procedures

    Dmcdevit placed a range block on '208.54.0.0/17' due to Cplot accounts coming from that range. However, this is apparently a range used by Starbucks and hit User:Bobak (who does alot of 'DYK' stuff) amongst others. I attempted to correct this by unblocking and re-blocking with the 'Block anonymous only' and 'Prevent account creation' boxes checked and the 'automatically block last IP address' box unchecked. In theory I would think that should allow already existing accounts to edit normally, right? If so, wouldn't it make sense to use a configuration like that for most blocks on determined sockpuppets/vandals? If it doesn't work as I thought then what exactly does the 'block anonymous only' box do? --CBD 22:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that's right. The problem is these vandals sometimes have a ton of sock accounts already created, or they go create them elsewhere at the library, school, etc. and then use them on the dynamic IP at home, etc. —Centrx→talk • 22:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; we've been using anon-only blocks for several weeks, and we've had to upgrade to hard blocks due to the sleeper accounts. Essjay (Talk) 23:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone informed the Starbucks IT department about the issue? If we are lucky they can ban the MAC address from accessing the network. ---J.S (T/C) 23:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's using more than just Starbucks, but if you'd like to try an ISP case, you're welcome to do so. In my experience, however, these kind of vandals get tired of getting nowhere and move on to something else after a while. Essjay (Talk) 02:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly the issue I've tried to bring up several times and I've been shouted down over and over again. It's not through Starbucks, but through Tmobile Hotspots which is located at many Starbucks (all of them in some regions) and many other locations as well. Tmobile uses only a few IPs for all 9,000 US locations. I had asked for the Foundation to write a letter to Tmobile someoneI provided the address after corresponding with Tmobile on the issue). The Wikimedia foundation has a project underway to help with this called the XFF/RFC1918 project. It would help a little. Everywhere I've tried to bring this up, the post has been reverted away over and over again. The cplot sockpuppets have been quite helpful in trying to restore the post, but apparantly some administrators think that being misinformed is an asset against vandals.
    This very issue has been posted (and reverted away) at Meta:Babel, Meta:Stewards talk, Bureaucrats Noticeboard, here and at the request for checkuser talk, because checkusers sysops need to understand this too. Everyone of these places this information has been obliterated as subversive or somehow contraband.
    The important thing to understand is that this issue cannot just be swept under the rug. If this network of 9,000 LANs is being blocked because a single editor is talking about uncomfortable topics, then some solution has to be found. If a block of 9000 LANs does nothing to stop Cplot (and from what I can tell it doesn't) then why block it at all? Perhaps simply airing the uncomfortable topic would be a better approach than blocking an entire segment of the US internet. I don't think the Cplot sockpuppets are like any others. I think they're here to stay and until we address the underlying problems they're not going to stop. That's my sixth sense about this. --HappyNewYear2007Again
    I should add that twice Tmobile editors tried to add request for ISP reporting Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/208.54.95.129/32 and Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/208.54.95.129. Both were deleted because it was assumed that Cplot was the only one editing on those 9,000 LANs throughout the US. One was protected so that no one would ever create an ISP reporting request again. Wikipedia administrators need to step back an try to gain some perspective. --HappyNewYear2007Again 08:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that these hotspots are essentially low-tech open proxies. You can hop IPs by editing from the local Starbucks. The potential for abuse is the reason open proxies are prohibited, and since it's no one's home IP, it's much more acceptable to block these ranges for persistent vandals. Dmcdevit·t 08:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly the type of internet illiteracy I'm talking about. Dmcdevit is the worst culprit. You'll find Dmcdevit blocking IPs for six month because a Cplot sockpuppet walked by a WiFi netowrk. It is so irresponsible. And Tmobile hotspots are not like open proxies. Far from it. Every user that logs onto a Tmobile hotpot is a customer of Tmobile. For serious abuse, Tmobile could tell you precisely who the person was that maade the edits from their network. These are not proxies at all. Tmobile runs a WAN using RFC 1918 internet protocols. Blocking this one IP it's much less aacceptable to block an IP that's the public address for over 9,000 LANs in the United States. This is Orwellian to say that blocking thousands of LANs is more acceptable than blocking a single user working from home. --InternetLiteracyIsFundamental 09:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ATTENTION ALL ADMINISTRATORS

    (and editors, and readers, et cetera)

    Happy new year!! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Same to you. Happy new year to all! Even though mine doesn't come until 8:00 UTC because I live in California. --210physicq (c) 00:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, Happy New Year! Do we not have a nice photo of the fireworks around the London Eye, though? Martinp23 00:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neat. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and the same to all of you! | Mr. Darcy talk 00:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bah, old news. I'm already half-way through my new year's day in Sydney :) enochlau (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ooh, pretty! 00:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (A deliberately logged out admin)

