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. 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

SSP/RFCU merger

Per debate close, the merger proposal of WP:SSP and WP:RFCU passed. The discussion was open from April 13 until June 18. A few details of process are being finalized per Thatcher. The main points are:

1. Rather than having SSP pages and also RFCU pages to search, often duplicating matters, there will simply be one set of request pages, with one page for each alleged puppeteer, and {{RFCU}} used to request checkuser findings (if valid, not fishing, etc).
2. The role of clerks and patrolling admins will become more active.
3. Checkusers should find their work becomes a little more streamlined.
4. Repeat or complex cases should also become easier to look up with luck.
5. Updated help/guideline page, which will also emphasize that these pages are purely for evidence of socking concerns (not other aspects of the dispute).
6. A couple of anti-abuse aspects, to preserve the tight controls over checkuser requests from the RFCU pages.

For now, after last discussions, SSP is going to be slightly updated to get it ready (guidance, page/archive update, help tags, etc). When that's working, then users can be directed to post their RFCU cases there and tag them for checkuser attention, and instructions updated to explain how.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! And apologies for not weighing in on this sooner but, as a busy checkuser, I certainly support this merger. It makes a lot of sense given the crossover between these two areas - Alison ^❤ 05:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear this as well. I always thought the distinction was a bit unclear; this will simplify the process significantly. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the close was premature. There are significant issues with weak or no responses. Furthermore, the call of "consensus" is wishywashy, the consensus, if there was one, is very very weak. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The debate close would be more convincing if anyone had provided a good answer for Thatcher's last comment about the mechanics of how the new system will operate. The documents at User:FT2/CU 2 and User:FT2/CU 2/Guidelines give the desired user interface, not the details of how indexing and archiving will work. Perhaps someone can write the new clerk's manual (if there is such a thing) for the proposed system. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the existing WP:SSP system is more user friendly. Why not just use that format to start a case, and then add a template if Checkuser attention is needed? The template can add the case to a category, perhaps Category:Suspected Sock Puppet Reports Needing Checkuser or something shorter and cleverer. There are many situations where checkuser is not needed or worthwhile, if the sock master has not edited for a long time or if the socking is very obvious. I have very frequently moved SSP cases to RFCU and would welcome a merger. Jehochman ^Talk 05:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• As a preliminary step, you could add {{CU-SSP|case name|~~~~}} as a transclusion to RFCU. (Someone may want to tweak up the template format etc.) Thatcher 00:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Moldopodo & User:Xasha

Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sock Xasha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been warned to stop *his* attacks and abuse on other editors. Look on their block log. I propose a ban for both of them (it's only one for sure). 1largeatom (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For vandal Moldopodo

Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 20:59, 5 June 2008 Jossi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction)
• 10:54, 2 June 2008 Moreschi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing, persistent incivility. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren)
• 19:13, 15 March 2008 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (disruptive editing at Balti Steppe)
• 05:35, 31 December 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (false reason. For the last 7 days there was no edit conflict)
• 21:29, 30 December 2007 Scientizzle (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 14 days ‎ (Edit warring)
• 13:22, 23 December 2007 FisherQueen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring)
• 21:10, 26 November 2007 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (on the proviso that he not go edit-warring again, espcially on romanian-related articles)
• 21:03, 25 November 2007 AGK (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (disruptive editing: edit warring in order to push a particular opinion, anti-consensus edits despite repeated warnings, failure to heed cautions, et cetera)
• 20:42, 19 November 2007 Nat (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring)

For vandal Xasha

Xasha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 20:44, 3 June 2008 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) blocked "Xasha (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Arbitration enforcement)
• 17:14, 30 May 2008 Rlevse (Talk | contribs) blocked "Xasha (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Arbitration enforcement) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1largeatom (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 Jun 2008

And whose sock are you? --Oxymoron⁸³ 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer not to use my own account to post the message here. To be fully protected by the wave of personal attacks from that editor.--1largeatom (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The above got you fully indef blocked by me - whatever basis in truth the claims, my understanding of WP:SOCK disallows the use of an alternate account to post such content and allow the main account to escape censure/consequences. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I fully agree with LessHeard VanU (it's understandable that someone would not want to be harassed by another user they may feel is likely to do so for making a reasonable accusation- not saying anything about these users or this accusation) but I trust his assessment of a policy he knows more about than me. However, Moldopodo has just been indefinitely blocked, so it may be worth confirming that Xasha =/= Moldopodo. It is worth noting that Xasha jumped to the defense of Moldopodo when no one else did. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you find any merit in the above accusation, please act accordingly. Otherwise, I think this section should be deleted per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits.Xasha (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(to J Milburn) If the main account has some concerns but doesn't wish to expose themselves to harassment - a reasonable worry - then they can use email. Using an open account to make public allegations without consequences to the main account is not appropriate. re Xasha, it is your right to open an SSP report. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

LHVU- OK, I agree with you now. Xasha- Moldopodo isn't banned- he isn't even indefinitely blocked. J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo was indef blocked yesterday, which was rescinded and is now blocked for 29 days. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

J Milburn, if you don't have any proofs and don't want to follow a Wikipedia process, please refrain from accusing me of being somebody else.Xasha (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed ban on Bart Versieck

Bart Versieck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of editing others' talk page comments, despite being warned several times not to do so. See his talk page and the talk page archive--it's littered with warnings about this behavior. It's been the subject of at least two admin discussions ((here and here) He's been blocked at least eight times for this since 2007, each time promising to stop. He's also engaged in similar behavior on the Dutch Wikipedia. Most recently, he was blocked for three months--but this was reduced to three weeks, with a stern warning that the next block would be much, much longer and possibly indef.

