Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Adminstrator who passed away.

Mirwin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) sadly passed away from an heart attack over a year ago according to this and a post on the mailing list left by his brother. I blocked the account as a precaution, but what should we do with the tools? Thanks Secret ^account 20:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. The tools don't do anything if no one is using them. BTW, per WP:BEANS, announcing to the world "Hey, here's an account worth hacking into" is probably a bad idea. --Jayron32 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A Steward should desysop. Blocking is pointless. Pedro :  Chat  20:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

How's about doing absolutely nothing. There's no evidence of a problem. Indeed these tools are much less likely to be abused than yours or mine. Certainly no more likely than any other set of tools that have been disused for a similar period - and proposals to desysop other "inactive" users have always been rejected. Doing something simply gets us into issues of verification, "is it respectful" and process. Seems to me that the smart, non-creepy things is either to desysop all account unused after a certain time, or desysop none whatsoever.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, comedy - Old Scotty turns up like a bad penny. Okay - do nothing - after all the devs have said repeatedly that inactive accounts are far less likely to be hacked (except of course that everyone now knows this is the account of a deceased user) but 'tis true. And yes - we should desysop after extended inactivity as it takes no effort to remove or add bits (as Scotty knows - he just transfered his tools from one account to another after all). But heck, consistency in argument was never Old Scotty's top table offering; so - whatever. My belated condolences to the family. Pedro :  Chat  20:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I really can't make head nor tail of your tirade there. I am arguing for consistency here. I'm arguing that either we should be consistent in desysopping inactive accounts after period x, or we should simply not desysop any account unless a problem develops. Either solution is dram-free and prevents any needless debate in any specific case. I'm happy with either - but since the devs say inactive accounts are not a problem - then let's stick with the status-quo and do nothing. If a deceased wikipedian has a sysop account, it is no more likely to be a problem than that of someone departed but still breathing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Though there's the possibility of hacking, I agree that a steward should desysop the account, like they did with several adminstrators in other projects who passed away. Secret ^account 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No brainer. Doesn't even need discussion here; just notify a steward to flip the bit. Any argument to the contrary is simply being contrary for the sake of it. Tan | 39 20:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We already have done a pre-emptive dictionary attack on all admin accounts to check for easy to brute force passwords, and we have installed captchas after 2 wrong guesses and severely throttled the API login. These were the 3 major problems leading to people breaking admin passwords. The primary routes of attack that remain are key-logging, cookie-stealing, session-hijacking and forgetting to log out of a public terminal. None of these remaining routes are going to happen unless the account is in use. We can just leave it be. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the chances of hacking are minimal to say the least. But when we had this debate a year ago (when Scott Mac was very vocal I might add - per my reply above) consensus, as I recall, was to not block as a mark of respect to the user, but certainly to remove any advanced permissions, sans drama - "just in case". And whilst I appreciate Chillum's comments didn't Zoe and RickK's passwords leak out after they *cough* left the project? So no harm in a desysop and no benefit in not desysoping. It's only one click by a Steward. Pedro :  Chat  21:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe those cases are what led to the captchas, pre-emptive dictionary attacks, and the throttling of the API login. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tan and with the last half of Pedro's comment above. I made the request at Meta. @Kate (parlez) 21:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Katerenka. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If I recall corectly, the passwords were "easily guessable" if you knew the person, or something of the sort. –xeno^talk 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Xeno, apparently they were the same person, but this is off-topic. Secret ^account 21:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes they were, yes this is off topic, and yes I'm sure my cough was accurate. But anyhow. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If we gotta do something to prevent account hijacking, desysopping seems the way to go. Blocking the account while leaving the admin bit makes no sense whatsoever, as a potential hijacker could simply unblock himself. Without the tools, on the other hand, not much damage could be done. --Conti|✉ 21:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• When I die, please don't desysop me. I want to use my tools after death. –xeno^talk 21:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather like an Egyptian Pharaoh, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (smiling :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally see desysopping and blocking as a form of embalming - a kind of respect for the dead, having very little to do with actual fear of abuse, but a ritualized fear of abuse.--Tznkai (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Desysop yes, block no. It does no harm to desysop the account, but it might just prevent future abuse. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the sad loss, it's a bit meh really innit? Its unlikely that should someone gain access to the account that they will be able to actually do anything worthwhile with it. Otoh stripping the bit is easy and should we be misinformed they can be reinstated just as easily. I don't think it does anyone any favors to believe that we should not be stripping bits of people believed dead, imagine what the list of admins will consist of in 30-40 years. Its a mop, not a medal. I am also somewhat confused regarding what possible problem there could be with blocking the account, not that I see it necessary however. Unomi (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see blocking as a punishment or a black mark, and I think that is the divide here. I advocate blocking account of deceased persons because that account is theirs, and no one elses. Any fear of abuse is not for me or us collectively, but for the deceased, a way of ensuring their name remains untainted.--Tznkai (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's sad that we only ever discuss this in the light of specific deaths - we would be more respectful if we could work out a clear and consistent position without having to sully the rememberance of a fellow contributor with this perennially recurring debate. That said, I think Tznkai has it about right for why we block, and as for desysop, tools should only be held by those who need them, and until the advent of Ouijapedia the departed do not need admin tools. DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(oh, I am SO gonna burn in hell for snarking in this thread) Once Ouijapedia 1.0 comes out, how will we deal with the BDP question? GJC 05:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tznkai. Also, an additional reason for removing the bit in this situation would be to help keep stats on number of admins accurate. Rd232 ^talk 01:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Should a note be placed on this person's userpage indicating they have passed away and/or are no longer active? It looks like they haven't logged on in 6 years anyway. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As it says at the top of User talk:Mirwin, the user lost access to the account and continued to edit as Lazyquasar (talk · contribs). Graham87 07:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just let the whole situation rest peacefully? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The computer and paperwork of a deceased admin will almost certainly be passed to someone, who may pass to someone else, and any recorded account details may become known by others (the computer may be sold to a stranger). Accordingly, there is a reason to be concerned about account disclosure. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If any admin goes away, for whatever reason, the account should be de-sysopped and blocked. If someone hacks into it, at worst they'll have a normal editor's account instead of an account that could do a lot more damage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's too obvious for the clowns here. AGF, even in death.--Malleus Fatuorum 07:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As Tan said earlier, why is there even any debate on the matter? There's no legitimate reason for the account of a departed wikipedia admin to have admin capabilities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's true of any computer of any user with "advanced permissions" being sold. I don't really see your point. You'll never know if the person behind this account today is the person behind this account tomorrow. Such is life. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