    Psh. Who are you to tell me how to have my new year? -- tariqabjotu 01:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice anti-Redshift on the big round thing, whoever you are... 68.39.174.238 02:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been New Years here for over 13 hours... :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeh, Happy New Year wish to only admins as Can't sleep (& other admins) know that admins are going to spoil editors' year by blocking them rightly or wrongly. LOL. swadhyayee 03:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy almost-New-Year: here in California the parties haven't even started yet. DurovaCharge! 03:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    New Years' in Wisconsin :) Only two-odd hours left. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    4 hours, 12 minutes till midnight here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    50 minutes and going... what happened to the New Year's channel Freenode had last year? 68.39.174.238 04:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    #freenode-newyears Naconkantari 05:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Too late... blast it. 68.39.174.238 05:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's now midnight here in the Central time zone. Happy New Year to everyone, and thanks admins for another year of great work. AuburnPilottalk 06:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Belatedly, WP:HNY ......... Tyrenius 08:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy New Year everyone. --WinHunter (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Web Accelerator

    Ok, I was just auto-blocked for having the Google Web Accelerator recently installed. It also stated that my IP was User:64.233.173.85, which my IP is always in the 216.75 range or in a 209 range, so why is it readling like I'm from an entirely different range? Am I missing something about Google Web Accelerator? semper fi — Moe 05:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    When you use Google Web Accelerator, your IP goes through Google's proxy, which has been blocked as an open proxy. Naconkantari 05:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no matter then, uninstalled.. semper fi — Moe 05:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't uninstall it - just disable it for *.wikipedia.org. The below link from Hbdragon has the step-by-step. It claims to have saved me 5.1 days of loading time (out of 435 days total loading time), so I guess it has at least some benefit.... —AySz88\^-^ 06:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Google Web Accelerator for the gory details. Hbdragon88 06:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My advice is to leave it uninstalled, this is not the only website it causes problems with. I used it for about 4 hours before getting sick of it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here. —Mets501 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Entire country of Qatar blocked from editing?

    I just read an article on Reddit[3] which indicates that by blocking User:82.148.97.69, the entire country of Qatar has been blocked from editing and creating new accounts due to the firewall of the single ISP which sends all traffic through one IP, and thought this should be brought to the attention of admins to see if a solution exists to unblock them. It may be worth looking at comments on User talk:82.148.97.69 for more information. -Halo 09:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that the block has now been modified to allow account creation. Judging from the unblock requests on the talk page, maybe this should be made more clear in some way. The block itself appears to be in order; account creation is no great barrier to editing Wikipedia. Sandstein 13:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Check WP:ANI - I've adjusted the block based on the apparent opinion there. I agree that the users should be notified - I'm just going to look for the appropriate template to go at the top of the talk page. Martinp23 13:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Zoe Tay

    On 11 December, the Zoe Tay page was semi-protected by User:Sarah Ewart after the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive153#Zoe_Tay. Today (1 Jan), however, a sockpuppet by the name of User:Wenfangfan has come in to remove the three tags attached to it - the sprotected tag, the unreferenced tag and the inappropriate tone tag. I feel that if sockpuppets are allowed to come in repeatedly and revert all edits to their preferred version, it makes a mockery out of Wikipedia. I suggest that a full protection tag is in order. OngBS 11:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Side note: admin should block that user anyway based on inappropriate names (famous celebrities - Fann Wong's Chinese name is "Fan Wen Fang", and I think it's quite obvious the user chose this name just because of that). – Chacor 11:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So this is a fan of Wen Fang. One edit, not a big deal. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you could read it that way too, I think it's just unfortunate that the surname is "Fan", so there's the ambiguity. Regardless, probably needs watching. Don't think there's anything really actionable besides the name yet though. – Chacor 11:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, Wenfangfan is definitely a sockpuppet. It has changed the revert by Ryulong back to its own preferred version, and added a picture that was previously uploaded by banned user Walaha2006. This is just the latest episode in a numerous series of reverts by the same user, who is creating one sockpuppet account after another just for this purpose. OngBS 15:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Problems at Category speedy-renaming

    I've recently had a bad experience with the Speedy Renaming process — and similar things have happened to me before. I put up a category for speedy renaming, as it contained a glaring and embarrassing spelling mistake: "Category:Occitan personnalities". This clearly needed correcting to Category:Occitan personalities, but the category was, at the time, rather full, so I proposed it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, hoping to get some help with the transfer of articles. Instead, when I returned to the page, I found that my proposal had disappeared. Some detective work eventually revealed that it had been removed to the discussion page for category deletion. No-one had bothered to inform me (this seems to be standard, if discourteous, practice; the same thing happened to another of my proposals within a day or so), no indication had been left at the discussion page, and the renaming notice at the category had been left unchanged, pointing to a non-existent discussion here.

