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

Need wider community input

Related discussion:

• Bot owners' noticeboard
• CfD 2009-05-04
• TfD 2009-05-04
• Bugzilla # 927
• Bugzilla # 14323
• TfD 2005-08-19
• CfD 2006-03-08

I noticed that Template:R from other capitalisation's TfD was closed without seeking wider community input. For a template that affects so many pages (around 263,120), I believe that an RfC, a post at the Village Pump, or something should be done in order to get more people aware of what is happening. We all know that TfD and CfD have very low traffic to their respective pages. Granted that this discussion had more users involved than the average subject in those discussion pages, I just feel like the more people involved the better. So I'm asking that this discussion be unclosed, or reopened or something. Additionally, at this very moment a bot is running that is removing the template from all the redirect pages and putting Category:Unprintworthy redirects on them. Perhaps this bot could be stopped, at least for a bit? Killiondude (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Erik9 to pause this task while we mull this over. –xeno ^talk 03:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is an absolute necessity to remove the category, all 28 templates should simply be modified as redirects to the unprintworthy template instead of editing 260k+ pages. That will still allow bots to still detect the redirect type. This still doesn't solve the issue of editors removing redirects and replacing them with piped links though, which is what this template helps mitigate, see [1] Tothwolf (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

For that fact, this type of change [2] isn't what was discussed at all, I assumed the bot was adding {{R unprintworthy}}, not the category directly... Tothwolf (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

At very minimum, it is a huge waste of resources to edit every affected page rather than just redirect the template. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(break)

I have a number of concerns with this issue, none of which have yet been addressed. As I previously pointed out at the TfD, [3] CfD and TfD both do not get enough coverage from the wider community for this issue to be addressed properly in either of those venues.

The template itself is very much in active use as of this very moment, see Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Redirects from other capitalisations

I find it troubling Erik9 began an immediate removal of the template with Erik9bot less than an hour after he closed the TfD as a delete. It's clear he did not fully read the entire discussion or research this issue before starting this task. There were lots of 'per nom' and WP:IDL "votes" but still little in the way of discussion of a working alternative to this template and category. Because this is an unusual case and because Erik9bot has only recently been granted approval for TfD work I still can't fault Erik9 too much.

Many other things should have taken place before even attempting such a deletion, and while the actual discussion leaned more towards redirection, none of these address the issues that this template and category were created to address.

There are 1000s of editors actively adding this template, by hand, using functionality in AutoWikiBrowser and Friendly, and probably other tools as well.

There are multiple bots [4] that currently add this template to redirects, and the officially approved bot, BOTijo is still hard at work.

This template and category are used for at least two tasks...

1. The template informs editors that this redirect should not be replaced with a piped link [5] and
2. The template and category are used by projects such as Version 1.0 Editorial Team and the Book tool when generating offline readable content.

This template (and others) have gone though previous TfD discussions [6] and as pointed out by Michael Z.: "These help clarify the purpose of redirects, and keep editors from mistakenly deleting or changing them. Unfortunately during some MediaWiki upgrade they stopped displaying on the redirect page. Is it possible to make them show up again?"

I also want to state for the record that while I do not think it was appropriate to send the category used by this template to CfD instead of taking it to the Village pump and seeking wider input via a RFC, I do not have a grudge against MZMcBride for his nomination of the category at CfD. This is something he has accused me of today off-wiki.

--Tothwolf (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The TfD seemed straightforward enough, and there was little support for keeping the template. (In fact, only one voter used the word 'Keep' in their statement, though other options were proposed). It was hard to understand what function the template actually provides. If that decision stands, then it still does not seem necessary to edit all 262,000 redirects to change or remove the existing template. Causing the template to redirect to something else would be less work. A temporary halt to all bots (both those that add the template and those that remove it) might be logical. I was one of those who suggested that the task of the bot that ADDS the template be de-authorized, and then others proposed a TfD of the template as the right way to handle the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, The TfD certainly doesn't look like a very organized or informed discussion and I don't really see any valid concerns listed in the TfD while calling for deletion either. If I had to guess as to why more of the "comments" weren't "keep" it might be that most people leaving comments recognized that TfD was not the proper place for this discussion and were attempting to discuss actual issues that had been raised instead of playing a game of "delete" vs "keep".
Clearly many of those calling for delete, the nominator included, did not understand the template's purpose and did not research it before casting their "vote". This is pretty explicit in the comments there so I see no reason to duplicate and quote those here.
The only potentially valid argument I've seen raised is that the bot auto-adding the template to new redirects may prevent page moves. This argument seems to have been countered by the fact that the approved bot does not immediately add the template to new redirects.
I've already pointed out some what the template and category are used for above, but here is the text that normally had been shown on the redirect page itself:

"This is a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation, and can help writing, searching, and international language issues."

"Pages linking to any of these redirects may be updated to link directly to the target page. However, do not replace these redirected links with a piped link unless the page is updated for another reason."

"For more information, see Category:Redirects from other capitalisations."

Now, for some reason this text (and the text on the other {{R from ...}} templates) no longer shows on the redirect pages. Without looking at the MediaWiki code itself, to me this seems to be more of a bug in MediaWiki. This text used to show up when following the redirect=no (Redirected from ...) links. It seems to me it would make more sense to figure out why exactly the text isn't showing up on redirect pages now and deal with that instead of calling for the deletion of templates that clearly serve multiple purposes.
When there are comments such as "I've always wondered what the hell this was for. I guess it's probably as useless as I thought it was." during a TfD it's pretty obvious those editors don't understand what the template's purpose and function is, yet at the same time they are still calling for deletion, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
--Tothwolf (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I too am deeply disappointed that apparently, TfD has become TfV, and that these voted results are then executed without any apparent consideration for the technical concerns that were raised in the discussion. I am still not convinced either way as to delete or keep, because I still have not seen a good and verified presentation of the facts of the usage of this template, both on en.wp as well as by many of it's surrounding tools. And replacing it, instead of redirecting it, is a waste of resources that I just cannot support even if I were convinced this template should be deleted. Replacing {{if}} with {{#if}} is something to throw resources at, but this just seems rather pointless to me. We are told not to worry about performance, but in my opinion, that is only for as far as it affects the encyclopedia we are building. If a redirect can serve the same purpose for these 260000 pages that most users won't ever see, then that is a case where we certainly should take resources into account. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm also concerned about the actual closing. That result was pulled out of his ... (hat). Nobody suggested replacing with the CATEGORY, only a simpler redirect to the TEMPLATE {{R unprintworthy}}. But I'm the keep — and gave a detailed enumerated discussion. Should this be taken to WP:DRV?
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing prevents this from being taken to WP:DRV. But perhaps it would help if someone familiar with the classification of redirects could explain how the classification is supposed to work and what it's currently being used for. A place to hold such a discussion might be Wikipedia talk:Redirect, or even Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) if you want a more conspicuous place. A problem that came up in the TfD was that a category with 262,000 entries to prevent the occasional creation of piped links seems like cracking a walnut with an earthmoving vehicle. If anyone thinks the key to the problem is that {{R from other capitalisation}} no longer causes any special text to show up on the user-visible redirect page, then consider holding the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Leave a link here as to where you want to continue the debate. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best place to get an overview of the classification system is the chart on the redirect guideline page. For {{R from other capitalisation}} specifically, see the "Other capitalisations" section. Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages contains a mostly complete chart of all the redirect information templates.
The information text no longer showing up doesn't just affect {{R from other capitalisation}}, this affects all of the redirect information templates.
--Tothwolf (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I support Tothwolf statements. Emijrp (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Though the number of editors supporting the deletion of the template was certainly important, my closure was not based solely on "vote counting". Editors supporting the deletion of the template argued that

1. The continued addition of the template to redirects served to obstruct legitimate pagemoves to the redirects edited, since non-administrators cannot move articles over redirects having more than one revision. It was observed that such moves could be accomplished through WP:RM; however, convenience in conducting pagemoves is regarded as a sufficiently important consideration to permit ordinary editors to perform moves in most cases, instead of limiting the move function to administrators. It was argued that a template should not be utilized as a back-door mechanism to restrict pagemoves to WP:RM.
2. The addition of the template to redirects, and consequent obstruction of pagemoves, provided negligible benefits in terms of navigational value.
3. Only by actual deletion of the template could its further addition to redirects be prevented. Merely redirecting Template:R from other capitalisation to Template:R unprintworthy would allow the subsequent usage of the former template. To prevent the creation of > 260,000 red-links, the deletion of the template absolutely requires that edits be made to the redirects in which it is transcluded.