Well, earlier, Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) discovered he'd done it again. To my mind, this is the last straw, and I propose a community ban. Blueboy96 01:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban It's not just the talk pages either, it's main article editing. There were lots of problems with his behavior on Ruby Muhammad, for example, and I think that at least one of his blocks (possibly one of mine) related to his distortion and refusal to abide by talk page consensus on this page. Cheers, CP 01:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose While I'm no fan of Bart's edits to other users' comments, how is this edit the last straw? It wasn't exactly an on-topic comment that he removed, and I probably would have removed it too. Looking at his contributions since the last block, this appears to be the only time he continued the same behavior. This is not ban worthy, and the indefinite block should be reversed. - auburnpilot talk 02:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - diff shown isn't ban worthy. PhilKnight (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban - CP sums it up. Soxred 93 03:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. He may be trouble at times, but if that edit's the last straw, then we'd have to ban an awful lot of people. His block log says quite a bit about him doing this in the past, though how many of his edits have been modifying comments and how many have been removing edits like the one above are two very different causes for alarm. Wizardman 03:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban. The stated diff is admittedly trivial, but this is just the last in a LONG stream of behaviour which snubs the TPG guideline. He refactors other's comments often, including removing edits, despite promises not to do so any more. Dutch Wikipedia block log shows this is not just a problem here. Please also read this which shows how exasperating the user is. Moondyne 04:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I'm aware of the user's past issues, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that diff. He removed some nonsense comments from a talk page after adding a template to it. I probably would have done the same thing, and have done so. Mr.Z-man 04:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Z-man. Indef should be overturned if he notes what he's done wrong and agrees to do something constructive about it (read: ask for second opinions even in cases like this.) giggy _(:O) 05:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have some sympathy with anyone who fixes other people's posts. I've done it myself in the past, but I hope I know where the line should be drawn. I try to limit myself to fixing things like incorrect formatting (eg. closing a bold or italics bit), fixing a header if the number of "===" are wrong, fixing a link if it wasn't closed properly, fixing incorrect wikimarkup taggs (eg. a <small> or <nowiki> tag not closed), and even egregious spelling mistakes if I can resist (I know I should resist!). I also try and only do it while adding a comment myself anyway. The difference, I suppose, is that I haven't been asked to stop as many times as Bart has, though someone did ask me not to the other day. I then promptly apologised. Let's see if I can find some diffs. OK, here is an example from yesterday: [1]. I had clicked on the link WT:BIO, knowing what discussion Woody was referring to, and end up at the talk page for the notability guideline, not the biography wikiproject talk page. A fairly common mistake, so I fixed the shortcut to be WT:WPBIO. Other times, I do cross the line, particularly with regards to indentation. Normally, when I see an indentation I don't understand, I ask the person concerned. However, the other day I "fixed" an indentation: [2]. The editor in question asked me not to do this: [3]. I then apologised: [4]. I also found another example of fixing. See here: [5]. So what is needed here, I think, is recognition that some fixing is possible, but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed, and if you cross it you should just apologise and adjust your behaviour. The question is whether Bart is crossing this line (we need specific and recent diffs) and whether he is adjusting his behaviour (Bart needs to speak up and say something). From reviewing this, I think he is crossing the line (he actually alters what other people have said). Whether he is continuing to do that (the diff provided here was merely removing a comment that was off-topic) is debatable. Providing old diffs may not be enough to prove that he is slipping back to his old behaviour. I recognise that he has done this in the past, but I don't think an indefinite block is needed for this (it is not dangerous disruption, just highly annoying and misleading). I would also note that there is history between Bart and Canadian Paul on the "oldest people" articles. Unblock Bart and let him respond here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support block True, the diff provided indicates a very minor incident - but one that is part of a long standing problem with this editor. We have been here many times, and often BV has promised to reform and not edit other peoples contributions and the community has given them another chance. Once again, it has been found that BV is incapable of keeping to that undertaking. Rather than commenting on the admittedly minor nature of most of these edits, can anyone give a reason - by indication of the valuable and necessary other editing the account contributes - why BV is needed to remain on WP? If that is not possible, then can anyone indicate why they think that this "last chance" will alter BV's attitude toward editing other peoples contributions?
  It is fairly obvious that a ban is not possible - there are too many good opposes to it - so I am content to support the indef block. The block can be lifted when there is community support for allowing BV to edit again, under such restrictions, mentoring, edit paroles, as is considered sufficient to resolve the matter, or not lifted as is deemed necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That would make sense. Someone should tell him about this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I will make a note on the user talkpage. If there is sufficient reasoning in any unblock request I recommend unblocking to allow BV to participate here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "can anyone give a reason - by indication of the valuable and necessary other editing the account contributes - why BV is needed to remain on WP?" Well, LessHeard vanU, I'd say Bart Versieck's contributions speak for themselves in that respect. Since his last block, Bart has made 195 edits. Only one indicates a continued behavior, when he changed the word merger to merge (simply removing an "R"). The majority of his edits remain unaltered (not reverted/still the top edit), and that would suggest they are valuable and beneficial to the project. - auburnpilot talk 14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Which is good, but are they edits that are of particular value that could not be made by anybody else? Is the community risking a noticable dip in the quality of editing by blocking this account, or will others likely take up the slack? I am trying to determine whether there is a case for the community allowing yet another last chance, or to provide assistance to stop this behaviour, rather than allowing the indef to stand. It seems to me that if this behaviour is to be "tolerated" rather than sanctioned there should really be some gain to the encyclopedia for doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • LessHeard vanU, to play the devil's advocate here, what edits have any of us made (and you in particular) that could not have been made by anyone else? That is a very dangerous line of reasoning you are following. Thank you for posting the note to Bart's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
        • That is exactly my point. I would (like to think I would) not expect dispensation for a repeated problem of mine based on my contributions. I don't see why the far greater majority of good edits should allow a pattern of disruptive edits be ignored or passed over. This is not an isolated incident, but an apparent inability to not slide back into bad habits, and to remain true to an undertaking. It needs to be resolved and not allowed to continue on the basis of "it was only a little one, and the rest of the time they have been okay." LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec)That's simply not how we determine whether or not somebody should be indefinitely blocked. We don't say "Yeah, your edits are good, but they're not good enough". Of course somebody would pick up the slack, just as somebody would pick up the slack if I disappeared after making this edit. Yet, nobody is proposing I be indef blocked because somebody else could do what I do. One questionable edit out of 195 since his last block does not warrant a ban or indef block. Bottom line. - auburnpilot talk 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
        • • But it isn't just one in the last 195, but the last in a long line of disruptive edits over a very long period. The other points I have covered in my response to Carcharoth. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Completely uninvolved editor checking in here, but isn't this editor already blocked indefinitely? I would suggest that this is the case, see: Block log. I still didn't see the reason clearly enunciated for the block, certainly the dif provided seemed quite insignificant and could have been attributed to a vandal's adding onto a page. FWiW, I have tried to sift through the very extensive edit history of the aforementioned editor, and what some would characterize as "disruptive," others may see as examples of content disputes. I would caution restraint and suggest a mentorship based on the "critical friend" model that allows the editor to initially seek a counsel before entering into contentious situations. Bzuk (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC).
  • • comment I edit on alot of the same pages as Canadian Paul and Bart. Which mostly are the supercentenarian pages. Im curious to ask if anybody has asked Bart why he deleted the comment on the talk page? --Npnunda (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban per nom. Postoak (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how there is clearly no consensus here for a community ban, I suggest he be unblocked, especially given the horrible evidence used for blocking in the first place. On a side note, unless there is some sort of an emergency which there clearly wasn't in this case (the edit used as reasoning was 3 days before the block), isn't it customary to discuss before applying the block? Mr.Z-man 17:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A compromise?

Seeing as there's some pretty strong opposition to a ban, I won't object to cutting the block down. But seeing as he's engaged in this behavior with many warnings--even if he isn't banned, I would think a long-term block is in order in light of his past behavior and his repeated broken promises to stop. Indeed, in one of the earlier discussions, quite a few admins wondered why he hadn't already been slapped with a long block. Blueboy96 19:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a deal where:

1. He is unblocked now
2. He voluntarily accepts a restriction that he can be immediately re-blocked for one month by ANY administrator, even an involved one, if he touches anyone else's Talk page comment in the slightest way, even to remove what appears to be a vandal comment. Such a block would require only a simple announcement by the blocking admin at WP:AN that the reblock had been done. The reblock would double on each occurrence.