    Someone then objected to it on political grounds, it was largely ignored, and today I find that the renaming has been rejected as "no consensus". Well, there was no chance for consensus, as the proposal had been hijacked and removed from discussion at the renaming section. The result was that an obvious and clear renaming proposal was rejected, and the embarrassing spelling mistake stayed. (I decide to do all the work myself, but when I returned I found that the category had been virtually depopulated, only one article remaining; presumably by the objector — who has just tried to propose it for deletion again.)

    At the very least, proposers should be informed that their proposal is being moved, and the notice at the category altered accordingly. Better would be a policy that ruled out this sort of thing. Perhaps a move should depend upon the agreement of the proposer, or a deletion proposal should wait until the renaming proposal had gone through (with provisions made for very populous categories, so that work isn't duplicated unnecessarily.

    Any thoughts? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As the one who moved the discussion and then later closed I'd like to first correct some of the facts in this:
    Some detective work eventually revealed that it had been removed to the discussion page for category deletion.'
    Perhaps a move should depend upon the agreement of the proposer, or a deletion proposal should wait until the renaming proposal had gone through
    It was actually moved to the substantial Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Prior to today, for some historic reason, this was still titled "Wikipedia:Categories for deletion" despite the content being clear that the page also covers renamings, mergers and splits. A proposal being moved there does not make it a deletion proposal. This is a point that others have found Mel Etitis unable to grasp.
    The reason for making the change so was because the Speedy Renaming states "Deletion and de-listing may occur after 48 hours if there are no objections." (Original emphasis) The proposal in question had a disputed destination and so was accordingly moved so that the alternative options could be considered. There was a chance for consensus but the original proposer's belief that it was a deletion nomination rather than a renaming made this hard.
    As for the tags,yeah fair point and from now on I'm aiming to update them and inform the proposer when moving these. Timrollpickering 17:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    First, I didn't misunderstand the nature of Osomec's proposal; indeed, the implication of "I can't see any sign of a request to delete this category, so am unclear why it was moved here" is that I saw a mismatch between the title of the page and what he was proposing. Osomec's subsequent hysteria over this would be morecharitably ignored than linked to.

    As for the notion that my belief that it was my intransigence/stupidity/ignorance that caused the proposal to be rejected is absurd, as even Osomec accepts that I didn't oppose his suggestion; indeed, no-one opposed it, the only other person who joined the debate supported it. Moreover, it was closed out of process.

    Timrollpickering's reponse doesn't really answer my specific complaint, nor the more important general worry that it raises, though I'm glad that at least what I take to be the minimum change – editing templates and informing proposers – is going to be done. Even that, however, should be made policy, not left to the discretion of whoever happens to be around. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blimey. That doesn't sound like a lot of fun. Mel, can I offer my services if this situation happens again? I think that if you have a couple of willing helpers you can get on with just fixing it and we can do without the (erm, slightly insane) process that seems to be involved? Or am I missing something? This seems awfully straightforward. The category has a small but embarrassing mistake in its name, so somehow we need to go in and change it in each instance. I'm not really understanding the debate over that. Reverse Gear 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:82.148.97.69

    I had a look at User talk:82.148.97.69, and it seems that this IP address is one of a few used by proxy servers by Qatar's only ISP, Qtel (which apparently also censors content). The IP address has been blocked for a month for repeated vandalism. --Oden 12:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved to WP:ANI. --Oden 12:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    New anti template vandal feature

    I just noticed that a feature which Ligulem requested last week has already been implemented. If you click 'edit' on a page and scroll down to the list of pages transcluded onto it you will now see "(protected)" or "(semi-protected)" next to those which have such status. This is a quick way of identifying any templates on the Main Page, Main Page/Tomorrow, the 'article of the day', or any other page are vulnerable to vandalism. Good job by the devs. --CBD 13:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lovely! Thanks for pointing that out (and thanks to the developers, of course). -- Natalya 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Very cool. It woudl be even more awesome if it showed a (redirect) for those who are redirect templates so I could eliminate those (while I'm editing the page, of course, I wouldn't edit a page just to fix the redirect). Hbdragon88 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy Deleting Articles at AfD