When a computer is sold, it usually winds up at a different IP range. Does the login code test for the IP? I'd presume it would be possible to do so. LeadSongDog come howl 19:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• In response to some above, we have in fact done the discussion on this before. I note that the meta request was denied as no local policy. We have some guidelines here from a discussion here. Consensus was that we do not block the account but we do remove advanced permissions. Pedro :  Chat  07:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest getting the Arbitration Committee to pass a motion. Otherwise, I don't see this request ever being fulfilled. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • If I die, and someone desysops and/or blocks me, I'd be pretty annoyed. Of course, my opinions wouldn't exactly matter at that point. Prodego ^talk 19:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Last time I checked, |If I die=="true". Perhaps you meant "When"? ;-o LeadSongDog come howl 19:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Please do not crystal ball, we may yet find the fountain of youth prior to Prodego's expiration. –xeno^talk 20:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Oooh, how very meta! "Please do not crystal ball, we may yet..." Can I steal that line? LeadSongDog come howl 17:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You know guys, you may want to protect the user page and put up a notice like we have all the others. Especially since we now have a few thousand lines dedicated to saying the guy is dead, which kind of now makes that userpage a very big target. Rgoodermote  01:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think that desysopping is a prudent move from an account security standpoint as the admin has effectively retired.

I also note that, based on what I've read before, it appears to be standard policy to block deceased editors (which is what demoted admins effectively are) and protect their user pages, based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive99#Deceased_editor.

Shentino (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I protected his user page (though not the talk page). I didn't see it above, so I'll mention it here. According to his contrib list, he hasn't edited since 2003. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• First, my condolences to his loved ones. Second, it is standard computer security procedure that if someone dies and they might have left their password with someone else, even if it was written down and locked in a safe place, that you deactivate all of their credentials the same as if they left the company. The only reason not to is if we expect and desire for a family member to use the credentials for some legitimate purpose. I can't think of any legitimate purpose on the English Wikipedia other than to log in and confirm that someone claiming to be a family member actually is. My opinion: Turn off the administrator bits, block the account, block email, but leave writing to the talk page open so a family member can make an edit like the one described above. Write up a ceremonial notification if the editor's overall contributions and reputation warrant a "funeral" of sorts. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Experienced users and admin help needed

I've been trying to deal with an enforcement request concerning conduct on Mass killings under communist regimes (an article I am unconvinced can exist safely) and I do not believe it is properly within the auspices of arbitration enforcement. I do think the article and the dispute needs a lot of volunteer eyes, so I am asking for the help of those with sufficient clue and fortitude to intervene. Expect some infighting to follow below.--Tznkai (talk)

• (Rhetorical comment) "with sufficient clue and fortitude to intervene" (beautifully said) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• This was already the subject of an ANI report prior to the AE report Tznkai mentions. This is a legitimate content dispute, no one is being disruptive, formal mediation would be the appropriate venue to handle this, not admin intervention. --Martin (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Formal mediation requires the assent of all parties. If ya'll could manage that, you wouldn't be at AN, AE, or ANI.--Tznkai (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case, no one has attempted formal mediation, so it can't be said that assent was impossible to obtain. --Martin (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Then please, attempt it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has a number of legitimate content disputes. These have been proceeding relatively normally given the article, and are currently uncovering new textual sources and broadening the understanding of existing textual sources. The original ANI, and Request for Enforcement were about a very limited set of behaviour by one user: User:Termer who has a habit of repeatedly mischaracterising, misquoting, and selectively quoting important secondary works and other users to the point that his actions disrupt the article. For example, while the Request for Enforcement was ongoing, Termer was busy requesting that a user to supply extensive quotations, and when these were made, attacked the user on a [Too Long; Didn't Read basis]. The effect of Termer's engagement in this thread was to derail it from an evidenced discussion of the credibility of a particular academic source, and redirect it into the discussion yet again of Termer's conduct and random quotation of policy (this time, primary). We rely on Termer to quote and characterise accurately in an article that is fundamentally reliant on an accurate literature review of academic sources, and he has not done so. We rely on Termer to participate in the article without mischaracterising and misquoting the immediate previous statements of other editors. Termer is incapable of doing this, and the result is disruption. Other editors with similar opinions to Termer within the content debate are perfectly capable of civil, appropriate discussion, and in my mind the content discussion will eventually resolve itself on the article talk page (the primary content disputes resolution method) through reference to highest quality reliable sources if the climate of discussion is not damaged by disruptive conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Fifelfoo's characterisation of Termer. Unlike Termer, Fifelfoo has actually been recently reported to AN3 for edit warring the article in question. This is real disruption, not questioning Fifelfoo's interpretation of the sources on talk. Fifelfoo has pursued Termer on ANI, then AE, and now apparently here. This WP:wikiviolence must end. --Martin (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Also forum shopping etc. on what is a content issue best suited for informal mediation (which takes a fraction of the time that formal mediation usually entails). A completely outside editor willing to concisely state what the issues appear to be, and working with them on a one-by-one basis, can make things work (see Talk:Judaism for what I consider an example of separating the issues). Collect (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:wikiviolence is not an appropriate accusation in this case. There's no doubt that Termer's behviour is dispruptive. However, I think he is also a bit of a lightning-rod for more general issues. Mediation may help, but since the basic question is really "should this article exist or not", I say: good luck to the mediator. I suspect the article in question is just one for "evidence why Wikipedia is not always so great". "Hope no-one ever looks at it" might be the best that can be achieved. --FormerIP (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I definitely have disrupted the editors who after the third failed Afd [1][2][3] keep arguing on the talk page that the article should be still deleted, and meanwhile keep massively blanking sourced material [4]from the article instead of adding any alternative viewpoints to it. Just that anybody who has accused me, please make a difference between disrupting Wikipedia and disrupting the disruptive editing by attempting to engage in a discussion about the changes in the article instead of going along with the edit war. Other than that, I haven't taken this witch hunt on me personally that has already made it to a third notice board, it just tells me that whoever has chosen to use me for a "lightning-rod" (according to FormerIP) just don't have any reasonable arguments about how the article could be improved. And the bottom line the way I see it, as it is now, the article is pretty much unreadable due to massive blankings and a long lasting edit warring.--Termer (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh.... It never stops, does it? What we have here are two sides with opposing viewpoints on what the page should contain, and both sides legitimately believe their version is correct. As such, it is natural for each side to believe that their side is the one that is policy abiding and that the other side is biased or against policy. And since each side is deeply rooted in their editorial stance and believe that their opponents are the policy-violating ones, it is natural that they will accuse the other side of edit warring, disruption, vandalism, etc etc. And since that other side being accused believes that they are in fact the ones who are right, they in turn accuse that other side who is accusing them of battleground-ing, harassment, personal attacks, witchhunts, etc. And this goes back and forth ad infinitum.