I suggest this mostly because the most recent example of a violation seems too harmless to issue a long remedy. But under the new plan it would be blockable. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

While I much prefer the indef block, I could live with this. The biggest trouble is having to rejustify and rehash every single time he's disruptive. Issuing a month-long block is likely to attract the attention of other admins who may think it silly to give such a long block for minor offenses, which means we have to do a whole other long discussion recapping attempting to convince others about the nature of his behavior. If I (or anyone else) can point to a community decision, that makes things a lot easier. I'm a little hesitant to unblock him immediately, however, because he also violated the compromise that took forever to hash out on the Ruby Muhammad page, where he has caused a lot of problems in the past. It might be useful to add that the same blocking solution be applied for WP:BLP violations. Cheers, CP 20:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I wouldn't be adverse to an immediate unblock so they can take part in this discussion - but there needs to be the unblock request first. Any sanction can then be applied after the discussion when there is consensus. It would be beyond foolishness for there to be any problematic edits during the discussion, so it wouldn't be placing the encyclopedia at risk to unblock under such circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's understood that it'll eventually go up to indef with repeated violations of this restriction, I can go along wtih this. To my mind, knowing that a bunch of admins are hovering over him with banhammers at the ready is just as effective as a long block. Blueboy96 22:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Having admins hovering over you with the banhammer is enough to effectively end someone's wiki-career. I know it was his own actions that brought him to that point, but just stop a moment and think whether you would be able to edit under that sort of pressure? I sometimes think it would be more dignified to put someone out of their misery. There is also an unwritten assumption here that he has to be squeaky-clean for some undefined period of time. Will he ever be able to relax again or not? A year, two years, three years? These sort of probationary periods should always have a time limit on them, and should never be open-ended. I will personally say here that if Bart agrees to this and edits with no problems for three months, then a breach of the conditions after three months should lead to a short block and reimposition of a three-month probation under the hair-trigger banhammer (or Sword of Damocles, as we should call it), rather than a jump to indefinite. Otherwise, you may get the silly position of people, a year later, pointing to this discussion to justify a ban. In my view, just as we warn before most blocks, we should also warn before a ban discussion. An official last, last chance if you like. Not everyone realises they are running the risk of a ban until the ban discussion starts. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

After seeing Carcharoth's view, looking at the Ruby Muhammad debate, and going through this editor's Talk archives to peruse the discussions around the block notices, I'm changing my position to Support the indef block. There was more than just the Talk-editing problem here, though that was the most flagrant issue. If indef is too long, how about one year. EdJohnston (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I've run into this guy and things haven't improved. Sadly, support a long block. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox website

Could some admin (or non-admit) respond to my post at Template talk:Infobox Website? -- Taku (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors marked as historical

As a result of the recent MFD the LOCE has been marked as historical. Now, the LOCErequest template can be seen at quite a few talkpages. Should it be removed to avoid potentional confusion? D.M.N. (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, someone might come and work on them some day. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That's rather unlikely, considering that the project just got closed due to inactivity. The template should be removed, IMHO. If anyone wants to do some copyediting, take your pick, there's more than enough to do. --Conti|✉ 12:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I just added a {{selfref}} to the top of the WP:LOCE page to redirect those that stumble there to WP:PRV. Any other thoughts/better place to send those looking for CE volunteers? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 13:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, they were always way way behind. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised either. Even though most of my project edits are copy editing, I never joined the LOCE and went straight to WP:PRV. More than once I have spent more time copy editing an article than the primary author spent writing it in the first place. Anyone who wants to just do a bit of wikignoming or sending the AWB vacuum through a few of those articles could make a big difference, and also make it easier for the next person down the line. There's what, 4000+ articles waiting for a copy edit? Risker (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

plz delete this

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

---

Since the resolved tag didn't seem to have sufficient impact, we'll try this. The consensus at AFD was that the subject of the article was notable. Arguing that decision here is disruptive editing. Horologium (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Speedy kept. AN is not the place for this. seicer | talk | contribs 15:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

plz delete Marina Orlova i tried to but they are saying if you make teenage boys do bad things they are notable. thanks--WillyJulia (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is already an AfD for it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Orlova; if they decide to delete it, it will be deleted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

some admin already kept it, i think you guys should look at this!--WillyJulia (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That "some admin" speedy-closed it because it meets all our policies. There's no need for deletion, and to do so would be improper. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

it does not meet all the policies!--WillyJulia (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it meets WP:BIO because 1) it asserts notability and 2) because that notability is backed up with verifiable and reliable sources. It's written with a neutral point of view and contains no original research. What are your concerns? Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

birth date is original research and there is not enough reliable sources.--WillyJulia (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is the article is suitable as a biography and that it meets standards of verifiability. See:Decision. The issue is resolved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

that didnt even last a day--WillyJulia (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the comments, the AFD would have been addressed as WP:SNOWBALL. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

Your reason for nominated the article for deletion was "just a woman that loves showing her boobs off on youtube, and has loads of teenage boys getting there keyboard sticky". Not only is that not based in policy, it's completely ridiculous. The article was determined to meet our policies and guidelines for inclusion, and it is not going to be deleted after a discussion on this board. Please move on. - auburnpilot talk 16:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

it does not meet WP:BIO if you look!--WillyJulia (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

See numerous comments above, "if the horse is dead, don't hop on..." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

i would not be here any longer but someone closed it already--WillyJulia (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, over, finished, resolved, kaput, what else do you need? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

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

WillyJulia

As a side note, has anyone else noticed the large amount of notices and warning lobbed on WillyJulia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s talk page? I just noticed that I had given another "final warning" against the editor for this crap, and was previously blocked for harassment. The AFD contained numerous inappropriate comments.

The following threads may provide a little more insight: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive432#Possible WP:BLP issues at Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive151#Is this harassment?. seicer | talk | contribs 18:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly noticed WillyJulia had already received multiple final warnings due to repeated BLP violations. I'm guessing we're dealing with a very young editor, possibly not even a teen yet, and s/he just doesn't understand the problem. I hate to advocate yet another final warning, so it may be best to consider this last incident the last in a long line of warnings. The next fit of disruption should result in a lengthy block. - auburnpilot talk 19:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I was the admin who issued two of those warnings (and have engaged him/her on their talk page) so I wasn't going to block him/her. I'm glad that someone else addressed the issue, because I believe that we are going to have some issues with this editor unless there is a change in behavior. Horologium (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed... this editor's history has been mostly flitting from one issue to another, and at this point should be advised that any further complaints will result in a lengthy block. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley (Again)

There is an IP who has been dominating this article for a number of weeks/months. He has a strong anti-Jackson bias however. Whenever nice info about Jackson is added its reverted. He also removed the Michael Jackson catagory at the bottom, even though the marriage had a huge affect on both of their public lives.

He recently added a sentance that said "Lisa Maria said she did not see Jackson in the last 6 months of their marriage". However being the Jackson obsessive that I am, I knew this was impossible, they appeared at award ceremonies together in public just before their seperation. Instead of removing the sentance outright I added a fact tag, just incase I was making a mistake. The IP removed the tag twice, I was therefore sure it was a lie and removed the sentance.

Now the IP is adding a new sentance that puts Jackson in a bad light. "Lisa Maria said that she saw things in their marriage that she could do nothing about". I read the source it came from and the sentance is taken completely out of context. An admin himself reverted this as a misleading sentance. Still the IP keeps re adding the line, implying that Lisa Marie saw Jackson doing "Bad things". The IP has an anti-Jackson agenda, please resolve it. The multiple warnings I have left on its talk page have had no effect. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 21:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The admin removed the sentance some time ago seen here. [6] Presley has said the media took her out of context, enough said. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 21:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It does look like a content dispute from here - and there is nothing on WP that says someone who articulates a critical viewpoint of a subject cannot edit an article relating to it, the same as someone with a fans viewpoint providing all material is verified. I suggest, since it seems to be only the two of you in dispute, that you request a third opinion on the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian PD

There are two Canadian police department articles up for speedy right now, one of them being Nelson Police Department. If you look at the table at the bottom of the page, there have recently been many article creations for related municipal police departments. This is a convoluted issue; there was recently an AfD for Oak Bay Police Department with the result being a redirect to Oak Bay (see discussion). It appears though that the Oak Park PD AfD was handled in a vacuum - if this one was found not notable enough for inclusion, then they probably all should be (unless one of them clearly meets WP:ORG criteria or something similar). Any thoughts? Tan | 39 21:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This looks to me like quite a stretch for A7. That being the case, this isn't really an admin issue ... they could be bundled in an AfD. - Revolving Bugbear 21:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Lyle123 sockpuppets

I stumbled on a message at User:Persian Poet Gal's talk page regarding a series of unusual usernames; they're classic User:Lyle123 socks. They are:

• User:MoviebyWaltDisney1954
• User:TheLawmoviebyAmblinEntertainment1986
• User:AmericanLegendsmoviebyWaltDisney1954

True to form, one sock made a legit entry and "The Law" sock made a totally bogus one. This guy is a pest. Can someone please block these latest socks? He's not currently active, but he generally uses a sock only until he's caught. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I marked the "The Law" entry for speedy when I saw it and then came across the others when he created a strange article. I just fixed up the article created by the "AmericanLegends" sock. It really is a movie...just not from 1954. Thanks for the help PMD! I'll keep an eye out in my travels :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"What_Comes_Around.../...Goes_Around"

I wished to redirect the article "What Comes Around.../...Goes Around" to the correct name of the song, "What Goes Around.../...Comes Around" to avoid confusion. But because of the "unauthorized" message, I was not able to.