Furthermore, since Template:R unprintworthy's sole function is to add Category:Unprintworthy redirects to redirects, preceded by an explanation of the category's purpose which essentially duplicates the description provided at the category page itself, I concluded that it would be more efficient to add Category:Unprintworthy redirects directly to the redirects, rather than create > 260,000 transclusions of Template:R unprintworthy (which currently appears on less than 3,000 redirects).

Nonetheless, if it is the belief of the community that Template:R unprintworthy adds significant value to the redirects transcluding it, I can add the template, instead of Category:Unprintworthy redirects, to redirects when replacing Template:R from other capitalisation, if there is a consensus for the bot task to continue.

If there is a consensus for some disposition of the TFD discussion other than the straight deletion and replacement of the template, I can have my bot revert the 320 edits it has already made to effectuate the TFD closure.

In view of the large number of redirects to be edited, I have suspended any further bot actions to accomplish the TFD closure until this matter is resolved. Erik9 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Erik's comment sheds some light, but I still don't see the immediate benefit of removing all the old templates from the redirects. (My comment assumes that the obsoleting of the template is upheld after further review). The only valid concern I see is that people who didn't get the message to stop using this template will keep adding it manually, even though it's been redirected. If bots are the main users of this template, can't we just stop the bots from adding this template to new redirects? As new redirects are created without being templated, the percentage that carry the template would drop gradually, without causing any extra work for anyone. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Having had a look at the actual MediaWiki code now, it's clear the view() code in Article.php for the current version of MediaWiki is not rendering text on pages that are considered to be redirects. The markup is parsed but the rendering routines are not called when following the redirect=no (Redirected from ...) links. This doesn't look like a bug, but more of a design oversight or perhaps just a software regression.
Looking at this code and the edit preview rendering code, it doesn't look like it would be that difficult to restore this functionality, which would allow all of the redirection message templates to function properly again. I think this would be particularly useful for templates such as {{R from merge}} and {{R with possibilities}}.
Restoring this functionality would also help solve the issue of redirecting talk pages of moved articles where they have project banners for WikiProjects that make use of the redirect class or contain discussion related to the redirected page that editors wish to preserve. There is an ongoing discussion about this issue for ListasBot at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. This would also solve the {{editprotected}} issue raised in the ListasBot discussion.
--Tothwolf (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting. Is there a bugzilla number?
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not opened a new bugzilla report, but I've continued to dig through past reports and found report # 927 which mentions this issue.
--Tothwolf (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I just found report # 14323 that covers this exact issue. Happy-melon has even come up with a patch. The edit preview code would also need to be modified though.
--Tothwolf (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd commented on bug 927 some 3 years ago, and have now joined bug 14323
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. Hard to believe it has been broken all these years. It certainly explains why no one seemed to know what the {{R ...}} templates really did. Hopefully with all the extra attention it will be fixed this time. Tothwolf (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• While awaiting the fix, I've given notice at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 14#Template:R from other capitalisation.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I remembered two other things the {{R ...}} templates were originally designed to do. They also kept redirect pages off of Special:ShortPages and Special:UncategorizedPages. Tothwolf (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Currently, both SpecialShortpages.php and SpecialUncategorizedpages.php use "... WHERE ... AND page_is_redirect=0"
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think those checks existed back when all the {{R ...}} type templates were originally created. Tothwolf (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

What is troll food?

Hi. I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this, but I'm not sure where else to go. I tried WP:VP/M, but didn't get much reply there.

What does it mean, to feed a troll? I've noticed that experienced Wikipedians disagree, and we don't seem to have much guidance in the project namespace or at meta:. WP:DFTT is a soft redirect to a page at meta, and if we look there, we're referred to WP:DENY, but that page was about getting rid of our huge shrines to specific vandals. Trolling situations seem to me to be quite different from that.

Trolls want to provoke a response, and maybe a fight, right? Is giving them the response and the fight they want a good idea? My own approach is to kill them with boredom, which I find to work, but I've been savagely attacked by other established editors for doing it. (This leads to a curious paradox where I say, "see it worked, he went away" and receive the reply, "it didn't work; he just got bored w/ your nonsense and went away".)

The contrary position seems to hold that anything other than "revert, block, ignore" constitutes feeding. This position seems to assume that we can successfully identify trolls, and I'm a little concerned about false positives.

Is there an empirical or objective way to decide this question, or is it even a question worth asking? Opinions? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they just wanna waste people's time for LULZ, which is basically a huge pain. So I think troll food is basically feeding their egos and falling into their traps. They wanna be talked about here so they can brag to their loser troll friends about it. Personally, I think its all just a substitution for the sex none of them are getting but that's just me. :-) Anywai, just ignore them. If you don't they'll figure out some way to harass you. There's some pretty nasty people out there, sociopaths and stuff. :-(Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking for advice for myself, really. I'm quite comfortable handling so-called trolls. However, I think it would be smart for us to somehow document this question, in a way that we do not currently. We pretend to have a policy about this, but we haven't actually got one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Troll with shortcomings 2.jpg suggests that your theory may be correct. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. :-p Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite: Are you trying to provoke a response here? Is that not a curious paradox itself? Isn't the objective definition "someone who is satisfied by demonstrations in acknowledgement of their effort to contribute," or just "someone who is looking for attention to their contributions, period"? Either way, isn't that just the same as everyone here? Putting myself at the risk of becoming the proud nail, what about false negatives? Steveozone (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, what's the harm in a false negative? If someone asks a trolling question, and I answer it without becoming upset, what harm is done? The harm from a false positive seems very clear to me; not so much the false negative. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Billy goats, isn't it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Billy the Kid, goat sockpuppet. Not dangerous to trolls until she gets bigger.

Funny you should ask. Usually the best way to handle trolls is to ignore them altogether. Occasionally (for the very brave) it's possible to troll them back. Despite the green rubbery exterior, most trolls are exceptionally thin skinned. Ideally one sets them to work trolling each other. Then their energies and anger dissipate harmlessly. This is very good for the rest of the Internet's denizens, and even amusing to watch. Remember: there's a little troll in all of us. Cheers, _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 14:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My preferred response to a question, if I think it might be a troll, is polite and informative. If another editor then posts "OMG WTF DFTT", I don't think it's me that's giving the troll the attention they crave. I realise this is pretty much what GTBacchus said above, but hey. Maybe we need a three wise monkeys approach: see no trolls, hear no trolls... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

See no trolls, hear no trolls, are no trolls. That kinda sounds quacky... Xclamation point 14:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you recommend as better? I certainly don't conclude from "see no trolls, hear no trolls" that there are no trolls. I think the insight there is that identifying them as trolls is actually pointless — harmful even.

Veiled allusions to a page as pernicious as WP:SPADE aren't really helpful, because I honestly have no idea what you're claiming, and what I'm trying to get out of this thread is clear communication. Can you put your advice into clear, concrete terms? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Or is that three wise ostriches? Better to (when necessary) deflect attention from the troll and correct the trolling. Comment on the edit, not the editor.LeadSongDog come howl 15:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

See, this is what I'm asking about. That was cryptic. Why can't we state our advice for dealing with trolls aloud and clearly? What do you mean by "deflect attention from the troll and correct the trolling?" How does one "correct" trolling, and what has that got to do with, "Comment on the edit, not the editor?" I know people for whom those are contradictory statements. That's the kind of ambiguous language that people will interpret in diametrically opposite ways, leading to unnecessary conflict.

What does "when necessary" mean? What if there's no edit, but rather a question on a talk page, "Why doesn't this article explain about [ethnicity] being dishonest and stupid?" Do you block that person, and call them a racist? Do you answer their question? ("Please see race and intelligence for information on that question. If you have a specific edit that you propose making in this article, what is it?")