Termer, you have indeed harassed your content opponents with vexatious complaints. You opened up 2 AN/I threads, a frivolous RFC/N thread and a baseless sockpuppet investigation all against a certain editor. It may well be that Fifelfoo is harassing you, I don't know. However you need to realize that you are guilty of exactly what you are accusing your opponents of. Triplestop x3 01:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're correct Triplestop on one thing that I have overreacted on Wikipedia once after I was insulted with name calling. But I've learned my lesson and don't see such insulting remarks as anything that should be my problem really.--Termer (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would point out again, this time to Triplestop, that what was advocated for "Communist genocide" is simply to relate what reputable sources state regarding the subject. Instead, the "topic" was assaulted on the basis of requiring some formal "definition", etc., etc. This is not about opposing viewpoints, this is about editors waging every Wiki-lawyering point they can to censor content. There's no conflict in "beliefs" here—that is, however, what the content censors would like you to believe.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite understand - are you saying that the inclusion of all genocide by totalitarian regimes (a stable feature of such regimes of whatever political hue) has been censored by those fools who want to portray Communists as being uniquely evil unlike the cuddly fluffy right-wing totalitarians? Guy (Help!) 23:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to realize that this is not a one-sided issue like you believe it is. There are valid arguments that one could argue for not including certain things (synth, pov, or, undue, indiscriminate, etc) yet you believe that what you are advocating is the only right way, hence your accusations of censorship. My comment above applies to everyone. Triplestop x3 00:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

To JzG, I was stating that there was a reputable non-controversial manner in which to deal with a topic and it was ignored in favor of arguments stating sources did not exist, no definition, et al. regarding communist genocide.

   To Triplestop, I am not advocating my personal right way, I am advocating the proper manner in which to construct an encyclopedia article regardless of the subject. It is when editors begin to create their own definitions that the issues start. The "definition" of a subject is the compendium of what reputable sources state about it.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears that most of the article is compilation or overview of other articles. Little of the content prior to the "Causes" section ties together the different regimes' genocides. It might be better refactored into a WP:List-class article, content in the specific articles, and a succinct new article discussing the common characteristics of such events. Such a new article might be better if it included all stripes of regime, not just communist. If they come after your family, you don't care much about their motivations. LeadSongDog come howl 19:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that nobody can ever bring themselves to create an article on foo under totalitarian regimes, but always feels the need instead to make out that it's only the Left who do this? And that's before you get into the crap about how the Nazis were obviously socialists like Obama because they used the word socialist in their party title. It would be really nice to see an occasional political article that wasn't surrounded by the ground-down nubs of a thousand axes.

I wish I could exist in that world too. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We checked. List class articles follow the same rules on there actually being an object of study. The presence or absence of an object of study (the Synthesis argument) is a major debated point. So listification won't solve the problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of hoax pages during AfD

There are two pages at AfD which are blatant hoaxes. They are

• London City F.C, AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London City F.C and
• Ardwick Association Football Club, Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ardwick Athletic F.C. (page moved after AfD started.

Both were created by a sockpuppet of the much-banned The One & Only Fools and Horses.

I have seen items speedily deleted during an AfD before, but is it normal practice to nominate hoaxes, copyvios etc for speedy deletion while an AfD is in progress?   pablo_hablo. 01:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between hoax and copyvio speedies and other kinds of speedies? Or are you asking if any speedy deletion during AfD should be allowable at all? (I'm confused because you said you "have seen items speedily deleted during an AfD before".) -- Atama頭 01:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that these are different from other kinds of speedy deletion. At AfD, hoaxes, copyright violations, 'attack' pages tend to be more speedily dealt with; due, I suppose, to the potential harm they could cause to either the project or the subject of the page. Here's an example of a hoax at AfD. What I wanted to know was - if it becomes apparent that an article at AfD is a speedy candidate, should it be nominated for speedy deletion?   pablo_hablo. 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. My understanding is that there is no policy that governs this. There's nothing written at WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:DP, or at any related policy that states whether or not speedy deletions occurring during AfDs are allowed. The closest I can find is in the speedy deletion policy, where it states, "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations."

That suggests to me that speedy deletions should be allowed if an article has had a large number of delete !votes, meets one of the specific criteria, and nobody opposes deletion (I would consider a "keep" !vote to be equivalent to an editor removing a CSD tag). They should also be allowed for copyright violations discovered during the course of the AfD. Hoaxes and attack pages, while potentially harmful, shouldn't be given the same treatment as copyright violations because a copyright violation is a pretty cut-and-pastedry issue; either someone copied the text or didn't. Whether or not something actually is a hoax or an attack page is usually a subjective determination that can be determined in the course of the AfD itself.

This is my personal opinion based on the analysis of what is written in the CSD policy, and what I feel the "spirit" of the policy is. It would be nice if our existing policies directly addressed this issue. -- Atama頭 02:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion should be considered during AfD depending on the sort of speedy deletion requested. G7 or G12 are no brainers: just nuke it, assuming the trigger criteria are genuinely met. Others should stand if uncontested (G10), but never be used if there's a good-faith dissenting vote. I do G3 for obvious hoaxes if someone has asserted it's a hoax, it seems like a hoax, I can't verify it, and no one else defends against the allegation. In short, CSD-during-AfD is an art, rather than a science. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is nothing to stop an article being speedied during a discussion - generally this is because new information comes to light - eg a copyvio is discovered. Obviously this its a no-brainer, I'd personsally say deleting something as a hoax during an afd is fine. If someone doesn't like the outcome there is always DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I would generally tend to agree with Spartaz. If the AfD discussion has made it evidently clear that a subject is a speedy candidate, and no one is objecting, then I'd generally tend to speedy it—no use wasting time on finding out the obvious. If the issue is less clear cut, or someone has objected (for example, there's a comment such as "I think I've found a source that confirms this and am working on it"), I'd be much more inclined to let it run its course. But there isn't, and shouldn't be, any hard and fast rule against nominating an article at AfD for speedy deletion if it is speedyable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all.   pablo_hablo. 12:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree a little with Seraphimblade -- but it may be just a slight difference in emphasis. Unless it is proven to be a hoax during the Afd--which certainly do happen , I would regard the 7 full days of discussion necessary more for this than other deletion reasons, because for the minority of ones that turn out to not be hoaxes, it often takes a while for someone to come around who recognizes it. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Obvious hoax really depends on who considers it obvious. If it's outside of my subject areas (which is 99.9% of the time), obvious must be proven reasonably well. tedder (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The guiding maxim should be (with the exception of offensive BLPs) "if in doubt, don't delete". Granted, on some occasions factors (such as creation by a known vandal) will mean there is really no room for doubt.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's a proven hoax, tag and zap. If it meets the criteria of "blatant" hoax but someone sent it to AFD out of timidity and during discussion everyone says "why didn't you speedy this" or equivalent, tag and zap. Otherwise, let the AFD run the full week or until it gets WP:SNOWed under. By the way, it doesn't hurt to have one editor, admin or not, tag it for speedy when it's proven a hoax or when the consensus is that it should've been speedied in the first place, and have a different admin do the actual deletion. Unlike attack pages and copyright violations, there's no time pressure with most hoaxes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