Tezkag72 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

To create pages, you must be autoconfirmed, i.e. your account must be four days old. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be autoconfirmed to create pages, but that wouldn't be a problem for Tezkag72 anyway.[7] It may have something to do with the title blacklist or spamlist or whatever it's called. - auburnpilot talk 22:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oop, my bad. The article is probably blacklisted, yeah. Sorry. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that one would fall foul of too many consecutive punctuation marks. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Global deleted image review

FYI, a discussion about allowing commons sysops the right to view deleted images on any wikimedia project is happening on Meta here: m:Metapub#Global_deleted_image_review -- Avi (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful information. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please help me

My user name was blocked a long time ago, even though my page had information typed in from other wikipedia users that my name should not be blocked. And yet I got blocked anyway.....the person who blocked me thinks im some white nazi person or something when im not. Im actually Indian. My user name is User:Aryan818, can you please unblock me? Ive been blocked for a billion years now. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing message was posted to one of the MedCom pages. Sunray (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This account is not blocked, according to the block log. Kevin (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Could be an autoblock - what message comes up when you try to edit? Hut 8.5 06:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The actual account may be ARYAN818 (talk · contribs), which is indeed indefinitely blocked. ANI discussion may be of interest. Admins may want to browse the user's deleted talk page as well; especially of interest would be this edit (admins only), which was from May of this year and is an uppercase personal attack more than anything else. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this diff from the above IP is also of interest. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that adding "DO NOT BLOCK THIS USER" to one's User page does not apparently prevent admins from blocking one. Now, the IP's contribs are overwhelmingly to Indian related topics (with the notable exception of this rather scary item) but without access to deleted contribs I can't offer much more info. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse Filter extension

A new proposal has been made to enable my new AbuseFilter extension on English Wikipedia. — Werdna talk 08:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting proposal. It would be interesting to see what other users think about this proposal. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert tributes

As you may have seen there is currently a huge argument going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Russert tributes - unsusprisingly I guess given the emotions likely to be engendered by the death of a popular figure. The one of interest to admins is going to be the final count. Currently the tally of votes stands at around 33% keep, 33% merge and 33% delete. How should a closing admin interpret this? I would count the merge votes as votes not to keep the article and turn it into a redirect. Any thoughts? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

seems like a textbook illustration of no-consensus. DGG (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's WP:NOT#MEMORIAL - as with anything that violates policy, it should be deleted, consensus or no.

Just say "NO" to WP:FUR 12:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads up re Huggle

Gurch seems to have vanished, shutting down Huggle as his final act ([8], [9]). User:Atyndall has since reactivated Huggle, but without Gurch to keep an eye on it, users are already starting to make their own tweaks to the configuration. Be aware that unless/until Gurch comes back or someone else takes over the maintenance, it may get buggier & buggier. As a last resort, Huggle can be shut down by restoring this version and protecting the config page; unless we start getting problems, I don't propose doing this at this stage given the disruption it will cause to those who use it. – iridescent 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Erratic behavior. Enigma ^message 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well per WP:BOLD, and to prevent possible disruptive Huggle changes, I went ahead and fully protected the config page. No prejudice against reverting if this level of protection is deemed unnecessary. —Travis^talk 18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think restricted established editors from editing the config page is a bit extreme, why not semi protect it instead? There's more chance of a new user or an IP from vandalising than an auto-confirmed member. We've never had problems before with the page being vandalised. ——Ryan | t • c 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan. Semi would be good, not full. Enigma ^message 18:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think gurch is gone for good, but he may not be able to edit much or at all for the next few months :( delldot talk 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Gurch isn't an admin, full protection will restrict him from editing it if/when he returns. I'd oppose full-protection for that reason, as long as someone's watching the page closely. – iridescent 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe I overreacted. Back to semi, then. —Travis^talk 18:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As a general note to everyone who's followed the link here from WP:Huggle/Feedback, if I see any signs that Huggle's playing up I won't hesitate to shut it down despite the annoyance this will cause to its users, and would urge anyone else to do the same; as with bots, it works at such high speed (20+ edits per user per minute sometimes) that "shoot first and ask questions later" is IMO the appropriate action if it seems to be faulty. – iridescent 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I came here form the feed back page. The whole point of the config is so that the huggle users can edit it. Anything that they are not meant o be able to change is configured into the actual program. I will watch the config page until gurch gets back (if he comes back) and I will also log all things to be fixed onto a page so the feedback page doesn't become too backlogged. The config page is already semi protected and that should be enough. If anything is playing up with huggle then please add it to the feedback page. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Though WP:OWN applies to many pages it is ridiculous to start messing around with the page just because of Gurch's temporary leave of absence. Its a great tool that Gurch has provided and there's no need to fool around it. I do think the semi-protection is a bit unnecessary but hopefully it will help people understand that the config page shouldn't be tampered with.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting on the deeper issue, but semi-protection makes perfect sense; huggle users are approved for rollback (and therefore no doubt autoconfirmed) and able to edit semi-protected pages. –xenocidic (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection isn't really over the top. Following WP:BEANS (not saying what) but you can change one line and mess up one line in that config and suddenly everything goes wrong. People wouldn't notice straight away and then there would have to be one major cleanup from damage. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that someone (preferably an admin) should add a notedire warning on the page about exactly what will happen to you if you edit the page and accidentally cause other people to make errors in their reverting. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, if I see anyone deliberately disrupting it (as opposed to a well-intentioned but wrong "improvement"), they'll be explaining their actions via {{unblock}}. AGF is a core policy, but not when it means potentially disrupting thousands of mainspace pages. – iridescent 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI: The page was originally semi’d back in January. —Travis^talk 19:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all overreacting. The page has never been vandalised in the history of it's existence. The only questionable edition was by User:Xp54321 and his edits were in good faith. ——Ryan | t • c 19:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding what I was saying above about adding a dire warning to the top of WP:Huggle/config, even if an edit was a good-faith attempt to try something, there is still an insane potential to mess up hundreds or even thousands of pages within a very short time. And it would be nearly impossible to fix all of the mistakes because they would be made by like 30 or 40 different establishd users and admins, so you couldn't just go through and rollback like you can with a spambot or a vandalbot.

Basically, what I'm saying is, we need to make sure that people know what the potential consequences of their actions could be, not only in the form of blocks/nudges/permanent blots on reputation, but also the tremendous and almost irrevocable damage that could be done to the entire project in a very short period of time. It's like allowing random people to mess around with the firing mechanism of a Teller-Ulam device sitting inside a tank of liquid deuterium and lithium 6. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest 20 edit per minute is pretty rare unless you are only taking a glance at each page and it is during a peak time. There are currently over 15 user huggleing on the english wikipedia and together they only made a total of 19 edits per miniute. Over time that is still quite big but if something went wrong with that it shouldn't take long to fix. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe add something saying "If you want to propose a change do so at on the feedback page" or something similar. Otherwise looks good. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I must be blind (maybe make that line a bit bigger? :D) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Change the line that reads "Vandalising or making test edits to this page could result in an immediate block." to "Vandalising or making test edits to this page WILL result in an immediate block."