I know what I do, but we don't seem to provide any guidance in the form of guidelines or policies. A consequence of this is that some areas are inevitably dominated by people who are "doing it wrong" - whatever that means - and I think that results in harm to the project. This is all just food for thought, I guess, because I'm not seeing any particular thing to do about it. I'm interested in what others think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly why I prefer "troublemaker", & try to avoid using the word "troll". If someone is editting/posting in a disruptive or bad faith manner, I guess in that respect she/he is a troll -- but they'd also be a troublemaker. You've established a reputation for having a level head, GT, & you have the experience: you're more than likely to know when a user is just a floundering newbie, & when a user are trying to be disruptive. Just act accordingly. -- llywrch (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Llywrch, I'm not asking for advice. Like you say, I know how to act. I'm asking why we seem reluctant to advise others, who might not be so sure of how to handle "troublemakers". I'm very likely to write an essay, that might grow into a guideline, but it won't be to advise myself.

This thread is here to sound out whether my ideas are compatible with those of other admins watching here. I know that my ideas are extremely incompatible with those of some editors, but none of them has seen fit to comment here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Would love to advise and assist, but it seems I am being ignored. _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 21:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I read your comment above, but it wasn't entirely clear to me how that's applicable. Can you point to an example of what you're talking about? Do you think it would be good advice, if we suggest to editors that a good response to trolling is to troll them back? You say the best strategy is to ignore them altogether. What if this isn't possible, because other editors engage them anyway, and won't be dissuaded? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sometimes one simply has to wait for others to come to the realization independently that a certain person is a troll. Of course it's also possible that one's own estimate is mistaken, and occasionally one has the pleasant surprise of developing a good working relationship with an individual who had initially seemed like a troll. For the purpose of an essay about dealing with trolls, four good points to hit would be as follows:

1. Ignore them when possible.
2. Give a quiet heads up to other people who aren't ignoring a troll.
3. If the heads up gets disregarded, then back off and wait for events to play themselves out.
4. If you have to interact with a troll, be polite.

Climbing the Reischtag to warn people about a troll is a bad idea: it makes you look silly and generates sympathy for the troll. Rather than labeling the person with the t-word, calmly describe the objectionable behaviors. Attempting to troll a troll is high risk behavior, and not really appropriate for essay advice. _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There's some sense to that. I especially agree that climbing the Reichstag and making noise about the trolling is a bad idea. However... I have a hard time with any advice that depends on making a determination as to whether someone is trolling. I feel that the best approach is identical whether you think they're trolling or not, and that trying to decide whether they are is therefore a distraction. Since I wouldn't ignore someone asking a sincere question, why should I ignore someone pretending to ask the same sincere question? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you apply the t-word, pretty much anytime one interacts with a difficult personality the best approach is to be polite and keep the person at arm's length. Don't engage emotionally. The difference will tell: if the individual actually is a troll, they'll either leave out of boredom or become enraged at their failure to provoke an emotional reaction. If the individual isn't actually a troll, normal responses will follow. The best thing about using good manners to separate trolls from non-trolls is that you'll never need to apologize to the latter for having suspected them. Of course you aren't obligated to interact with difficult people either. Walking away politely is just as good (and often better). _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 15:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, all of that I agree with. Courtesy and professionalism do protect against the harm due to false positives. I have yet to see what the harm is of a false negative. I guess I'm seeing all of this in the light of a specific recent episode that really made me think. The best advice, to my mind, is to never ask oneself the question, "is this a troll?" However, I can't realistically expect people to refrain from that. The idea is to have advice that works regardless of whether any determination has been made as to, "is it a troll?" -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thinking "is this a troll?" is rarely harmful. Thinking "this is a troll" quite often is. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

So, if answering the question in the affirmative is harmful, what's the good in asking the question? It indicates misplaced priorities, and a wrong approach to dispute resolution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Asking oneself a question introduces uncertainty, invites careful consideration of possibilities, and hopefully leads to a pragmatic approach to further communication. Conversely, answering that question definitively introduces certainty and invites a dogmatic approach that may not turn out to be correct. The ideal answer to a post that may or may not be a troll is one that will not, in retrospect, seem to have been inappropriate, whether or not it was a troll.SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. That's fair. There are circumstances where many or most editors are likely to suspect trolling. Having that suspicion is perfectly natural and proper. An appropriate way of dealing with that suspicion is to carefully speak in a way that will be appropriate either way. That's good advice. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua continual unexplained image removals

Okay, User:Fasach Nua, contribs, seems to spend a lot of their time deleting images from articles. Okay, I ask, maybe there's a reason. However Fasach Nua never leaves an edit summary despite being asked to on many occassions. They have been warned on many occassions, even before he blanked his talk page, about such editing patterns yet they persist in it. It may be that they have a reason for deleting images and editing the way they do, but never enter into dialogue about it even when prompted by other editors. When other editors revert his deletions, he simply responds to them with edits such as this one, where they tell the reverting editor that they have added images and given no indication as to why. And then after such responses continues with talk as [such]. They refuse to enter into dialogue and continue to ignore warnings and polite requests. Can someone else take a look and let me know what they think. I've given them several warnings up to a blocking point for future edits, but want to run it past others first. Canterbury Tail talk 11:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Without looking at these particular images, if they're fair use images without a valid fair use rationale, FN is entirely correct in removing them. – iridescent 11:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Canterbury Tail, my advice in these situations is to prompt the other editor to open a discussion at files for deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the images they remove seem to be fair use, but that's not an area I'm an expert in. The main area I'm having issue with is the complete lack of communication on the issue with other editors that seems to be leading to edit wars as a result. I'll leave another talk on their page about taking the images to Files for deletion rather than just removing them straight from articles with no comment. Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that just prompting this editor to discuss is going to be fruitful. In this "discussion" all User:Fasach Nua seems interested in doing is quoting policy in response to anything said. Discussion with this editor seems to be very one sided and sometime the side is very small.[7] --AussieLegend (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is my concern. They may be operating within the policies of NFCC, but their edits are leading to disruptive editing due to lack of communication and explanation. Becomes a difficult one, the editor is technically correct, but is going about it in the wrong manner. Canterbury Tail talk 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, while a handful of the images that FN is removing from articles do not completely meet the non-free image policy (they lack rationales), FN is stripping fully-rationaled images as well, strictly on the weight of WP:NFCC#8. (See for example Sliders and The Simpsons) FN also is very critical of any such images for television related Featured Articles and pretty much just simply restates "NFCC #8" as a reason to fail. This is not helpful advice nor helps work towards a compromise or a chance of improvement for these articles, particularly due to the nuances of the "significance" criteria. --MASEM (t) 12:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So what would be the best way to deal with this? I'm trying to open a conversation with the user, but they are not forthcoming. I feel their edits are very disruptive. Canterbury Tail talk 12:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Canterbury: Is there any history of conflict between you and this editor? That might explain his unwillingness to respond to your queries.

On a general note, I'd observe that a failure to communicate with one's fellow editors is quite a serious issue, and our community has made it quite clear that, particularly in the case of administrator actions, sysops should take care to explain their actions in full. (Compare, desysopping of CSCWEM; Betacommand arbitration case, #Communication principle; and Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct.)

AGK 13:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I've had no contact with this user prior to these incidents. I don't honestly believe that blocks are required, just some dialogue. Canterbury Tail talk 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I haven't had the pleasure of interacting with Fasach Nua personally, I have witnessed his/her behavior (specifically at WP:FA), and it generally has nothing to do with prior interactions. Fasach Nua is simply the newest editor to 'fight the cause!' and attempt to eliminate all fair use images. As these editors tend to be non-responsive (see Durin, Betacommand), they generally cause more trouble than they eliminate. The only thing new in this situation is the editor playing the role. --auburnpilot talk 14:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well to be fair to betacommand he did not attempt to remove all fair use, but yeah. Unless the editor is willing to improve his communications and at least use edit summaries when doing those edits we might need to look into a short block to get the point across to him/her that we are a community of editors. —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thread title tweaked for accuracy. –xeno ^talk 15:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I've opened separate discussions at WP:FFD for the 5 images being edit warred over. I honestly don't believe a block is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have encountered Fasach's edit-warring before, and I find his lack of communication (very similar to that of Betacommand) frustrating, and it is always possible that this is deliberate. The statement here from Arb needs to be pointed out to Fasach, and if he declines to go along with it, then he needs to be blocked for a short time. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The real issue here - as mentioned earlier - lies not in the images themselves, but in Fasach's conduct. It is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to get FN to discuss the actions. Images are deleted with cryptic comments, or (more recently) no explanation whatsoever. Attempts to get explanations are ignored, or returned with attempts to put the blame on the other party. Simply put, this is an experienced editor who is acting in a manner that we would never tolerate in general editing; why we should allow this disruptive behaviour just because it involves images is beyond me. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, this user has been the subject of 2 RFC's. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fasach_Nua and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fasach_Nua_2. I haven't read through them all, but looks like one was on image deletion and on a different allegation of edit warring.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Done