the curse of AFD relisting

I've seeing quite a few AFDs that have been relisted three times. At what point should they just be closed as no consensus rather than relisting? I mean .. really? A month+ AFD? tedder (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think if an AfD attracts no notice, it should be procedurally relisted once. I would procedurally relist an AfD that has attracted notice but in which no clear consensus has emerged once. I'd stop with once, unless there was ongoing, productive conversation, in which case I'd think relisting again could be appropriate. It's hard to imagine AfD sustaining ongoing, productive conversation for a full month, much less more than. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought - if an AfD is relisted and still has no !votes, shouldn't that be akin to an expired prod... and deleted? Not that I've done this, just thinking. Tan | 39 16:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Rarely does a relisting produce much more than maybe 1 or 2 additional comments (if you're lucky). It is more likely to produce nothing at all. The problem with a lot of AfDs is simply lack of awareness. Even though anyone can freely browse through the list of open AfDs, very rarely do the people whose input is most urgently needed become aware that a relevant AfD is going on. The articles that are most likely to get an AfD with little participation tend to be obscure topics with few people outside of the article's creator having it on their watchlist--even though other editors interested in the main subject area may have relevant input. Yes, we have deletion sorting, article alert services and other ways of notifying people but for some reason we still seem to have a vacuum on participation. I don't know if there is an easy solution for how to increase more awareness and participation but relisting itself doesn't produce much results because it isn't trying to tackle the root cause of low participation. Some how, we need to address that issue instead of continually relisting an AfD. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agne, there's a category for relisted AFDs. Perhaps that's one way to draw attention. I do agree, I'm not sure there are any advantages to relisting multiple times due to inactivity. Not sure what to do about it. tedder (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more broadly advertizing the category (maybe Village Pump?) could offer some benefit. Maybe occasionally a bot could put a notice listing the number of active AfD and request "urgent" attention to the relisted AfDs kinda like how a bot puts a notice on the admin board when WP:DYK is overdue. It is a thought. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tan, a !voteless AFD should be treated just like a prod, if no one cares to say it should be kept in a week, how is it any different. relisting it just prolongs the inevitable--Jac16888^Talk 17:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends. If the article was previously prodded and contested prior to AfD then it really shouldn't be treated as a prod and just deleted without discussion. If the article wasn't prod and has run due course without any comments then it probably is an uncontroversial deletion. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it depends on specific circumstances. I recently restored CyanogenMod, which had been deleted twice before following AfD's. I figured it would end up in AfD again, and did soon after I restored it. This time through, the article survived because notability had in fact changed. The third AfD helped sort this out. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just piling on in support of not relisting repeatedly and deleting an article if nobody has bothered to defend it. I think the low participation at AFD lately is a side effect of how contentious AFD has been in the past, although it doesn't seem as bad right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  Also agree with Tan, Beeble, etc. Wizardman 00:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears, note the discussion is (was?) about relisting the same afd more than once, not creating a new AFD. tedder (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A careful application of WP:BEFORE, especially the options for merging and relisting, can be a good approach to many of these articles. I would not say that "nobody has bothered" to defend an article unless I knew for certain that everyone previously involved in the article had been notified who was still active, & the workgroup had been notified effectively. And, if it is still undefended, if I were handling it like a prod, I would investigate myself before deleting, as I do with expired prods that are not totally obvious. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just found that WP:RELIST says, in bold, "no debate may be relisted more than twice". tedder (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• My personal opinion is that relisting should be done with common sense, on a case by case basis. Either an AFD gets closed as no consensus or gets relisted. I don't think it hurts to relist when you need those 1 or 2 extra !votes. -Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 03:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• I like the idea of treating uncontested but low-discussion AFDs as expired PRODs after 14 days, but for anything else, the decision to close or re-list needs to be at admin's discretion. However, I don't think something that is 2 "delete" and 1 "keep" should be closed as "delete." We've had conversations along these lines at WT:AFD in the past few months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Relisting has been a fairly frequent topic in the past few months. See WT:Deletion process (Multiple relists; Made change to relist policy: stay open for 7 days; WP:RELIST wording: only one or two commenters; Another idea to make relisting less of a problem: default decision) and WT:Articles for deletion#AfDs without replies. Flatscan (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles listed for deletion (why deletion and not discussion?) should IMHO be publicised at the relevant Wikiprojects. Possibly this needs discussion by the community though. Maybe it could be made incumbent on nominators to publicise the fact that they have nominated an article for deletion at the relevant Wikiproject if that Wikiproject is not subscribed to Article Alerts via the bot. Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is fine if there is an existing wikiproject tag on the talk page or the person taking it to AFD can easily figure out the appropriate wikiproject. This isn't always obvious.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Idea for widening participation: have relisted deletion discussions listed at Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask. Fences&Windows 19:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. I had a couple suggestions that might result in more AfD attention, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#add_categories_from_articles_to_AfDs and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Enable_single-click_watching_of_all_pages_within_a_category. I'd also had the odd idea more with respect to the problem of biased samples but which could work for this, that "It could be interesting if there could be some random assigning of editors to articles and AfDs, if that would have an effect. There are no doubt ones I don't take the initiative on out of lack of interest or particular expertise that I conceivably could participate in, TV shows I don't watch or religions I've never read about that I could quickly read up on (essentially this is true of some of the ones I edit already), although some things like the finer points of astrophysics I'd probably be lost. But people might resent the imposition, even if it were optional." Another way of implementing that would be that people could subscribe to random assignments, like WikiProject newsletters and other things bot-posted to user talk pages, or in the left-hand bar with the Navigation, Interaction, and Toolbox there could be a "Random task" one could click, operating like "Random article," which could be subdivided into "Random relisted AfD," etc. Incidentally, I tried a few searches to get an idea of how often it happens that an AfD is relisted three times, but the number of times that has happened and it was commented upon (at least with these wordings) hasn't been especially high: "third relisting" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, "third relist" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, "relisted three" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, "relisted 3" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The total number that mention relist* prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is 20,414, but sometimes that word is used to refer to subsequent AfDs on the same article or may be used in other contexts as well. Шизомби (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of "Random task"!