I cannot imagine the amount of damage that could be done if someone made a very small change that went unnoticed for a while.

Also, shouldn't all the subpages of Template:Huggle be full-protected? None of them should ever need to be changed, and (WP:BEANS, so commented out) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the part about dogs and cats living together, and mass hysteria. Perhaps a little atom bomb symbol, instead of the red stop sign? Font needs to be bigger, in red, and more panicy (How do you spell panicy, anyway?). And more exclamation points, please (where, exactly, to put them can be at your discretion). And finally, of course, a note somewhere (Wikipedia:Village Pump/Vandal noticeboard perhaps?) to further advertize to vandals where they can cause the most damage. --barneca (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Comment was based on a template that has since been removed, and comment was snotty anyway, so stiking out. --barneca (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. Dammit, just make Gurch an admin and full-protect the config page ;) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that I could get behind 100%. But it's been tried. :( --barneca (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what Gurch should do is move Wikipedia:Huggle/Config to User:Gurch/huggle_master.css and make Huggle look there for instructions. I've suggested that to him, but he either didn't read or didn't want to do that, for whatever reason. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of the config being open to edit is so that people can edit it :D. Putting it on his user page .css would kind of stop that from happening. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the point now is, Huggle is an incredibly fast and widespread tool. Vandalism to the config page has enormous potential to almost irreparably damage Wikipedia. I do not think that just anyone should be allowed to play around with it like that. Allowing only Gurch and admins to change the configuration page is a the only viable solution, IMO. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that not just anyone should be allowed to edit it but restricting it so only gurch and adims can edit it is, in my opinion, a bit too protective. Also to change the location of the page at this stage would mean a re release of the current version of huggle and also making all previous versions useless. Also this would be a global change for all for the wikis that huggle is used on (commons,meta,bg e.t.c) meaning the inactive gurch would have to create an account on each of these wikis for the .css user page to be viable. I think thats about all I wanted to say. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Er... we all have an account on each of thise wikis. – iridescent 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppsy, didn't notice he had a SUL. Well this would make things a bit easier if that is the way that we want to go. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though, that the config page is good just semi'd. If there are changes that shouldn't be made by people other than gurch, he can hard code them in. If it ever becomes a problem, we can deal with it, but I don't think it is now. delldot talk 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I could probably throw together a bot that would revert edits to the page by non-rollbackers (or non-admins other than Gurch, or whatever) Standard procedure is it'd need Bot group approval though. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That in my opinion would probably be a good idea if not the best idea. (I was acctually thinking of proposing this a bit earlier) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Per conversation with gurch he will not be coming back to wikipedia. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's unfortunate, did he tell you why? Or is it personal? ——Ryan | t • c 22:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope he didn't tell me why but knowing him I respect his decision. I will try to keep ontop of keeping huggle up to date. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

With Gurch gone apparently forever, we should have another .NET programmer take over maintenance, the source code is up for grabs, there's a link at WP:HUGGLE (for convenience, it's [10]). Someone has to take over maintenance and construction, a quick look at the WP:Huggle/Feedback page shows quite a few outstanding program bugs and requested features. Anyone volunteer? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bot policy is to unflag a bot if its operator/owner leaves the project (even temporarily). Considering the power of huggle, it should be disabled until Gurch returns, or someone agrees to take his place. giggy _(:O) 23:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think it should be shut down until either Gurch returns or someone volunteers to continue the project. One of Gurch's last edits was to deactive Huggle so I think we should keep it that way. I'm going to be bold and at the same time, peeve off many members. ——Ryan | t • c 23:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Much as it will annoy everyone, I agree with Ryan. – iridescent 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Temporarily disabled

In light of the above, I've temporarily protected the config page in the "disabled" state. Once this is resolved, anyone feel free to unprotect if that's the consensus. – iridescent 23:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I will develop huggle further. I am in the process of learning .net and have already had the huggle source for quite some time. I have already fixed a few of the bugs in the current version and hope to release a newer version soon. Gurchs version "0.7.11" had many bugs and he didnt give it to me so "0.7.10" is acctually the most up to date version currently. Anyway I cant say I will be as good as gurch was but I am willing to try to fill his pace. (dam edit conflicts)·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally would feel more comfortable with someone already proficient in .NET taking it up. giggy _(:O) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Same with everyone else, quite obviously, hence my comment above. There's a more or less list here (all the people with the ".NET programmer userbox"). Crude and incomplete, but if someone can find a trusted user in there... I personally didn't find one within the first 150 transclusions. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Here's the disabling. I don't think it should be reversed until someone is willing to do everything Gurch did - bug fixing, dealing with user problems, development, etc. etc. giggy _(:O) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if anyone else does come out for this then please ask me for the latest source (I see where you are comming from giggy) I would be willing to "try" to develop and fix bugs(I have done 3 already) and have always dealt with user problems on the feedback page but really there is probably someone better suited to it than me ^^. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 23:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Also just a small point but on the config page "enable-all:false" should work :> ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 23:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Giggy. Check my talk archives; during May-June I was reporting bugs to Gurch virtually every day. Remember, unblocked & malfunctioning Huggle will leave a string of blocked users, users stripped of rollback rights etc; when you do reactivate it, make sure you get it right! – iridescent 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think disabling it entirely is too extreme at this point, especially given how useful the software is. If there are concerns about how to proceed, why not just acivate the "admin-only" option ("require-admin")? That way, we don't lose a powerful tool in vandal-fighting. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree thinking about it as having it enabled without gurch here isn't acctually going to make much of a difference compared with if he was here. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Huggle should remain deactivated entirely until someone experienced enough can maintain it. Even if you limit it to just sysops, if it were to malfunction, who would be skilled enough to rectify it? With the power of huggle and it's already dented reputation here on the project, we'd be crazy to continue using is unmanned ——Ryan | t • c 23:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't meant to sound flippant, but are there actually any admins who use Huggle? Aside from (occasionally) Persian Poet Gal, and a few edits from myself when I was testing the software, I don't think I've ever noticed a huggle-edit in Recent Changes from any admin. – iridescent 23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Epbr123 does (did?). giggy _(:O) 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course you haven't. Huggle gains you adminship. You don't use it after adminship. Okay, that's all from me. Going away now...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with disabling of huggle at least till we get word from Gurch or we find someone who can maintain huggle. I'd wait a few weeks to a couple of months.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the use by admins, I've certainly found it very useful for late-night vandalism cleanup. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We could always protect Wikipedia:Huggle/Users and use it as an approval list for now. This way all users already on the list or who have already used huggle can use huggle and continue fighting vandalism but no new users (maybe users that will make mistakes) can use the program? What do you guys think? ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea but still there's the chance of a bug.(Like the one I encountered that got me a 15-min block) and without Gurch we'd be in much trouble.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 00:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ye, Xp is correct. No re-enabling. Use Twinkle. giggy _(:O) 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is a bug then report it, To be honest I don't think there can be any more bugs in this version that have not been found as it has been out for months with no new versions released. Just wondering Xp54321 which bug is this? If there is a bug that got you blocked for this long and it was a serious bug with huggle then please post it at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback and then yes if it is serious I see a reason for huggle to be disabled for now. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would we disable it? It is a stable tool, working properly, not causing any problems. Seems silly to turn it off, all the edits made by it are the responsibility of the editors, not gurch's, so it is nothing like a bot owner being away situation. I recommend it be re-enabled immediately. So, I am going to reenable it, WP:IAR (this will unarguably improve the wiki) until some sort of consensus is formed here. Prodego ^talk 00:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It was a bug in a previous version. He had his Huggle rights revoked yet was somehow still able to access the program. If a verified user list were to be agreed via consensus then I think the current user list should be scrapped at least down to the core users and then only accept trusted, well established users until we can 'acquire' a maintainer. I do agree, most bugs are ironed out now but would we be willing to take that risk? I think Wikipedia will suffer without huggle, it filters vandalism a lot more efficiently than Lupin's anti vandal tool ——Ryan | t • c 00:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with user list option.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 00:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree but stripping down off the huggle user list? Maybe just taking off the last weeks additions to the list? ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, It's not like I have a huge problem with it even if there are errors, except for the times that is freezes when I close it out, other than that it is a perfectly fine tool and like they said, the page has never been vandalised in it's entire existance, why move to protect it now that Gurch is gone? It's not like he spent 24/7 on Wikipedia when it was running in the first place, just my opinion but I really do think you should turn in on temporarily so we can continuing reverts on vandal edits and see how it goes from there becuase now I have to use VandalProof, a program I am not use to AT ALL, to start my reverts. Notify us if anything changes in the situtation please! --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm just wary about continuing the use of a very powerful program without it's maintainer around. Therefore to limit potential abusers, if we were to activate it again, the user list should be limited. There are so many users listed here ——Ryan | t • c 00:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's got to be someone out of the millions of editors on Wikipedia that can run it. If nothing else, why not just e-mail Gurch and see if he'll fix any problems that come up? I strongly suggest Huggle be reactivated, as Huggle was the most efficient and accurite tool for vandal fighting. IMO, Wikipedia relied on Huggle, and will never be the same without it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You only have to have used huggle once to have your name there thats why there are so many. I dont see how allowing all in that list to have access would be a problem.. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we keep it enabled unless there's a problem that Addshore can't handle? No reason to assume there's going to be a problem until there is one. If a user on that list creates a problem, we can deal with them individually. Nothing about gurch's presence made people not abuse huggle. delldot talk 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(5xEC) The list needs cleaning out anyway, why not now? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec x a million) Addshore, for the exact reason outlined above. No offence Xp54321 but I'm using you as an example. He had his rights revoked, he was still able to edit. I bet there would be many other users who'd be willing to exploit a bug to harm the project and like I said, if there's no maintainer to fix these bugs then Huggle's reputation goes downhill even more. ——Ryan | t • c 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Xp54321's bug was in a version of huggle that was allot older. This version should be virtually stable other than the few bugs which have been pointed out on the feed back page (none of which can get your rights removed) the majority of bugs are just huggle crashing freezing with unhandeled exceptions. Yes there could be users willing to exploit bugs but they would need to have rollback :S. And iff rollback got given to someone that would exploit bugs (i know it has bene but hey) i would start to wonder why. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not just let whitelisted Huggle users just use it? I mean whitelisted users are really the ones who are trusted in the first place, right? I don't see the big deal if everyone is worried about people who will abuse the program. --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, any user with 500+ edits is auto-whitelisted. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean the userlist not the whitelist. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