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ant Bully (TV series) contained a discussion of whether it was appropriate to tag pages already at AfD wth speedy tags. I had always thought that that was the appropriate course of action of you actually wanted a speedy to go forward if say a page eligible for G10 is nominated or an author blanks a page while it is at AfD (G7). That way admins who do CSD patrol and see the page and evaluate it in a timely fashion (either deleting it or removing the tag and letting the AfD continue). Otherwise a speedy delete "vote" is unlikely to be acted upon because AfD's are very often not very active between days 2 and 4. What is the consensus of admins in this area? Eluchil404 16:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If it is a clearly speadyable item then most admins think nothing of closing the AfD early with a speedy delete. I don't think putting the speedy notice there is wrong as long as the AfD notice stays. After all, if it qualifies for speedy deletion then the discussion is not relevant. Just my 2 cents. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it qualifies for speedy deletion then there's no point in wasting editors' time with an AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with the above, leaving a note with User:Ceyockey. -- Steel 16:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I normally just put a "Speedy Delete" vote on the AfD (or did before I got the mop, anyway), rather than adding a speedy tag, but either works. --Tango 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's at AFD I think you can add speedy tags to it. Just make sure that as an admin you close the AFD at the same time as "speedy delete". There's nothing against speedying an article under discussion at AFD. AFD doesn't exempt an article from speedy deletion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay, but I'm wondering if it would be worth trying to discourage it. One would think that, if it's made it to AfD, the tagging person did not feel it necessary to rush it, so why should we, especially when we might learn something? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on the speedy criterion I would think. I purposely didn't use A7 as an example because I agree that little to nothing is gained by speedying on notability rather than waiting 5 days since new evidence might emerge. I do, however, think that there is a real gain in speedying a G10 rather than letting it wait and the same applies to, say, G1. The deletion debates are pretty crowded and there is no need to clutter them up with easy cases. And thanks to eveyone for the feedback. Eluchil404 22:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that tagging an article on AfD for speedy deletion is indeed appropriate in cases like this, where the article turns out to be speedy deletable for some other reason than what it was put on AfD for. However, if the article is on AfD because it's not clear whether it meets a particular speedy criterion or not, I'd recommend expressing your opinion on the matter on the AfD page. Generally enough admins do look at recent AfD nominations that any "speedy delete" comments there do get noticed and acted on fairly promptly. Of course, if it does happen that an article lingers on AfD for more than a day with a clear consensus to speedy delete, tagging it with something like "{{db|see AfD page}}" may be a good idea. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If speedy was already considered by an admin and declined and proded or AFDed instead, then don't tag for speedy deletion again. If new information has come to light, for example that it was newly discovered to be a repost or blanked by the author, then tagging for speedy is appropriate. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 22:36Z

    user:MelForbes removal

    I would like my username user:MelForbes to be deleted. I am retiring from the WP project. Will log-in on Tuesday Jan 2nd 2007, for the last time. MelForbes 00:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I can delete the user page and talk page, and block the username from editing but we don't delete actual users. Is that what you want me to do? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Templates for deletion

    Although I generally close discussions at TfD, I am away on vacation, and I lack access to my AWB script. There are a few TfDs still open which deal with heavily transcluded templates which are very tedious to delete without AWB or a similar script. Some of the debates have been open for more than twice the usual nomination length. It's not a backlog, just something I can't do at the moment. Thanks in advance. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My bot can do it, just tell me which ones need deleting. —Mets501 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2nd AFD on Misnomer missing in TOC

    Can someone look into and explain why the indexed TOC list on this does not list Misnomer, whereas misnomer does seem to link to a stand-alone page vice the standard que of candidates for consideration.

    I would suggest a restart of 'the clock' on this possible procedural irregularity. If this is not out of bounds, please use small words and big pictures and explain slowly and carefully why it is not. Please! Thanks and Happy New Year // FrankB 04:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, listed now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 2. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 06:26Z

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism

    This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

    • KyndFellow is indefinitely banned from editing sex tourism and related articles as well as their talk pages. It is presumed that articles regarding any person, business or service or any accommodation or sex tourism destination mentioned on his websites are related articles, but the ban extends to all articles which relate to sexual services or sex tourism destinations.
    • KyndFellow, editing under any username or anonymous ip, is indefinitely placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing.
    • Content questions regarding the appropriateness of mention or links to the sites promoted by KyndFellow are not addressed; those questions being left to editorial discretion exercised in the normal course of editing.
    • KyndFellow, should he violate any ban imposed under the terms of this decision, may be blocked for an appropriate period of time.
    • Sock or meatpuppets which edit in the same manner and with the same themes as KyndFellow are subject to the remedies imposed on KyndFellow. Indefinite blocks may be imposed on aggressive socks. All blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism#Log of blocks and bans.

    For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 06:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User who repeatedly uploads untagged images

    I was wondering what should be done about Abono para sembrar flor (talk · contribs). They have repeatedly uploaded images without providing copyright or source information and have ignored (and possibly cannot understand in this case) all messages left on their talk page. It appears as if their native language is Spanish. Right now all the images they have uploaded have been tagged for deletion unless information has been provided, and if this continues it will just create unnecessary work for admins who have to delete these images later. VegaDark 08:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned him in Babelfish Spanish. I really need to practice more :(—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=97912957"