I've went ahead and gave a nice message to them on their talk page. See User_talk:Fasach_Nua#Responses. I explained to them how the behavior they are doing is just as disruptive as failing to explain a revert in an editwar. Hopefully that gets the message across. If this continues feel free to bring it up on WP:ANI, but give the guy a chance. The next step is to warn that continued disruption will lead to a block and if that does not work, follow it up with a short (24 hour) block. Of course blocking and warning of a potential block should not be needed, but it is my advice to other admins should they run into similar situations with similar editors. —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving (yet another) note for FN. Thing is, FN has already had many chances to adjust the behaviour. (I left a similar note a week ago, which was ignored. Other admins have left numerous warnings as well.) The RfCs reveal a pattern of disruptive and non-communicative behaviour that mirrors what we are seeing here. Good faith only goes so far before it becomes apparent that there is no interest in working to address the community's concerns. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, if this does not cut it, block warnings and short blocks are in order. But do give him a chance :). —— nixeagle^{email me} 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I, personally, have found User:Fasach Nua to be extremely polite and helpful in matters relating to photographic copyright etc. She has helped me towards gaining two FA bronze stars with her expertise in this area and, on reading this thread, I feel that she is being treated pretty harshly.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 17:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any chance you could try to convince FN to change the behaviour that is causing the problem? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

FN has not been helpful or responsive on images in my experience. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nancy Drew/archive1 for FN's comment on image use in the now-FA Nancy Drew; FN's statements were untrue regarding my non-existent "admissions" and inaccurate regarding both the article and the FURs. A request for further clarification on User talk:Fasach Nua was deleted without response. Ricardiana (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I might add that a quick look at FN's talk page history shows a pattern of deleting requests for clarification without other response. Ricardiana (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Still no response

Fasach_Nua has been on and talked briefly with other users since the posts to their page, but no reponses made. In fact they even added a good faith template to the current Street newspaper FA stating there were too many copyrighted images in the article, at which point there where two, one of which had proper permissions, and the other was reasonably being used to illustrate the professional nature of The Big Issue, details which would have been gone over by the FAC anyway. I know they're acting in good faith, and one edit to the FA isn't a deal at all, but they're still not responding which is what concerns me. Canterbury Tail talk 11:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As above, FN simply ignores or deletes requests for discussion or clarification. This is a widespread pattern of behavior. Ricardiana (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

He has responses to nearly every talk page message left to him since my message to him. He did not respond to my message, but the message I left does not need a response aside from improving behavior. The other message he did not respond to was User_talk:Fasach_Nua#FAR, but looking at it I'm not really sure if I would have responded either. (I don't know what response would need to be given), and regardless it does not seem to be an inquiry about image tagging.

From what I see he is making a good faith attempt to improve. I think you guys should relax a bit on him and if you have trouble post a message to his talk page first before noting it here on AN. If he regresses in the future, I'll be glad to re-examine things and consider leaving harsher messages, but now is not that time. —— nixeagle^{email me} 04:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

myself user:76.66.202.139

Can someone resolve my current level? see user talk:76.66.202.139.

I tried to archive a talk page, and got a vandal-2 for my efforts. Then I got a vandal-3 for beautifying.

Am I really sitting at level-3?

76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no "current level". Admins don't issue blocks based on prior warnings without looking at when any why any prior warnings were issued. In the case of regular established editors, regular templated warnings would not be looked at in isolation anyway unless they were accompanied by a sudden dramatic change of editing behavior. If someone issued you a templated warning that they have admitted was unecessary given your good faith intentions (as seems to have happened) then just accept the apology they offered, delete the warning and forget about it, there is no permanent warning level status that you are now on. Mfield (Oi!) 06:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's a "current level" as far as Huggle is concerned. Now that he has 3 warnings, every edit he makes makes his edits jump to the top of every Huggler's recent changes feed. Lots of false positives happen that way. Now any edit he makes (until he removes the warnings) runs the risk of being reverted (by Hugglers who may not know its not vandalism, but see the little colored square next to the edit). Anon: You could remove those warning (which you are allowed to do per WP:UP#CMT) if you'd like. What's disturbing is that he tried to communicate, on his talk page, to a Huggler and another user that his actions were in good faith, and neither of the users removed the warning they were discussing. Killiondude (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a major flaw in the use of Huggle that I wasn't aware of, having never used it. I'll have to read up on it, but it effectively means that Huggle users are incapable of assuming good faith, how long does it take before it ignores old warnings on an IP and resets its current level. Mfield (Oi!) 18:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Its only a major flaw when people give improper warnings and don't properly review edits. If people act correctly, its an effective way to triage a large amount of edits so that the ones most likely to be vandalism are checked first. Its not a problem with the software, but a problem with the users. Mr.Z-man 18:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't revert him because of his "level" but because I saw an IP formatting others users edits and then adding text in an AfD discussion, at first glance I thought it was routine vandalism. He contacted me and I apologize for the mistake. It seems that the IP is making good faith edits, some of them are maintenance edits, like archiving talk pages (its appears as blanking to ClueBot) so my suggestion is to Anon is to open an account. For my part, I will remove my warning, again I apologize for any inconvenience. --J^mundo 19:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I feel less inclined to register than ever. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The flaw appears to be that Huggle will autoescalate to level-3. If it were only escalate to level-2, and require that the Huggle user manually escalate to level-3, some of the trouble would disappear. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, its only a "flaw" if people revert edits that they shouldn't. 99% of the time (or 100% of the time if they're being careful) it would be the correct action, so people would just click the confirmation robotically anyway. But in any case, this is confusing misuse of the software with a bug. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice that when pointed out that the reversion is in error, that it would be undone by the reverter... (I couldn't redo the edit, in the case of archival, since I think I'd have transgressed 3RR) 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Second Attempted Outing

I have reported User:Yonteng 4 times since last week for multiple 3RRs, attempted outing, and incivility.

This user is currently requesting an unblock (which was just approved), and in the process just attempted a second outing of me on their talk page. Emptymountains (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

First, diffs please. I'm not in the mood to hunt through his edits to figure out what you're talking about. Second, he wasn't unblocked. He had a 48-hour block from which the IP-block got stuck and he was released. Third, I suggest speaking to User:William M. Connolley as nothing in his block log nor talk page indicate outing concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The diffs were oversighted. I'm trying to contact an oversighter to review this request as of now. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, damn, the oversighter should have blocked him then. I hate it when this happens. It's a mess to work with. A weird catch-22 situation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I talked to FT2 and he can't seem to find any oversighted edits. It may have just been a glitch with wikipedia or my computer. I'm sending a message to the functionaries to address Emptymountains concerns of privacy (listed below). Icestorm815 • Talk 21:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Empty Mountains outs himself on his talk page, giving his 'real name there. i did not out him See New Kadampa Discussion page PLEASEYonteng (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My physical location has never been listed on my talk page.

1st attempted outing: [8]

2nd attempted outing: [9]

3rd attempted outing: [10]

User unblocked: [11]

Thank you for your time. Emptymountains (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only the name of your organisation and the town are given to prove you are non-NPOV and there is CoI-you are 'gaming the system' with this report. In the end, truth is the most important thing here-When people see this you are afraid they will see your CoI so you report me-dodgy!Yonteng (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng also posted a link that lists a phone number. Emptymountains (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough of this. Yonteng, I've warned you on your user page. One more game of conspiracy theory and you're done here. I really don't care for this anymore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've cleaned up the whole mess. Please don't just leave the outing info there to lapse, or to repost it in other pages when you report - edit it out on sight and inform us via email for further assistance. It is not fun to trawl through thousands of edits to remove all these edits. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

User page edit requests

Resolved

 – Let sleeping cats lie.