But the userlist also contains users who don't have rollback. Remember, the program automatically adds you to the user list and the rollback requirement was a recent addition. So think of how many NEW members are on that list. Another reason to strip it down ——Ryan | t • c 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the program currently is only enabled for those with rollback per a config setting. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We're not referring to that - we mean that the list has far too many people that either can't or don't use huggle. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I see that huggle has been enabled again regardless of all the security concerns and whatever else we've been discussing the past few hours...so this is all irrelevant ——Ryan | t • c 00:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Enabled until consensus is reached here, which it hasn't. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

While I am glad that it has been enabled, the past discussion is not irrelevent, as it has been enabled until consensus to disable it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Was consensus ever reached for the disabling of huggle in the first place? I can now just see us tied in knots :D ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not put someone in charge until (if ever) Gurch returns, Addshore isn't a bad idea, and chop the approval list smaller to make this transitional phase simpler? Useight (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fritzpoll has expressed interest in maintaining Huggle (along with AddShore?). This solves the no maintainer problem. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I support re-enabling the tool. Huggle already carries a responsibility waiver, and for people like me whose connections crash and burn on Twinkle... Sceptre ^(talk) 00:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of all the people who abuse/misuse Huggle, there are plenty of people who are capable of controlling and properly using Huggle's power, in spite of all its problems/bugs. Is it right to take away this tool from people who have done nothing wrong simply because some people are not capable of controlling Huggle?

Also, with regards to Giggy's comment above about bots, Huggle is decidedly not a bot. The problem lies not in the tool but in the users who do not know how to control it. I have used Huggle since version 0.6.1 (in February) and I can attest that if a user really knows what they are doing, there is nothing (within reason, deliberate errors in programming don't count) that software can do to to make them make mistakes. Unfortunately, the converse is also true.

What Huggle needs is an approval list similar to VandalProof's. Since Fritzpoll is an admin, he should blank WP:HUGGLE/users, full-protect it, and force Huggle to ensure that a user is on the list before they can use the tool. That would keep out all the riffraff. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You could always use the built in config settings. User must:

• Have an account X days old
• Have a rollback account
• Have over 1000 edits

meaning as soon as a user is over these he can run huggle be automaticly added to the list and not have to waste admins time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Addshore (talk • contribs)

Nope, the features don't work, unless you fixed them? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knew that they didnt work to know to try to fix them :> I will add this to the list of TO FIX :D ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 01:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support a manually-managed fully-protected whitelist for the moment (pending consensus on other eligibility criteria), assuming we have an admin prepared to do the additions, and someone who wants to take responsibility for making the decisions. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I too would support an approval list per what Pseudomonas said ——Ryan | t • c 09:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, there's enough vandalism these days to justify keeping things going. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm opining, if the config page can be fully-protected that'd make me feel more comfortable. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Well, if that works, cool. Would be much easier that an approval list. Or, if you want, I could be an "approval" person, if you went the route I suggested. I have been using Huggle since vs. 0.6.1, nearly four months. In the last 10000 reverts made, I have less than five nudges, as far as I can remember. (that last part was my resumé, hope you enjoyed it :P ) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling we won't be needing that, since we have found a suitable replacement for Gurch (Fritzpoll, see below), which should nullify all arguments (unless I missed something?). Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the random babbling... it's 21:34 where I live, and I got less than 3 hours of sleep last night, (A/C on the blink....) and my BCL (blood caffeine level) is dropping... See you guys tomorrow! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Didn't know where to mention this, but I could probably get Mellie to talk to Gurch. she can be very persuasive. Steve Crossin (contact) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...I may regret this

If you still need/want someone, I happen to be a "proficient .NET programmer", who has a passing interest in programming for Wikipedia. I'll offer my services if people want a maintenance man like me. Just let me know Fritzpoll (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fritzpoll yay! Well I think this is good. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You're just the person we were looking for... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're sure you want to put up with all the hassle... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*huggles Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If fritz can fix the bugs and acctually do the code i'm sure I can cope with sorting out the feedback page, changelog e.t.c to take some of the work away from you :>·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It can't be worse than navigating the minefield that was getting FritzpollBot approved, can it? Off to bed - I'll wait until I get online tomorrow for anyone to object, then I'll check over the source code and get familiar with it. As GEOBOT is still warming up, this will not be a distraction (before Blofeld gets worried) Fritzpoll (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well given what this discussion has already gone through I don't know why anyone would want to say no to you :D. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I for one have no objections to Fritz taking over huggle, though I am sorry to learn that gurch has left wikipedia. (I've been working on a program to help the simple english wikipedia, so I've been away for a while...) Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