A SuggestBot-like bot could put AfD suggestions on the talk pages of editors who sign up based on their article editing and/or prior participation at AfD (but I don't know how to program bots). Fences&Windows 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor review

 Note: User advised to use the appropriate process for the review. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 19:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived content

Links for: Zink Dawg (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) Well, I have been on here for two months and 27 days. I like to know how I have been doing on here. Have I done everything right or is there some things that I need to work on. Also, Just want to know what people think about my behavior. --Zink Dawg -- 17:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Editor review has its own separate page; you might want to check that out. Cheers, NW (Talk) 17:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed File Warning Templates

Hi all. I noticed that we don't have a standard set of warning templates for users who repeatedly upload images without copyright status, fair use rationale, sources, ect. I've drafted several warning templates in hopes we will be able to use these to warn repeat offenders instead having to type out a block warning each time. Since these are still in draft form, it would be greatly appreciated if willing users could help to improve the drafts below. Thanks! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• User:Fastily/Sandbox/uw-ics1
• User:Fastily/Sandbox/uw-ics2
• User:Fastily/Sandbox/uw-ics3
• User:Fastily/Sandbox/uw-ics4

I've recently added notes to {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{Non-free use rationale}} showing that both templates are required for copyrighted images. This should prevent some instances of images being uploaded but missing one or the other template (made this mistake myself recently). Mjroots (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fastily, your templates look great to me. Nice work! — Kralizec! (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• User:Ottava Rima is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 1 year.
• User:Moreschi is admonished for posting editor-specific information that directly leads to the private identity of pseudonymous editors.
• The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for the imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies. The community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.

For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Malfunction on Murder of Meredith Kercher

Could somebody take a look at this article. A user is reporting that the edit history is not displaying anything since 16th December. It is displaying fine for me. See Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher#Malfunction of this Article on Wikipeida Processor. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks up-to-the-minute to me also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a cache issue on that person's local machine, not a problem with the article. Chick Bowen 03:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems like I had a similar issue sometime this month. I just assumed I was hitting a database with a stale copy. The problem went away on its own within a reasonable period of time. This was just one of several minor mini-glitches in the past month or two. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

getting consensus on blocking a disruptive user

AFAICT, there's no place to deal with long-term users that need discussion before blocking or banning. After a user has been warned many times and blocked a few times, what's the options? WP:RFC/U (aside from its issues) is best geared for users who are productive. As an administrator who is somewhat involved, where should I turn for an admin consensus of disruption? (ANI hasn't been too useful) tedder (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

From a non-admin but ANI-contributor view, I raise an eyebrow whenever this happens, which is often. From WP:UNINVOLVED-- In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process. Problem solved! Things done with discretion from outside parties at the existing incident boards! ...But not. It's sadly obvious this happens less than 0% of the time. Alternatives given there are an RfC/A or RFAR but I'd assume this was meant to be rare. Even the existence of such place for discussion would be a confession of "above the law" status... I'd have to agree with that, and my opinion of sysop work in the Encyclopedia are incredibly high versus most users. ArbCom? It's unlikely it was ever thought that day-to-day civility disputes that involved familiar usernames would stalemate constantly and get a shotgun wedding to them over one half-controversial block. Same of long-time friendships between users causing a "no consensus". cont.

Why not work it the same way as with any other users? No one ever demands mass consensus for what are "obvious" infractions where a block is common, so why a desperate fight over any length of any sanctions whatsoever for an admin? Admins are normal users at their core that can do silly things or act the fool like anyone else, after all. What's stopping actions done at low levels? Blocks on 3RR, civility and disruptive editing that are short and precisely-defined if done to a "normal" user should not differ at all for some persons or admins... but do. Some things I've seen let slide are really ridiculous... it happens a lot. Users see what those people can get away without sanction, act the same way, get blocked and are rightfully upset about the double standard. ...This is just op-ed; I don't understand why normal methods aren't used, and I'm in no position to offer possible solutions. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think ANI is the only real forum for that situation. Admin or not, the best tools here are clarity and good diffs. Succinctness helps, too, but is usually beyond me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Quack, quack

Róbert Gida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - a "brand new user" whose first act on Wikipedia is to tell us we need to add to the biography of Barack Obama that Obama is personally responsible for the fact that more banks failed under his administration than under that of Shrub. Clearly a disruptive WP:SPA but also almost certainly a sockpuppet. Does anyone recognise the style sufficiently to help identify the sockmaster? Incidentally, Jzyehoshua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also needs reining in, he's pursuing a neocon agenda on Talk:Barack Obama and seems unable to understand that being a liberal is not actually evil as such, so there's no need to use {{evil satanic communist}} on the article... Guy (Help!) 10:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Róbert Gida; RBI per WP:DUCK, and perhaps adding a request to a friendly CU? As for Jzyehoshua, being a self declared liberal I doubt my input would be regarded well (although I suspect that anyone requesting a reigning in of neocon comment will automatically find themselves categorised as a liberal - it is a mindset appealing for those who find thinking hard work.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that by comparison with Jzyehoshua Ronald Reagan was a liberal. That's not such an issue as his apparent inability to see the difference between the New York Times reporting the National Right to Life Committee as saying that Obama "supports infanticide", and the New York Times saying that he supports infanticide. He seems to think that the reporting of this particularly extreme view in some way validates the POV or makes it fact. That is a serious problem, and given his very limited contribution to the project it's hard to see him learning better. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better approach would be to direct their attention to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation#How to avoid being subject to remedies, and particularly bullet point 4? The discussion has been had, the consensus is that the reported interpretations of a few fringe organisations and individuals regarding Obama's views on abortion is not sufficiently notable within the context an biographical article - per the stringent application of WP:BLP - to be included and that further insistence on discussing the matter (let alone editing it into the article) leaves them liable to sanction under the probation. The sweetener would be a promise to discuss the issue again should it become a topic raised within mainstream opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed admin commandment: Thou shalt not block ... for being mocked

Note: A little humor is healthy, but over-extending a joke and edit-warring over it is disruptive. Lets all stop now. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• FYI: Wikipedia:Thou shalt not block for being mocked (Inspired by this topic: an "essay" by an admin.) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, look at that horsie! tedder (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{resolved|Nonsensical time wasting.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)}}