Durova^Charge! 18:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat was apparently renamed User:White Cat, as can be seen on the User Talk page history[12], but the page is blank instead of redirecting. Can this be fixed so that all the user’s old signatures are not redlinks?( Note that User:WhiteCat without a space is someone else.) --WikidSmaht (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

God, this feels so familiar. See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Cool_Cat (there's a DRV out there too) and let it go. Seriously, just let it go. Someone please close? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second. Why are you editing as User:2Wikid and redirecting both your user and talk page to User:WikidSmaht? They don't seem like related accounts and I'm sure redirecting talk pages is completely frowned up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked User:WikidSmaht to shed some light on this, whether it is an alternative account or an impersonator. Fram (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a renamed account: User_talk:2Wikid#Username_change. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that's an older change (he was WikidCool before). 2Wikid is his alt account, just like other people would say [username] 2. I asked him about it a couple of years ago. Link here [13] hbdragon88 (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with propagandist users in the areas of pedophilia and child sexual abuse

I really just need some advice on this. I’ve been a Wikipedia editor for almost 3 years now. About a year ago I became involved with several articles that touch on an extremely unpleasant subject, the sexual abuse of children. I was even more horrified to find that there are users who periodically attempted to undermine these articles in an effort to push an agenda; that is, that there is nothing wrong with molesting children.

This is not about censorship. The information these users try to insert is frequently unsourced or uses extremely fringe sources that have been rejected by the mainstream medical community. The vast, world-wide scientific consensus is quite clear to all but the most depraved mind.

It is also not about prejudice. I know of at least 2 users who are admitted pedophiles (not molesters, mind you), but they claim they have never offended, are seeking mental health treatment, and they not only refrain from disrupting articles with POV pushing, but are valuable contributors to other, unrelated articles.

The presence of these POV-pushing users has often tarnished Wikipedia’s reputation. Several high-profile news stories have covered this, and there has been backlash in other communities as well. It pains me to see such a grand project dragged down by such a tiny minority of its user base.

Things have changed over the past year. Almost every one of these propagandists has been blocked permanently. I even have a list of them that I know of, should you require evidence. One user even turned out to be wanted felon who was traced and arrested.

But the problem persists. Getting these users blocked was no easy task, taking weeks or even months of tolerating their disruption and ranting, despite their intentions being blatantly obvious from the start.

Surely their must be a more efficient way to deal with these users. I and many others have grown very weary from having to argue with such irrational people. Is there a better way? Are we going about it wrong?Legitimus (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have problems with a stream of people disrupting the talkpage with identical misunderstandings, it might help to create a FAQ section in the talkpage, like on Talk:Barack Obama. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As unpleasant as the subject matter is it shouldn't be used as a reason not to present both sides of the issue. If the fringe sources are the only sources available then they should be permitted as long as they are reliable sources. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note: WP:PAW. Tiptoety ^talk 20:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE comes to mind, Betty. The vast majority of the world considers pedophilia to not only be illegal, but disgusting. Jtrainor (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Disgusting", however, is not an encyclopedic consideration; articles that attract paedophile advocacy are kept clear of such promotion because of the neutral tone of an encyclopedia does not permit such viewpoints - and nor should it the opposite one. The fact that the sexual abuse of minors is illegal and its proponents abhorred by most citizens of most nations might be mentioned in the relevant articles, but it should not effect how we police the editing of same. Oh, and one last thing; the old saw that paedophilia is not in fact illegal, it is a medical/psychological term for a sexual impulse - but acting upon the impulse invariably does break the law. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Disgusting is not an encyclopedic consideration. Periplaneta americana, anyone?

While the actual opinion may not be relevant to how we treat a subject, the fraction of people who agree with that opinion is, per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Mr.Z-man 04:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a zero-tolerance policy on this, from Jimbo and Arbcom. Any editor identified as promoting pedophillia on Wikipedia is subject to immediate permanent blocks, no if and or but about it. Admins acting on these issues are required to notify Arbcom on acting, in private, but that's it. Not all that many admins have had to deal with it, which may be the problem here, but if you can point out what article(s) and editor(s) are involved I will review and take appropriate prompt action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe you, as I remember it back when the issue was going on a few years back, but could you provide the links to refresh other admins and I? Thanks. —— nixeagle^{email me} 04:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The policy is not written down in one place as clearly as it could be, however anyone unclear on what the policy is as enforced in the past and standing now should peruse the following:

[14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and last but not least the Arbcom decision note in the Pedophilia userbox edit war: [19].

If anyone advocates pedophilia on Wikipedia, and administrators become aware of it, they should be permanently blocked and the case and evidence referred straight to Arbcom.

Arbcom (and Jimbo) are the appeal path in that case - not normal unblock requests, ANI discussions, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Country infobox maps

I'd like to point out a recent trend by some editors to include countries' territorial claims on infobox maps on country articles, which spark edit wars and destroys NPOV consensus on these articles. Such cases are the Argentina and People's Republic of China articles. Sihjop (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of Panairjdde

It seems that two years ago Panairjdde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · ssp · SPI · cuwiki) was banned as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive9#Community ban of User:Panairjdde. This seems to have involved several sockpuppet cases, listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Panairjdde, but none of them appear to name ExistEarly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was blocked about the same time as a sockpuppet. Earlier I can across Existearly1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) making this edit. It wasn't until later that I saw this and then following on came across ExistEarly. Posting this here for review. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any connection between the edits of ExistEarly1 and that of Parnairjdde (but then I didn't see any between ExistEarly and Parnairjdde, and assumed that a CU made the connection via ip addresses during an investigation). Since the original ExistEarly was blocked as a sock I would not thought a puppetmaster would invite such quick suspicion by reusing the name, while it would be quite possible that a third party wanted to use the name and altered it when they found it had already been allocated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I no longer think they are a sockpuppet and have unblocked them. The IP's used are, as Steel (talk · contribs), the blocking admin of ExistEarly, pointed out on different continents. Parnairjdde did use sockpuppets that were obvious but in this case I think that you are correct it's just a coincidence rather than a return. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Food play and Wet_and_messy_fetishism

These articles were suggested to be merged in April of 2008. Since then there has been only one contribution to the discussion[20] about the merge, my own. I would like to know if it is OK for me to remove the merger label on foodplay and wet and messy fetishism as nobody seems to be pursuing the merge anymore. Bigpindahouse (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. A year with no action and one comment is a community apathy "no" by default ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:FPOC

Probably not quite the place, but as this is a well-frequented board filled with Wikipedia regulars, I'll try anyway:

Featured portal candidates could really use some more reviewers. If anyone would be interested, I'm sure all of us would appreciate your reviews and comments.

Thanks,

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: Linked to the wrong page like an idiot. Fixed now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR advice

I have a brewing situation, and I want to get advice before I get in trouble. I downgrade a fair number of speedy deletions, often to AfD, and once it gets to AfD, I take the position that it's not my call anymore, we have to wait for consensus, even if I learn things at AfD that lead me to believe that, for instance, db-hoax would be appropriate. Occasionally there are editors who will slap the speedy tag back on as soon as they personally believe that the issue is settled, and sometimes they get angry with me for removing it. I'd prefer to deal with this issue in a non "disciplinary" way; maybe if some of you could just state how you think this should be handled, I can learn something, and I can refer the editors to this conversation? We've talked about this at WT:CSD, but the message isn't getting through. - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm guilty there. I think that your method of doing things is kind of screwy: sure, I agree with the speedy, but let's remove it for now in case someone else disagrees. It just seems like process wonkery for the sake of process wonkery. It seems every speedy tag I place these days gets removed, usually by someone who would rather let the article slog through afd for a week or longer because of some process quirk that they think is "better" than a speedy. A hoax is a hoax, why let it rot at AFD for a week? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There's one that just went to AfD where you tagged shortly after, and I've asked at WT:CSD#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple X Unlocked; that's not a big deal. But when you were tagging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adnan Zaidi, the delete votes were split among notability, hoax and promotionalism ... which is a sign that people really haven't made up their minds yet what's going on. Now we've got a little more info, and we're getting close to being able to speedy. If I can speedy as a result of consensus at AfD to speedy, instead of just doing my own thing, then I'd feel a lot more comfortable with G4'ing in the future (and apparently, there are already 4 other pages on this guy, so I could really use that G4). - Dank (push to talk) 04:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • For the reasons explained in many places, time and again, not least at Wikipedia:Hoax, Wikipedia talk:Proposed Deletion for a Hoax#Problems with this proposal, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#DYK hoax article?. You cannot, either by yourself or in conjunction with only one other editor, reliably and safely tell that any given article is a hoax, except in the most blatantly obvious cases of juvenile vandalism; and many an article over the past several years challenged for being a hoax has turned out not to be.