YAY!!!Huggle will be okay!!!Thank you Fritz!!!--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fritz, I chatted with Gurch before about possibly hosting Huggle on SourceForge. He never objected to doing so, and showed some interest in it, but the idea just fell through the cracks after no more action was taken on it. Perhaps now would be a good idea to do that? Gary King (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle is on SourceForge already :) (and the source, too) Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The URL being http://eocp.sourceforge.net/huggle/0710.zip for the current Huggle version - by the way, Fritz should know that and keep it that way (and making sure to update the current source code, etc.), and it's hosted by Atyndall. But all that will come after he accepts the position. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not a public project there; you don't see it when you do a search. Gary King (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

← True. Perhaps talk to Atyndall? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just hosting huggle on another sf.net project's webspace but I have now applied for an actual project for huggle (It's under the unix name gurch because 1. It honors is original creator, how may have now moved on from the project and 2. For some reason the unix name huggle doesn't work). The site says it could take 1-3 days, once that is done I'll upload the source code and files. Anyone who wants to have developer status to the project should sign up for a sourceforge account then email me and I will add the permissions required. I'll also put the Huggle source code into SVN.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Mellie/Gurch

• Didn't know where to mention this, but I could probably get Mellie to talk to Gurch. she can be very persuasive. Steve Crossin (contact) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed Steve's comment above. This may prove useful. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, here's the thing. I know her better than anyone, and I know that Mel and Matt are good friends. Mel's a very persuasive girl, and I'm sure she could convince him to come back. I'll ask her to make a cmt here though. Anyway, what do people think of this? Steve Crossin (contact) 13:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Let him be - he's obviously extremely stressed out and doesn't want to be part of the project at the minute. We should respect this and he'll come back in his own time. It looks like we've found someone to help out with Huggle, and he can obviously resume that himself when he's back. Let the guy sort his issues out himself. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well said Ryan, I agree. I'm pretty sure gurch is going to come back when he's ready. delldot talk 13:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• There's a difference between persuasive and forceful/coercive, but, we will let this one rest. Let him come back when, and if, he's ready. Steve Crossin (contact) 13:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think he should be left. I only managed to talk to him for around 30 mins and his last message to me went along the lines of leave me alone. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 14:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Baseodeux

Baseodeux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is deleting quoted informations in the article Central Europe. He's also ignoring this consensus. --Olahus (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe try discussing with user on their talk page? If that doesn't work, an RfC may be in order. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Checking TfD

Shouldn't an admin close some of the discussions at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Old_discussions? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 19:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Splitting up AN/ANI

There is a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard regarding the possibility of doing away with AN and ANI, by splitting their purposes into other existing noticeboards. More eyes appreciated. - auburnpilot talk 21:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, AuburnPilot, for making a redundant post below, but it's also worth saying that I am not advocating any change to ANI. — Dan | talk 21:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe double posts will double the visibility... - auburnpilot talk 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it turns out I may have to advocate changes to AN/I after all. I was hoping not to have to start there, but it looks like many people don't see AN as especially problematic. — Dan | talk 23:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A home-improvement project

Much though we all love this board, it's caused some hard feelings over the years, and I think now would be a good time to try something else. It's useful as a 'one-stop shop' for users who want to get the attention of administrators, but I think a new arrangement is capable of preserving this utility while minimizing 'drama'.

Of course AN/I needs to be reconfigured more than the humble AN does, but I'd rather not tackle that beast at the moment. Here are my reasons for suggesting a change to this board:

• It attracts many off-topic threads -- see my comment on the talk page). At the time I wrote up that analysis, there were in fact only four threads that were specifically relevant to administrators, about issues for which we don't already have a separate forum. This is because it is a convenient one-stop shop.
• However, this causes major problems. When issues that might be handled someplace else are brought to an administrator-specific board, the issues suddently take on the connotations of administration, the taint of the legal system, and most importantly the implicit possibility of a block or other administrative action.
• The word 'administrator' in the title always invokes the possibility of administrative action, which creates a general atmosphere of tension before anything has happened. Now anybody who starts a thread about a certain user is implicitly suggesting that that user be blocked, and any user replying to a thread about himself is implicitly defending against the proposal that he be blocked. Everyone is on edge.
• These conclusions are demonstrated by my point about the off-topic threads. If we insisted on moving all of the off-topic stuff to their proper forums, there would only be four fairly harmless threads left here. Some people come here deliberately looking to get someone blocked, and the threads of those that don't are infected by the administrative atmosphere of the place.

I would like, therefore, to decommission this board, insist that all traffic for which we have other boards be sent to those other boards, and begin a new subsection of the village pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (maintenance). This can handle things for which there's genuinely no other place. It can be an administrators' hangout to some extent, but it won't be admin-specific, so that people can start threads there without invoking the 'somebody might wind up getting blocked' atmosphere. Perhaps a few weeks' trial period is in order.

We're talking about it on this board's talk page right now. Please join us with your thoughts and suggestions. — Dan | talk 21:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:193.40.12.39

Resolved

 – one editor from a University, persistently disruptive and blocked for a week --Rodhullandemu 12:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this IP has a long history of messing around with Michael Jackson albums, discographies, templates. I have been reverting him for ages, never paying much attention to the fact that it was the same editor all this time. I just checked his edit history of recent edits, they are almost all to various MJ articles and all of them are incorrect. One particular edit was of some irritation. With some sarcasm he edited the article to call Thriller 25 a re-re release. He also removed HIStory as a studio album from the Michael Jackson template. It is a studio album. He has had multiple warnings and isn't in the least bit helpful. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 03:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Shall I take this to a different noticeboard then? — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 06:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, is anyone home? This IP has now declared that an article belongs to him [11], can someone please do something. Has everyone gone out for a party and forgot to invite me. :-) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 08:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

using image:Human_penis_flaccid_and_erect.jpg for circumcision

hi there, i'm requesting the use of image:Human_penis_flaccid_and_erect.jpg for an article on circumcision. I do not know why this image is "protected" whereas the other penis pictures on the page, such as image:Flaccid-erect.jpg are not. Requesting to either "unprotect" the image or allow it to be used in the circumcision article. Revasser (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. You are free to add the image to the article now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of adminship by User:R._Baley and User:Raul654

I wish to get some relief from what I consider to be abuse of administrative privileges by User:R._Baley, and recently User:Raul654.

The relevant discussion threads on the user talk pages can be found at:

• User_talk:GoRight#POV_pushing_and_BLP_vio
• User_talk:GoRight#Solomon.27s_article_on_the_Singer_article
• User_talk:R._Baley#Mr._Connolley.27s_Bio
• User_talk:R._Baley#William_M._Gray_bio

The interaction with User:R._Baley began with my addition of properly sourced criticism to William M. Connolley's BLP. User User:R._Baley has basically told me that I am not allowed to add any criticism of Mr Connolley to his page regardless of the quality of the sources or the validity of the criticism, lest he block me forthwith. Personally I find such a stance to be outside the norms of behavior on Wikipedia, but never the less I have respected his demand.

Today I added a properly sourced section to Fred Singer's BLP which discusses the on-going smears that occur there as discussed by a published author on global warming deniers, Lawrence Solomon, who knows Fred Singer personally. User:Raul654 objects to my addition but given that it is properly sourced, that my edit accurately reflects the content of the article, and that the position expressed is obviously relevant to the Fred Singer BLP. Whitewashing this content is inappropriate given that it addresses concerns regarding the accuracy of the content on his BLP.