• There is not consensus for that, Santa says. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed admin commandment: Thou shalt not block ... for being mocked

"God is not mocked," but thou aren't Her. (smiling seriously)

• Example: Mocking
• Example: Displeasure
• Example: Collapsing incorrigible foolishness (hab expansion down)
• Example: Blockable mockery?
• Example: Blockery of said mockery

Perhaps I should add preamble-atory commentary here about the contemptuously-collapsed L'affaire Fatman — which illuminated the clear dichotomy of administrator perspectives: humour vs disruption. Nah, that covers it. lol -- Proofreader77 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. (as initiator) Proofreader77 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Hell, yes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
3. If you can't take some mockery, enough of the moppery. DuncanHill (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
4. The 11th commandment. (X! · talk)  · @813  ·  18:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
5. This should be similar to not blocking editors or using admin action in disputes for an article to which one has been a significant contributor. Judgment is altered when an admin is called names, or that judgment is called into question, however crudely, by another editor. Blocking for mocking is punishment, not protection. --Moni3 (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Moni puts it well. Nev1 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Already covered in the "don't block someone with whom you are having a dispute", so this would just be WP:CREEP. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   (Ah, yes, important point.) What if an uninvolved administrator arrives on the scene and attempts (badly) to mediate ... and then is mocked for it? The uninvolved administrator was not in a dispute with the mocker, but is now the subject of mockery. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   Then I would oppose based on WP:CREEP as that situation is already covered under WP:CIVIL. We simply do not need yet another rule when everything about this is covered under existing ones. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this as a clarification, not a new rule, and repeated complaints at AN/I and elsewhere show we do need it. This is not a good occasion to rehash them, so I do not link. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

1. I beg to differ. WP:CIVIL is a possible constraint (see first bullet under Discussion) on the mocker, not the blocker. It would seem (to me). :-) Proofreader77 (talk)

   Maybe it's just the way I read it, but I can see WP:CIVIL being applied both ways. It would be uncivil to block someone for simply mocking you. Me, I would just ignore it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   A wise interpretation. How rare and beautiful. (no joke) But wisdom is not a requirement for the bit. :-)

   Ah, did you read the Wikipedia:Civility/Poll. Civility policy is highly contentious. lol (See paraphrase of my comment in Signpost/2009-12-07 "Proofreader77 points to a potential reason the Civility policy has been slow to change: objections might be regarded as uncivil."

   ORIGINAL: "(In keeping with my paralogic comment at the WP:Civility/Poll ...) There is nothing insightful/useful that I could say about civility policy that someone would not find reason to save the dif for use as proof that Proofreader77 should be blocked indefinitely or sitebanned. (Although perhaps that covers it concisely, while smoothly skirting the danger. Perhaps. :-)"

   So, yes, 日本穣 (Nihonjoe) has poked the pointy end of the mop at the right place—however the "wisdom" of the interpreter cannot be assured ... hence my (light/"paralogic") comment for the Civility poll suggesting tax-code-version of civility policy. Wisdom not required to interpret one of those.
   -- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Can WP:CIVILITY be adjusted to compliance with this "commandment?" Proofreader77 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Your subject heading makes no grammatical sense. The implied object of "block" is the person who has been doing the mocking, thus it should be "Thou shalt not block for mocking" or "Thou shalt not block after being mocked," if you want to revert to the subject of the sentence as also the subject of the final clause. Note that abusing grammar and syntax for the sake of a rhyme is a blockable offense (or at any rate it should be). Chick Bowen 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  (I respectfully request time to ponder a reply worthy of this most excellent criticism. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• If this were an actual attempt to amend or extend existing guidelines, I would have serious objections to the proposal as presented. However, I assume that this thread is intended to be a light-hearted commentary on the recent events surrounding TFMWNCB, and therefore I won't be a Scrooge and interrupt the good-spirited fun. Abecedare (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Hear hear. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How long and how vigorously?

Perhaps this is the handle of the mop? (Good coppery vs bad "moppery"? (le rime ala DuncanHill ;-) Proofreader77 (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. More unnecessary drama and joking. All I did was point out the fact that TFMWNCB was being an asshole, called him out on it, but then the cartoon cavalry came in to produce no useful discussion, as I see this will result in soon enough. We should let dead conversations stay dead, because nothing came about from all of that, and nothing will come about out of this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not unnecessary. Were The Fat Man or one of his less sober IRC admin friends so inclined, you would be blocked for calling him an asshole in this line of logic. I have seen too much admin action used to silence dissent under the guise of civility. Admins acting like hall monitors and classroom snitches. --Moni3 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

He thrives on being referred to as such. I doubt anyone other than you will bother saying anything about it (with any serious intent). This proposal is just another time sink that has no purpose.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[pre-mockery advisory] Requesting checkuser. Ryulong's too perfect a foil for this topic not to be a sockpuppet of Proofreader77. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be an idiot.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you're mocking him! :o  ;) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(note: Proofreader77 laughed for 93.2 seconds after reading the above) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I object to the insinuation by Proofreader that Ryulong is Proofreader's sock. I think we've been over this before. ;-)Oberonfitch (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Overruled. (Oberonfitch has recently been accused of being a sock of Proofreader77 at ANI. What happens in ANI stays in ANI. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(always wanted to try these templates :-). Proofreader77 (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedy for Scroogish incivility (above)

Regarding this comment above. Clearly in breach of WP:Civility, I propose the following:

1. Summon a steward. (Perhaps Mike.lifeguard) to ...
2. Remove Ryūlóng's sysop bit for 10 seconds. [N/A]
3. Give Ryūlóng's removed bit [old admin bit from bit bucket] to Proofreader77 for 10 seconds.
4. Proofreader77 will then block Ryūlóng for 10 seconds for the above breach of WP:Civility
5. Remove sysop bit from Proofreader77 and restore bit to Ryūlóng
6. Install cool pirate flag of ex-admin on Proofreader77's userpage.

This would appear to be a "wise" solution (to me) lol Proofreader77 (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been desysopped since May. You should know that because you link to diffs where it is said and I called TFMWNCB a m:dick for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Modify 2-3 for updated information. (I didn't get the memo.) Skip desysop step (give Proofreader77 bit from bit bucket). I know of no diffs but the ones in this topic. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Administrator identification questions

Wikipedia:Administrator accountability has recently been marked as {{rejected}}. I've posted a number of questions on the talk page (here: Wikipedia talk:Administrator accountability#Questions for the future) to consider. If anyone can provide insight into some of these questions or can contact someone who can, that would be very much appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed siteban for Logicus (talk · contribs)

Logicus has been editing disruptively at various articles since 2006 (original research, refusal to accept consensus, tendentious editing). Basically he has unorthodox ideas about the history of science and insists upon interpreting primary sources. Similar problems recur wherever he edits. He refuses to engage in dispute resolution; he just ignores it or raises nonexistent procedural objections.