    For example: Al (folklore) (AfD discussion) was challenged for being a hoax, and had every appearance of being a random collection of made-up stuff accrued in a dusty corner of Wikipedia over a period of three years by multiple editors, but turned out, upon inspection, to be fully verifiable on every point as it stood. Ensuring that we avoid the wrong outcome in such situations, by employing multiple slices of Swiss cheese, is most definitely not "process wonkery", but a sound process for ensuring that we achieve what is in fact the correct outcome.

    It's a widely-recognized sound process, too. Wikipedia editors didn't invent the Swiss Cheese model (AfD discussion) — although, ironically, some of us thought that that itself was an outright fabrication.

    TenPoundHammer, like all other editors here, you do not know every subject in the world, and your evaluation of verifiability is not enough by itself. Multiple editors, with different areas of expertise, with access to different sources, in multiple timezones, independently double checking one another over a period long enough to allow for proper research, is required for a conclusion to be made safely, so that we can be confident that its outcome is the right one. Stop rushing. There is no rush. We prefer the right outcome over an immediate outcome. Uncle G (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    • Yeah. Good points all. I just get frustrated so often when things seem to take forever and a day to get done. Some Wikipedia processes seem to move at glacial pace, and some editors seem cautious to the point of paranoia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• I think this has been discussed in various places, at least for hoaxes. The deletion policy says that once a page goes to XfD, it isn't supposed to be speedied. However it is relatively common practice to speedy pages while at XfD if someone determines that a discussion is superfluous (like SNOW closes, this is a risky decision to make) or someone realizes the article fits a speedy criteria. I agree that pursuing this borders on process for process's sake but I am also of the mind that deletions (especially speedies) should follow process quite closely. At least for hoaxes, one solution is to replace {{Hoax}} with something that looks a hell of a lot like {{Copyvio}}--most of the urgency around hoaxes stems from a desire to get them out of mainspace because they actively damage our credibility. I sympathize w/ that desire. I think if the hoax template looked less like every other template and instead offered a clear warning to the reader we could get around this (I like this solution because it is a neat technical fix for what is essentially a social problem, always cool to find those). I'm not the person to mock a template up, though. Anyone got any ideas on what it should look like? Protonk (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • My idea would be to have a template like the existing "hoax" template for things that are disputed by some editors (which says "dubious" instead of "hoax", with a question mark), and a template that says "HOAX WARNING" or something similar (with an exclamation mark), if there is a consensus that the article should be treated as a hoax until a possible verification, or if such a consensus is very likely to emerge in the deletion discussion.  Cs32en  21:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandal socks on adminstats page

The administrative statistics page at User:JamesR/AdminStats, "now running on a script by MZMcBride and bjweeks" (header) and updated regularly by AdminStatsBot (history), includes lines for several non-admin users in the "Totals" section which currently lists 1880 users (most recent diff). Among them, since 08:19, 27 March 2009 UTC (diff), are at least four vandal sockpuppets: ؞, ﾗ, Zemaiteska, and Woooooooooop.

I don't know what else may be wrong with the stats page (are there other such pages?) but this needs attention from some admins who are knowledgeable about bots. — Athaenara ✉ 02:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If I move a page that is semi-protected, it produces a log entry like:

02:53, 16 May 2009 Bart133 (talk | contribs) moved protection settings from "My Kazakhstan (anthem)" to "Meniñ Qazaqstanım (anthem)" ‎ (My Kazakhstan (anthem) moved to Meniñ Qazaqstanım (anthem): Anthem of Armenia, as an example, is at Mer Hayrenik, not Our Fatherland - replace English translation with transliteration)

in the protection log (example). This is to leave a trail to the original protection reason (protections used to be either left behind or ended when moving). The bots then scrape the protection log and count the entries by user without regard to which action occurred. MER-C 02:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't know if I can help you, but also: User:C-3PO. It looks like everyone with a logged admin action is on the list... but how are people getting logged admin actions without being admins? (perhaps page moves over redirects delete the redirect, and that is then logged? I don't know how that works). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is people moving pages that are set to [edit=autoconfirmed]. This produces a log entry that looks like this. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we really want page move vandals on adminstats pages? If not, how to keep them off? — Athaenara ✉ 03:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh... its not hard, but its something that the folks that wrote the script have to do, assuming they are inclined to do so :). All they would have to do is do a quick check in the database and confirm that the user is/was an admin. You can check the promotion logs for this information if you wanted to also include past admins in the list, or check user groups if you wanted only current admins. —— nixeagle^{email me} 04:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The user in the top spot with over 800,000 deletions gave up admin rights several weeks ago (short version, long version). Are there any other functioning adminstats pages from which to choose? — Athaenara ✉ 05:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe try WP:LOGS. Tiptoety ^talk 05:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's very nearly identical and has the same faults. — Athaenara ✉ 05:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Filename

The file name I was trying to upload ("File:Qc211.png") has been blacklisted because it is a very common or uninformative one. All other Quebec Route articles call in their respective signs with the filename format Qcxxx.png. Would it be possible to remove File:Qc211.png from the blacklist in order to complete the sign group? Or are the articles themselves being looked at to accomodate a new filename at a later date? Thank you. Gordalmighty (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any restrictions on that file name, can you be more specific? Nja²⁴⁷ 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Attempted uploading this file again this morning. Wikipedia gives the following message:
  • Unable to proceed

The file name you were trying to upload ("File:Qc211.png") has been blacklisted because it is a very common or uninformative one. Please go back and choose a better file name. When uploading files to Wikipedia, please use a file name that describes the content of the image or media file you're uploading and is sufficiently distinctive that no-one else is likely to pick the same name by accident. Examples of good file names: City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008.jpg" KDE Kicker config screenshot.png" 1863 Meeting of Settlers and Maoris at Hawke's Bay, New Zealand.jpg" Polyhedron with no vertex visible from center.png" Examples of bad file names: Image01.png" Joe.jpg" DSC00001.JPG" 30996951316264l.jpg" For more information, please see Wikipedia:Image file names. If you have a good reason for uploading a file with this name, or if you receive this message when attempting to upload a new version of an existing file, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact name of the file you are trying to upload. Thank you.

• • Wiki Commons gives a different message:

Permissions Errors You do not have permission to do that, for the following reason: The name of the file you are uploading begins with PICT, DSC, image, ..., which is a non-descriptive name typically assigned automatically by digital cameras. Please choose a more descriptive name for your file.

That's about as descriptive as I can get with this frustrating file. Thanks. Gordalmighty (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, there are a couple of alternatives. You can list the source here and an admin can upload it or you can break with whatever tradition has been for these articles and name it "quebec route 211" or something. Protonk (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd recommend the latter. The name is, as the blacklist message notes, short and uninformative. --Carnildo (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a task considering all other 300+ routes are already in with this format. The highway articles themselves do not have an image line, so it is also unclear as to how the images are attaching themselves. Any other suggestions? Thanks all. Gordalmighty (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there some technical necessity for that particular naming format, such as an automated template? Otherwise, there's no reason other than unnecessary consistency to not simply use an alternate name. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It must be automated. All other Quebec routes with name Qcxxx.png also have a (jct|state=QC|QC|xxx) format that allows use of the sign with link text attached.