Note that User:R._Baley has now threatened to block me if I write anything that even mentions Mr. Connolley anywhere on the site, again presumably regardless of the validity and appropriateness of the information presented.

I would ask that these individuals be instructed to cease and desist in their stalking of me and the continual reverse of my properly sourced contributions. --GoRight (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have a dispute with other editors, that is exactly what WP:Dispute resolution is for, not this page. (mutters about instructions and bold text). Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 04:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree with Calvin, this really isn't going to be solved here, if you wish to pursue the article content discussion, I suggest WP:BLPN, if you take issue with the admin actions (of which I don't see any, yet), I suggest Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges or it there is a critical time nature to it, WP:ARBCOM. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I will take the content issue to WP:BLPN as you suggest. As for the use of admin privileges I seem to be in a catch 22. If I add the content and he blocks me what am I to do? You seem to be saying that I have to let him abuse his privileges, as he clearly indicates he will, before I can complain.  :( Anyway, I appreciate your support. --GoRight (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't need to wait for them to block, I'd get other people involved in the content issue before editing the article again, maybe requesting a comment on the article content at Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_on_articles.2C_templates.2C_or_categories would get more eyes on the issue. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked these links and see no such abuse as alleged. Proceed with dispute resolution by asking others to take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

GoRight, for what it's worth, and I myself have taken Connolley to task on one or more things in the distant past, your edit to his bio was POV. If you'd like to discuss it further, I'm willing to do so in another forum. On another note, the New Yorker article you were referencing is a famous article in Wikipedia history because of the (mis)information it contains regarding Essjay [12]. Cla68 (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for you input and consideration. --GoRight (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Accmailtext update

Could someone update MediaWiki:Accmailtext to reflect that it is not necessarily the user creating the account who is the owner of the created account. -Icewedge (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing...

could someone act upon my request at User_talk:Luna_Santin#Request_block_extension, I was unable to catch her before she quit for the night. -Icewedge (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Leftover Grawp article

In keeping consistent with this idiot's MO, a now-blocked sock created a seemingly legit but nearly contentless article about the Cambodian town of Amleang. He sometimes starts out with a legit edit or two so as not to attract attention and then boom! On comes the usual garbage. Any way of finding out who his IP is so they can shut him down? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Towns are notable - removed the speedy tagging. giggy _(:O) 09:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

... only to have it deleted by Bongwarrior regardless. Sigh. giggy _(:O) 09:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Banned users can't edit. I had already deleted it before I noticed the tag was removed, so apologies for that. Still, I think we can wait for a real user to create this article at some point. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 09:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Candy bar cakes

This would appear to be a recreation of the PAMCAKES article which was salted by an administrator. The article creator seems to be trying to circumvent the restriction, despite having had multiple warnings about advertising. I don't know if this counts as something to be taken to AIV (as I suspect the user isn't online now), or whether it can be dealt with by other means. CultureDrone (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And as a follow-up question, on AIV where it says the user must be online now - does that literally mean right at this moment, or 'within the last few hours' ? CultureDrone (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Classifying this as vandalism would be a stretch, but I deleted the article as a reasonable G11 (as tagged). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 11:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Offensive Barnstar

On User talk:Jeanne boleyn a barnstar of "Racial Purity" . Content of user's page suggests to me that user may not be aware of the implications. Ning-ning (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

From some of her contributions, I'd say she is very well aware of the connotations. The Barnstar should go.DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP is absolutely aware per its contribs. Removed. giggy _(:O) 10:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Beware of new Grawp tricks

Grawp's most common IP range is under a hard block. He has figured out a new trick to get the block modified so he can vandalize.

He makes rapid vandal edits to the IP talk page (which is the only page he can edit while hard blocked, [13]). Some unsuspecting admin blocks the IP for "vandalism" anon-only and ACB. However, single IP blocks override hard blocks, so this now allows him to edit from that IP using previously registered sleeper accounts.

When dealing with IP vandalism from the Grawp range (mostly 71.107.x.x and 71.108.x.x) check for rangeblocks first using the rangeblock finder on the IP talk page, and then protect the IP user and talk page if necessary, or hard-block the IP, but do not soft-block the IP. Thatcher 11:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Enlightening. Thanks. Rudget (logs) 14:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not fix it so a single block doesn't override the rangeblock? Jtrainor (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Empty talk pages and speedy deletion

I nominated at about 50 talk pages for speedy deletion under {{db-blanktalk}}. The were talk pages of redirects with trivial edit history (only the addition of a project banner which doesn't apply since the main article is a redirect). See for example here.

Anthony.bradbury, an administrator, reverted all the tags and moreover, it started removing all the removal of the project tags. See here.

The same user claims in my talk page that "blank article talkpage is not, repeat not subject to deletion". Who is right in this case? Me or Anthony.bradbury? Can I tag empty talk pages of redirects with trivial edit history for deletion or not? Can I remove the project banners from redirects or not?

Comment: I was tagging until 11:26, the administrator wrote me a message at 11:28 and I immediately stopped tagging. I took 2 more messages after that where the second one says "let me put it this way. If you do not stop tagging empty talk pages for speedy deletion you will become a possible candidate for blocking". -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Notified Anthony.bradbury of thread. –xenocidic (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• If an article is redirected then the talk page should either be redirected (if there's been previous discussion on the page), or deleted. I'm not sure it matters too much, but either way - there's no need to keep blank talk pages hanging around for redirects. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that deletion or redirection is more appropriate than a project tag for a redirect page. –xenocidic (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• My reasoning for deletion or redirect is as follows: a project tag on the talk page of a redirect will artifically inflate the number of articles under the project's care. Since these talk pages have virtually no history except for the project tag, they should qualify as a "non-controversial deletion". While a redirect would also be appropriate, I don't think it's particularly necessary. –xenocidic (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Yup, the project tag should be on the target talk page so it doesn't need to be on the redirect. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Copying from Paul Barlow talk page:

Db-talk reads: "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion, as a talk page of a page which does not exist, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion."

Db-blanktalk reads:"This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because it is a blank talk page with no substantial edit history."

In the second one it doesn't say anything about article that doesn't exist. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the wording on the template is irrelevant. It is the wording of the criteria that matter. Please read the actual Criteria for speedy deletion [14] Paul B (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Blanktalk is under G6 and not G8! Read it more carefully. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

--

Comment: Please note that Anthony.bradbury wrote to to "go to WP:DRV if you feel that you have been seriously disadvantaged". But the DRV is for the case of deleted articles and not for the case of declined speedy deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You could always take them as a group to MfD? Ryan Postlethwaite 13:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it clear that G8 applies to these cases? Moreover, was the admin to revert not only my tagging but my blanking as well? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations

...is backlogged again; some of the entries are a week old. All users are welcome to help out. shoy 13:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Global rights policy proposal on Meta

There is a proposal for a policy governing global user rights on meta - this is an umbrella policy, meant to guide the creation and implementation of new user rights and to require that new rights proposals respect the input and independence of local projects. Its available at m:Global rights.

There are currently three proposals for global rights active on meta, for an idea of the scope of this. All are relatively recent - global sysops, global view deleted images, and global rollback. The proposals are written by different people, with different principles in mind, and do not necessarily guarantee the ability of local projects to opt out or govern by local policy the use of these rights. Avruch 14:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a technical way of local projects opting-out has been created and will probably be used. See m:Global rights#Opting out (or in) of global rights which is a proposal to govern all global rights. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)