• First conduct RfC
• Content RfC
• Second conduct RfC

Ample diffs of disruptive editing are available at the second conduct RfC, which is unanimously supported by all involved and uninvolved editors other than Logicus himself. A review of the dispute resolution attempts and User talk:Logicus demonstrates that the problem is much worse than usual for a short block log: when warned for NPA, edit warring, etc. he just switches tactics. His posts are classic Wikipedia:Chunk o' text defense, so since he rebuffs all attempts at engagement am proposing a siteban. Durova³⁸⁶ 22:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Question I assume I would be correct in believing this ban is to be under an "indefinite" tariff. Under the circumstances, is indefinite understood to be "until they provide an undertaking to address the various issues" or "until consensus for an unblock arises"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Standard offer. If they choose to appeal it would consider after 3-6 months depending upon activity at other WMF projects. Of course Logicus would need to acknowledge that a problem exists and pledge to remedy it. Durova³⁸⁶ 23:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Support I would have anyway, but hopefully Durova's clarification will allow other reviewers to come to a better informed decision. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support, although with some reluctance. This editor appears to be bright, well read, and articulate. If Logicus used these faculties to help build this encyclopedia, in accordance with this community's policies and guidelines, he could be a valuable contributor. Instead, Logicus's main activity on Wikipedia is to self-publish his own opinions, re-interpretations of primary sources, and critiques of respected, reliable secondary sources. Logicus demonstrates no interest in collaboration with (as opposed to arguing at) other editors or respect for consensus. Many other editors have attempted, unsuccessfully, to engage Logicus about these problems on his talk page, on talk pages of articles that he edits, and in a current RFC/U. Indeed, Logicus has chosen not to submit a statement at the RFC/U; instead, he wikilawyers on the RFC/U's talk page, arguing about alleged procedural objections that are without substance. Since Logicus's objectives are not compatible with Wikipedia's objectives, his participation here is largely disruptive and his manner is tendentious. Unless this user commits to substantial changes in his behavior, and carries out a commitment by in fact conforming his behavior to community norms, it is time to end this user's disruptive participation.—Finell 23:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Question — should this be moved to WP:ANI? I had the impression that it was more suited for matters such as this than this page is. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  There have been recent problems with siteban proposals that were closed too quickly; one early closure indirectly caused a very contentious proposed arbitration case that is currently under discussion. So for a better heat to light ratio the slower of the two boards is preferable. Durova³⁸⁶ 23:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support I understand the general reluctance to impose a long-term siteban on any user, but Logicus has been engaged in disruption for a long time, and following the first last Conduct RfC, in which he declined to participate, he suspended and then resumed his disruption. He stopped editing with the posting of the RfC in early February, 2007, resumed active editing in June 2007, and by August was involved in a new dispute over Original Research at Bayesian probability. Adding to this the continuance of many other controversial edits over an extended period, the long-term tenacity of his disruption suggests that a long-term solution is called for. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I have watched his behaviour at Tycho Brahe and the result was not pretty. The damage he incurs on the encyclopedia is twofold, one is the obvious one introducing his own OR into articles, the other, which is probably worse, is that he wears down contributing editors to the point that there is a great risk of some of them leaving the project in disgust. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Logicus does appear to be very well-read, but he also appears to have an enormous blind-spot when it comes to critically evaluating evidence and arguments relating to points of view he feels strongly about. He also seems to have an inordinately exaggerated opinion of his own competence in matters of mathematics, physics and logic. In the discussion where I first encountered him, he committed at least three outright blunders in these areas—all delivered with the air of certainty one might expect from an expert. Subsequent experience has shown that this was not an isolated occurrence. Apart from those observations, Finell's remarks above seem to me to be a succinct and accurate summary of the problems with Logicus's activities on Wikipedia. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support per my comments below. Durova does not readily give up on people. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposals

Proposal one

• Proposed alternative: General topic ban from science, pseudoscience, and related articles, sections of articles, and even sentences within articles that touch on science and pseudoscience, along with a 1-revert-restriction project-wide and a mandatory mentor during the first few months after being allowed to edit science articles again. Personal bias alert: I'm against site-bans except for those who are either deliberately working against the project or those for whom all lesser sanctions, e.g. editing restrictions, mandatory mentorship, 0-RR parole, etc. have been tried and failed. This is not the case here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose alternative per this discussion. Durova³⁸⁶ 01:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Do you believe his intent is to disrupt the project, that it's not his intent to be disruptive but his actions have that effect and he doesn't seem to want to change, that he wants to change but doesn't seem capable of change without help, that he wants to change but he doesn't seem capable of change even with help, or some mix of he above, or something else altogether? Your edit above suggests he may not be aware of/willing to admit there is a problem. This is unfortunate. His attitude, his self-awareness, and his ability to change even if he wants to, with or without help, are important factors when crafting a solution to the problem. The better the attitude and more willing and able he is to change, the less the need for a site ban. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• My thoughts on that are expressed in the outside opinion at RfC, with followup at its talk page. Durova³⁸⁶ 01:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Question Do you see the proposed topic ban as extending to Talk pages, where much of the Disruptive Editing has taken place? SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would need to study the edits on the talk page more carefully. In general, if an editor is doing things like changing other people's comments enough to be disruptive, then yes, ban him from those talk pages. If he's using the talk pages to discuss things other than the articles, then probably. If the editor is just repeatedly making the same point over and over again about how to improve (according to his own definition of the word) the articles, I'm more inclined to give leeway - most of us are mature enough to just ignore article-improvement suggestions that have already been discussed and rejected, or politely say "rejected per last week's discussion" and let it go. I haven't checked his edits enough to determine the nature of the disruption on the talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• OpposeThanks for the reply. The disruption, which you described as "just repeatedly making the same point over and over again" has the effect, as Saddhiyama put it, of "wear[ing] down contributing editors to the point that there is a great risk of some of them leaving the project in disgust." Since this takes place primarily on Talk pages, this proposal won't cut it without a clear inclusion of this crucial aspect of the problem. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose alternative. This editor's disruptive behavior is not topic-specific; it is rather the nature of his approach to Wikipedia. He doesn't "get" what this project is about and, more importantly, clearly does not want to get it. I was unaware until now that he caused similar disruption at Bayesian probability, which is outside the top ban that this alternative proposes (it is in the fields of statistics and mathematics). While Logicus has on a few occasions deleted talk page content—he repeatedly deleted an RfC tag at Talk:Celestial spheres#RfC: Original research? and deleted a tabulation of the results of that RfC, both based on specious misinterpretations of policy—his main talk page disruption is extraordinarily lengthy harangues, with lots of boldface shouting, condescension to everyone else (he imperiously refers to himself in the third person), which interferes with normal discussion among the article's editors. Indeed, although that RfC was unanimous that his proposed (actually, inserted and later deleted by consensus) contribution was original research, he argued on and on against the closer, who reached the only possible result. His behavior at talk pages is similar to that which led to broad topic bans (including all talk pages) and probation of two editors in the recent Speed of light arbitration decision.—Finell 06:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If he truly does not want to get it, then this is sad. I hope that whatever the outcome, if he demonstrates that he wants to "get it" and work constructively with a mentor until he does, he will be allowed back in with no more restrictions than necessary. I would recommend his first few weeks be "no article, no article talk, without mentor approval" and see how it goes from there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2