Route 211
Route information
Maintained by Transports Québec
Length	26.2 km (16.3 mi)
Major junctions
South end	R-137 in Sainte-Cécile-de-Milton
North end	A-20 in Saint-Simon
Location
Country	Canada
Province	Quebec
Highway system
Quebec provincial highways Autoroutes List Former
← R-210 → R-212

Infobox road
province=QC
type=QC
route=211
map=
length_km=26.2
previous_type=QC
previous_route=210
next_type=QC
next_route=212

With this coding, the sign would normally appear at the top of the infobox, as it does for all other routes. I reloaded one with a different name, but no luck at all in linking. I think 211 got deleted down the road somewhere, but no idea why. Gordalmighty (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yardleyman

I came across this edit by Yardleyman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user's account is less than a month old, but this apparently did not stop him from posting an AFD with his fourth edit (his first edit was a vandalistic redirect which has been deleted). I'm finding his knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia extremely suspect and privately requested a checkuser from Dmcdevit who I have asked to post some of his findings that he finds relevant to the "case" at hand. In my current situation, I do not believe I can block him at all, even though I cannot find any beneficial edits the user has made to Wikipedia. I am requesting more indepth input on this user's actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My check confirms that Yardleyman, Silk Knot, and Rick22225 are the same person. It seems some amount of AfD vote-stacking has gone on. Dominic·t 08:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked all 3 accounts. They all seem to be used for almost nothing but trolling and deletion-related disruption. There was an earlier SPI case that mentions at least 1 other account, is that related? Mr.Z-man 15:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

VS Sampath's page link

Please link the Sampath to | Election Commision of India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Appalayya (talk • contribs) 12:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, you can ask questions about how to use Wikipedia at either the help desk or the new contributor's help desk. TNXMan 15:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with sockpuppet edits on a closed RfC

A few days ago User:Tundrabuggy was exposed as a sockpuppet of a banned editor and was banned in turn. There is a discussion currently taking place at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Elonka#Deletion of sockpuppet edits about whether the contributions of a banned sockpuppet should be allowed to stand on a closed RfC to which the sockpuppet contributed extensively. Input from uninvolved administrators would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

 Note:
The discussion has now been closed and archived.
AGK 11:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

DiDA

Could an admin please review the article? Some of the "criticism" sections (1, 2, 3, 4) look suspicious... --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 18:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Full of weasel words, POV-pushing, that's been challenged for months (February 2009 and September 2008). Wholesale removal. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Complex situation

There's a complex situation on the CoI noticeboard and it could benefit from some experienced eyeballs, see: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Longevity myths, Longevity claims, etc.. The editor who came to the board is frustrated and needs advice. Drawn Some (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

BAG nomination for Nakon

Per the required "spamming" of venues, I would like to bring attention to my nomination for the Bot Approval Group, which may be found at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Nakon. Thanks, Nakon 01:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Katrina Carlson and User:Ukexpat

At Katrina Carlson's article, which was clearly written by someone with WP:COI, there were two unsourced sections--one of them had her IMDB page as a source, but I was under the impression that those weren't considered reliable by themselves. I removed them because they were unreferenced, as I thought the policy was for BLP articles, and User:Ukexpat left me a warning message for "removal of information without explanation" even though I wrote "unreferenced" in my edit summary. When I told him this, he said that shouuld only count for "controversial" information, and then left me another warning, accusing me of outright vandalism and disruption. Is he right?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP is a pretty powerful, non-negotiable policy, but it should be applied with some common sense. Jimbo's take on sourcing generally is

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[21]

Now IMDB is of variable reliability; the "top pages" for a film or actor or director may be regarded as reliable in the absence of glaring inaccuracies; the bios, trivia and other "subpages" less so. The difference between "unsourced" and "controversial" should be obvious; unsourced controversial information (i.e. that which might be defamatory) should be removed without question; unsourced non-controversial information should be investigated; sourced controversial information should also be investigated for reliable sources per WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. But I not you haven't yet notified User:Ukexpat of this thread, nor engaged beyond templating his talk page. Perhaps you might discuss this in the light of the above comments. Rodhullandemu 02:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I was a little heavy handed, but my view is as stated by Rodhullandemu above - the information that was deleted (and reinstated by me) was clearly non-controversial (place of birth etc) and sourced to IMDB. Now, I recognise that IMDB is of limited reliability as a source but it seemed OK to me for these purposes. I think most editors who come into contact with me around here know that I am pretty non-confrontational and bend over backwards to assist other editors, but I am pretty ticked off that this was brought to WP:AN (the first time my actions have been brought up here, I hasten to add) without more in depth prior dicussion with me.  – ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrator review

Not sure if this has been advertised before, but we need help getting it off the ground. Thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

New sock of Fila3466757?

Resolved

 – Blocked. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to put in a full-fledged SPI unless someone else agrees with me on this, but does User:Dexter000 appear to be a sock of User:Fila3466757? The main thing I noticed was that the user's first edits were to use the sandbox to create a colorful signature. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fila3466757/Archive. Matt (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

They seem to be one and the same. Stub creation, WP:AFD participation, vandalism reversion; and also, his socks technically don't vandalize, so this is possibly telling. <*files an SPI*> --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that Dexter000 has confessed to being a sock of Fila, so all we need now is for the next passing administrator to have the block button set to go. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 15:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Time now for 2 groups of editors each with their own Admins.

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

Resolved

 – Per my comment at the bottom, this is not an appropriate use of this page, as it does not require any sort of administrator action. The page header confirms this. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – This does not seem to be a serious suggestion. If it is then no one seems to think administrator attention is needed. Perhaps another venue? Chillum 15:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Which one of you is claiming the prize for closing this first? Giano (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the time has now come for us to have two distinct classes and groups of editors - those that support and abide by IRC placed Admins, and those who refuse to acknowledge them, but continue to write the project. This IRC problem has gone on for too long. We are repeatedly told it is sorted and monitored, yet, once again, the Arbcom have failed to act, it's time to sort it ourselves before we are overrun with "Boriss" and her likes. I for one am not going to abide by the actions or decisions of any Admin promoted by IRC in future. Giano (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your time would be better spent responding to the specific question at the RFA about what exactly made you oppose the candidate and say they are "naive, uniformed and [have] an appalling record regarding content." Diffs would probably help. Besides, from your comments in Friday's oppose, I think it's clear that it's not just IRC that you have an issue with, but other conduct by this user, so it seems like a red herring to complain about just that. If you have an actual proposal, policy would be the place to go. Otherwise, I don't see what you hope to see here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are good and bad admins/editors in both camps. It is far too arbitrary a position to make such judgements. Under the circumstances, I would oppose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had no experiences of FlyingToaster on IRC. I'm still personally happy to support the RfA - I would suggest that you concentrate on your entirely legitimate grievances with the behaviour of individual administrators rather than trying to blame IRC. As LessHeard vanU suggests, I also think that there are good and bad admins in both groups and drawing that line doesn't really get us anywhere. ~ mazca ^t|c 10:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Er - for those of us who have no idea what you're talking about, Giano, perhaps you (or someone else) could explain what you mean by "any Admin promoted by IRC" - thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he's referring to a perceived tendency for the users of the Wikipedia IRC channels to support each others RfAs and hassle opposers. Not sure I agree this is happening to any great extent, but I think that's the problem under review. ~ mazca ^t|c 10:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so it's just another, "IRC RULEZ DA WORLD" conspiracy theory. I thought that Giano might actually have meant "any Admin promoted by IRC" - which might have been mildly novel and interesting - but obviously not. Thanks, Mazca. For others... does this actually require any admin action, or is it just a essay/comment/strop which should be marked Resolved? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• I see no issue here. The candidate of the RfA linked to by Giano clearly uses IRC to socialise with other editors. If this was a case of an IRC cabal pushing through a nomination, I doubt "IRC" would be mentioned so explicitly in the first paragraph of the nomination statement. This thread ought to be archived. AGK 11:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is off site canvasing or meat puppeting going on in a public IRC channel then log the channel and draw attention to it. Without the specifics it is very hard to come to an informed opinion. While it is often tempting to simply form an opinion, I prefer that my opinions are informed. Chillum 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It is ultimately impossible to tell if off-site canvassing has taken place. If it's that much of a concern, then the problem isn't the canvassing, it's the means by which we choose our administrators. --Golbez (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

<< Giano has decided that the issue is not resolved, and has removed the {{resolved}} tag. Shall we gague consensus on whether any admin action is required (or even being requested!) here? Because if it's not, the thread should be closed. I support marking as resolved and/or archiving. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, editors should be forced to choose between being on Wikipedia 'or' IRC (not both). If that's not possible? then IRC should be abolished. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So your suggestion, for Wikipedia administrators, on their noticeboard, is that Internet Relay Chat is shut down? Not 100% constructive, I'd have said. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your two suggestions are identical (assuming by "abolishing" IRC you mean shutting down the Wikipedia IRC channels). If the people on the Wikipedia IRC channels aren't allowed on Wikipedia then they aren't Wikipedia IRC channels, are they? --Tango (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly not a serious suggestion, since there is no way to divide people into "IRC admins" and "non-IRC admins", there just isn't such a dicotomy. This is just Giano trying to create drama, as usual. --Tango (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, this IRC seems to be more hurtful, then helpful to Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• No Tango you are completely wrong. We have been told that the Arbs have set up a process to monitor IRC too many times. Yet now we have again a completely IRC candidate. So we now by-pass the Arbs's a nd their failures to ensure this does not happen. There will in future be editors who wish to be ruled by a IRC Admins and editors who wish to be ruled by Wikipedia Admins (ie: Wikipedia Admins being those who have proved their value by editing Wikipedia in a worthwile way), one simply declares one's stance and that is that. If such as Flying Toaster are promoted I shall not acknowledge their status, that is all that need to be done - I'm sure a user box or something can be created - even attached to a sig to avoid confusion. One merely selcts one's police force. This has been coming for ages, the Arbs claim to have looked at the problems and failed, now it's just time to ignore them and go it alone. Many of us are sick to death of IRC and its machinations. This way IRC is happy and those writing the project are happy. Giano (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this suggestion is so incredibly unlikely and so completely devoid of basis in reality or even evidence that we can safely ignore it. I think this matter was {{resolved}} before it started. There is no IRC cabal attempting some sort of civil war. Chillum 15:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