• Proposed alternative 2: Ask Logicus what self-imposed-but-community-enforced restrictions, if any, would help him become a better editor. He probably knows himself well enough to answer this question, if he thinks about it and is willing to accept that we, the community, are willing to help him help us build a better encyclopedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He was asked at the current RFC/U, but declined to answer. Have you actually looked at this editor's conduct, or at the 3 RFCs cited above as the basis for this proposed community sanction?—Finell 06:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it but did not study it. I missed that he had declined to answer. Assuming he did not answer the question privately, i.e. he is ignoring it, and assuming he didn't just miss the question as I missed your question earlier (btw thx), this does not bode well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus does not communicate; he pontificates. I think Durova has clarified that a site ban is now the only avenue of communication that remains - if he wants to overturn the decision he needs to communicate in an appropriate manner (that is, in good faith and to a determined purpose). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest an initial 3 month block with parole on return, appeal allowed via ArbCom. It's acceptable not to take part in an RfC but it's unacceptable to ignore well-founded criticism from people genuinely trying to help, which is what has happened here. The problem behaviour is also of a particularly troublesome kind, involving original research stated in ways which seem calculated to appear as if it is compliant with policy when it clearly isn't. Other steps having been tried, we have only a very few options left, and I fail to see how this would result in anything other than a ban if taken to arbitration at this stage. So let's short-cut the drama, give the user a time-out, but make it short enough that if he is prepared to reform, he can. If on return the problem behaviour resumes then we know what to do. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, the original proposal is for an indefinite block with an option to appeal in 3 to 6 months. He would need to build up a good history on a sister WMF project in order to get a review at 3 months. But the review wouldn't be hard to pass if he requests it. Durova³⁸⁶ 18:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee does not hand out indefinite bans. Should we? There is also a risk of sending someone on an anti-Wikipedia mission into sister projects (we have enough of that already). Guy (Help!) 21:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Community bans," bans where no admin is willing to un-block, are de fact indefinite. The arbitration committee has also handed down bans with language like "should the editor return, it will be under these conditions" which amounts to an indefinate ban, where the banned party gets to choose when or if he is willing to abide by the conditions of return. In general I see nothing wrong with an "indefinate" ban if there is a clear, reasonable path to lifting the ban. As a matter of routine, anyone who has not edited in a year who is under any indefinate ban should be allowed a {{second chance}} unless that was explicitly proscribed by whoever imposed the ban or it would conflict with post-return restrictions imposed at the time of the ban. Also, as a matter of routine, any indef ban can be appealed to the then-sitting ARBCOM at any time, but I would expect them to reject any appeal if the original ban was fair in process and outcome, and the conditions that led to it have not changed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

The above user conduct request for comment is now live and open for community comment. I sincerely hope we can have a civil and productive discussion regarding the issues described there. While acknowledging that User:ChildofMidnight makes excellent content contributions to Wikipedia, the RfC argues that there have been some serious problems with this editor's behavior, particularly with respect to issues of civility, general style of discussion with fellow contributors, and a "battleground" mentality.

If there are any problems with the formatting or set up of the RfC (I'm new to this) please let me know. Also I'm only posting this note here per the RfC instructions, but if it should be mentioned elsewhere please let me know that as well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you redirect this?

This page is protected

to

[5]

Hyperstar 18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Philip1992

We don't usually do cross-namespace redirects (as with this one, from an article named "This page is protected" to a Wikipedia page). The only link to that title is this page and related admin pages, so it's unlikely that the lack of a redirect is causing confusion. Ironically, This page is protected does not actually appear to be protected, which seems bizarre. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It also does not appear to exist, which would explain why it is not protected.—Finell 21:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ceci n'est pas une page protégée. 23:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User Bowei Huang/A1DF67

Copied here from User talk:MBisanz On December 15, User:Bowei Huang requested that his username be changed to User:A1DF67 because he wanted a more obscure name.[6] Since you were the admin who actioned that request I thought I'd address this to you.

Bowei Huang has been on a crusade to automate everything which, while commendable, has caused several problems because his method of doing so has caused numerous errors requiring multiple reversions in multiple articles. He first came to my notice when he attempted to automate the approximate population of Australia which resulted in, at the time, an easily confirmable error.[7] After I reverted that mess, he made other changes on different occasions, all of which were subsequently reverted.[8][9] After seeing several warnings on his talk page I was a little suspicious after his name change request. Despite his request for an obscure username, User:A1DF67 hasn't made a single edit.[10] Instead, he has continued editing under User:Bowei Huang.[11] making mistakes and not correcting them and conducting testing in articles, rather than a sandbox.[12][13][14]

Getting to the main reason for my post, what we now have is a user who has requested and been given a name change. The new name hasn't been used but now holds all of his past edit history and more importantly, numerous warnings, while the old username has been cleaned of warnings and has effectively been given a fresh start. There is no indication by either username that it is an alternative account of the other. I don't think I need to connect the dots. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue I am copying to WP:AN. MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Bowei Huang (talk · contribs) of this discussion. On the face of it, the choice is simple - which username does this editor wish to use? The other one needs to be blocked indef. Can a name change be undone? The block logs for both accounts appear to be clear, so there's no block history to note. Maybe a 1 second block to permanently note the connection, but that would sort of defeat the original purpose for the change - of course, so does the editing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Long term abuse

Documented here. 22:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam S. White (talk • contribs)