<< Perhaps IRC is harmful. But this is not the place for that debate. This is a noticeboard where one requests administrator action or technical input. I quote from the page header, "For advice on issues that do not require the use of administrative tools, such as content concerns or naming conventions, see the Village Pump." Since the content of this thread seems to be firstly, a rant about an ongoing RfA, with no practical side to it; and secondly, a request that the Wikimedia IRC channels are closed. Neither of these issues requires administrative technical intervention, and so I am going to be bold and close this discussion. There are more appropriate venues for everything contained in this thread, though most of it's just drama-mongering anyway. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Qqtacpn

User:Qqtacpn seems to be quite the problematic user. In the course of two AFDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Lemavia), this user has blatantly attacked others and made false accusations of vandalism when being called out on the hoax articles they have made, with such nonsense as "Discrimination based on being a new contributor." and "Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress." This user clearly is not here to contribute in good faith, and has already been level 4 warned for repeatedly blanking articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 11:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There was already a thread at WP:ANI on this user here. He has now made legal threats. [22] Mathsci (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That I did not know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 12:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm the one who has been insulted. Completely unfair (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

That still doesn't mean you can make legal threats. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 12:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Qqtacpn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just been indef blocked by J Milburn for making the legal threat. Mathsci (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone wanna delete all his articles? He just tagged them all for speedy deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 12:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the user has requested an unblock, explaining that he did not know he couldn't withdraw his contributions. TNXMan 13:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

RFPP skipped

Can someone please take a look at WP:RFPP. It appears some requests have been skipped. The Velupillai Prabhakaran certainly needs to be semi'ed, the sooner the better. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Resolved

Could an administrator undelete User:Emperordarius please? Its a sockmaster, and if the deleted edits of the page contains edits by the user it might be of help in further sockpuppet investigations. Thanks. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 14:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The two edits to that page do not appear to be relevant to a sockpuppet investigation. Nakon 14:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus we can view histories anyhow, so no need to be honest. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Martinp23/NPWatcher/Checkpage/Requests#user:T'Shael

Resolved

 – Taken care of by User:Henrik. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 15:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That request seems to have been skipped – it's been standing for 5 days. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 14:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Arma virumque cano

Hi. I think that someone needs to look into Arma virumque cano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - possibly a Checkuser. They're relatively new, and their only substantive contributions seem to be !voting 'delete' at WP:AFD, because "i dont know all the keep reasons i just know the delete stuff but im learning as i go along. but most nominations are Wikipedia:Assume good faith to me" [23]. They have also supported a couple of RfAs, all with the same statement. They make their contributions very, very fast, and get through an awful lot of AfDs. I think that their conversance with Wikipedia, comments such as this, and their chosen areas of editing, suggest that something's going on.

Thanks, and hope I'm not speaking out of turn! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are indeed speeking out of turn =( .Remember im not a crook ok I dont vote on ones I would keep because i dont know what to sayArma virumque cano (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Your edits are still concerning though, since most new editors don't usually go straight to AFD without touching an article at least once. Most new editors don't usually know about deletion rationales either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The constant repetition of "not a crook" - used about three times as a talkpage edit-summary when deleting warnings - is also worrying. Finally, note that the user is currently involved in this sockpuppetry case, something I've only just twigged! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont know all the delete reasons but im learning as i go along. And im not a puppet, i think that person is just paranoid. Notice this edit [24] where the person removed his admission of 'perhaps not' Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

<< And, yes, this user knows how to locate and use revision diffs, and still has around 100 edits. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Their first edit was to talk:RFA. A few edits later, they added an indefblocked template to another user's talk page. They have added an editprotected template to a template talk page, plus spam (along the lines of "hallo") to various other talk pages, including template talk pages. They have a large number of edits to AFD pages, some of which are verging on inappropriate ("this is crap and needs to be obliterated"). And I see not one article space edit. I seriously doubt this user is new to Wikipedia. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at today's AfD log, this user appears to procedurally be going through the articles and !voting for deletion, which leads me to figure troll. I must admit suspicious were aroused by a call for deletion on my article citing "Unsourced unreliable bad article" as the rationale. So I could be seen as bias in this matter. Nonetheless, the log seems fairly conclusive that something's up as well as the lack of article space edits. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, they seem to be very expert at advanced syntax correction... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[25] This was not vandalism, this was a legitimate addition per WP:SUBST. That is unacceptable abuse of rollback. Anyways, I had a login a very long time ago which I used mostly with reading but i forgot the login stuff hence this account. Arma virumque cano (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I know it's not vandalism, and I never suggested that it was. I suggested that someone who's only been editing here a short time (reading wouldn't teach wiki-syntax) wouldn't know how to do it. Nor would they probably know about WT:RFA, template-talk pages, or be self-aware enough to !vote delete in tens of AfDs. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I was refering to the revert by Exploding Boy, who also has alot of other questionable reverts too Arma virumque cano (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of other questionable reverts? Then start a thread below, this section isn't about him, it's about you. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the Diff thing, I followed your example on the top of this thread Arma virumque cano (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Luckykitty89's unblock request

LuckyKitty89 is blocked due to a range block placed by Black Kite (talk · contribs) on 68.220.160.0/19 to prevent Bambifan101 socks. Could somebody more familiar with Bambifan101 take a look at the request? Black Kite is on break and LuckyKitty89 has been waiting for 36+ hours. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 17:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked through the history of Luckykitty89 and everything seems to be alright. However, I think an IP block exemption might be more suiting because if we remove the block intended for Bambifan101, then we're sure to get more socks from him. I would keep an eye on Luckykitty89 afterwards to make sure everything checks out. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is precisely the reason I stopped by. Bambifan101 is back, this time as User:Bernard the Brave. He's been blocked, but this has simply gotten to the point of utter ridiculousness. That name set off an alarm bell or two in my head when I saw it on the new user log; "Bernard" as I've discovered is the name of one of the two main characters in The Rescuers. Most of this little freak's IPs resolve back to Bell South. How the heck do we do a formal complaint at this point? I would rather unblock all one thousand-plus MascotGuy socks and elevate him to bureaucrat before we should allow Bambifan101 to make so much as a single keystroke more either to this site or to Simple English. He's driving Simple out of their minds. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Had another thought: WP:DENY has been working well with other chronic vandals as of late. Should we not therefore do the same thing here? He's less than subtle with his choice of usernames and his choice of subject matter. In short, he's craving attention and getting it on a worldwide stage. If it's OK with other admins, I'm going to stop putting the blocked sock template on his future socks and delete the talk page(s). --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If no one disagrees I'm going to open a quick case at WP:SPI to make sure that a checkuser agrees that an IP exemption would be reasonable. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Old edit summary vandalism

Is there any way to remove old edit summary vandalism from Rapidfire squad (talk · contribs), please? Note that this has been addressed already at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive467#The usual Twinkle vandalism spree and death threat but it looks like the said e-mail got no results. Is it impossible to do? Or simple got forgotten? Thanks. - Nabla (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like oversight didn't do anything about it. It's probably too old for a regular admin to delete and selective restore those articles, but I might email oversight again. They can't possibly accept that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly be much easier to do now since oversight has access to revision delete. They can just remove the edit summaries. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

An important TFD discussion

Notice is hereby given that there is a TFD discussion concerning whether template:R from other capitalisation shall be deleted. Erik9 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)