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

Non-admin AfD Relistings (vs admin closure)

This has briefly been on a few other boards in the past month, but all quite stale and something I think needs a broader view discussed. The general starting topic there is non-admin AfD closures, where my concern is with non-closures.

I'd like general thoughts on this diff[1]. The editor's name I am deliberately not going to speak; This is a procedure question and not any suggestion whatsoever of an "incident" or anything but the best of faith. No need for them to come up in a query by name. Concern is mostly on the view that of little participation being a distinctive reason to relist versus closing. Isn't this frowned upon, as it's impossible to expect equal and high levels of participation everywhere? Can't outcomes be clear with little discussion, or with very precise opinion from a smaller number of persons? Why only relist unpopular AfDs? How about anything XfD? Point being, high participation and a wide range of views represented is not a requirement of AfD, and it seems a lot of articles have discussions ongoing needlessly long per "low participation".

As a non-admin hanging out in admin-style areas doing quite the same as this editor I hate standing up at our little table to say this, but shouldn't relists be Admin-Only? Without that, we end up with a hundred relists per day that could well have what would be a clear case to delete, but are being relisted instead since a deletion close is Admin-only. I'm sure there are also plenty that are reasonable keeps but a non-Admin can't close because of our tiny window of justified actions. What if it's a BLP? Does the relisting user actually research the article topic, or just counts !votes? How many is "enough" on participation? Why relist if a full week isn't up yet? Does that not steal a closure decision away from an admin? Aren't non-admin AfD actions in general restricted to essentially-unanimous discussions and only after falling into "old" after the standard week and the rare speedy keeps?

The user quoted in the diff above is an outstanding editor so I feel bad having to ask about something in contrary to actions and have no reason whatsoever to doubt the intent of these contributions, but I would like an admin opinion. AfD is not a place for infinite discussion, and having non-admins buzz through the daily log of dozens armed with only "Keep" or "Relist" isn't appropriate. I'm sure the user does leave would-be delete closures alone, but then we have that whole participation "requirement" again. If by any means I am being entirely ignorant of something in the bigger picture please tell me (I'm often wrong!), but a lot of this appears to be quite contrary to WP:NAC (though an essay) and everything I've ever been taught/told about non-admin AfD matters from some of "the regulars". ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a very long winded question, however, in essence, you make a valid point. I think that non admin relists can often be productive- for example, if two or three editors voice an opinion but do not reach any kind of consensus, it would be entirely appropriate (IMHO) to relist and a non-admin doing it saves time for the admins who can delete those articles which need to be deleted. Obviously, if an article should, by rights, be deleted after it's had its week, then to relist it does nobody any good. What we need is some kind of clear guideline on when to make a non-admin closure or relist and when not to. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest three editors (including the nom, if none have a COI) would be a minimum for a "delete" close, less than that, a relist might be in order. HJMitchell You rang? 03:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"What we need is some kind of clear guideline on when to make a non-admin closure or relist and when not to." That's a reasonable-sounding good-faith position, but I would disagree with it. We have a clear guideline: Use common sense, be mindful of context, and respond constructively to any dispute that may arise. There's no need to codify everything into rules, "of thumb" or otherwise. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a good idea to have personal guideposts; and if necessary, turning to one of the more experienced NACers or admins for advice. But codifying them would be unnecessarily creepy. Look at WP:RELIST and how often it is ignored in practice. Timotheus Canens (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Even though it's not a personal issue, I would still appreciate it if someone could notify me when one of my posts is mentioned. As to the substantive issue: (1) I'm not familiar with the other processes so I can't really comment on them, but lack of participation in AfDs is sometimes a serious issue because sources can and do slip under the radar. Sometimes a unanimous "keep" becomes a "delete"; sometimes a unanimous (or close to unanimous) "delete" becomes either a "keep" or a "no consensus". I rarely relist debates with more than two non-SPA !votes on either side. (2) When there are more than that, relisting requires judgment. For example, you have four people saying "delete no sources", then a fifth editor turns up and says "here are the sources: A B C D". Under these circumstances a relist is probably optimal because we don't know if the sources are good. (3) If someone erroneously relists a clear-cut delete, or a clear-cut keep, those are dealt with easily. Several admins regularly go though Category:Relisted AfD debates and close AfDs if they think a consensus has formed.

The point with AfD relists for insufficient participation, in my view, is that at AfDs, most of the time the decision depends on the existence or lack of sources. But since one cannot prove a negative, our system says that if multiple editors tried searching for sources in good faith and can't find any, then we consider it unsourceable and therefore deletable. However, with only one or two people looking, the probability of reliable sources being overlooked is too high to be tolerable, so more time for consideration is appropriate. I'm not sure if this kind of scenario is present in other XfDs. Timotheus Canens (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Discussions with no input except the nominator should generally be relisted once, and it shouldn't matter if an admin or non-admin relists it. There's very little judgment here.
• Discussions with only the nom and 1 other voice, or three non-unanimous voices, are greyer and I would prefer someone with experience making these or similar calls make them. I'm not saying an admin has to make them, but it's not for an editor who decides "hmm, what's the is Articles for deletion thing..." and decides if someone else can relist he can too.
• On occasion even a 4- or 5-voice AFD may warrant relisting, particularly if new information became available that might have changed the mind of the nominator or early responders, and they haven't updated their comments.
• Remember, AfD is not a vote. Sometimes you see things at AfD that are arguably speediable, and deleting after a nomination with no second may be appropriate. Likewise, a lopsided "vote" might should close in the opposite direction based on the strength of the arguments. This applies whether the participation is 1, 2, 3, or 30 editors.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Truly speediable AfDs usually either (1) snowball or (2) are closed early as speedy. I'd argue that if a debate managed to survive 7 days without anyone else bothering to comment, (and it's not G12 or G10), then it's probably better to let a real consensus form. Also, closing an AfD against a lopsided numerical vote count when both sides are established editors (i.e., non-SPAs) tends to generate drama, a DRV, and more drama. I'm not saying that it should never be done; but it should be avoided if possible. Timotheus Canens (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. While circumstances obviously vary, there is a certain amount of 'silence implies consent' in play. If an article spends a week at AfD and can't pull in a single editor willing to speak up on its behalf, then that's very suggestive. At that point, I would be inclined to argue that the AfD has been converted to – in essence – a very well-advertised PROD. If the closing admin finds the deletion request reasonable and there are no obvious irregularities, there's no need to go to additional trouble. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same. Specifically, there was a recent RfA involving someone who does a whole lot of work in one of the less-than-glamorous categories and closes discussions as any outcome many times a day as a non-admin, and this was considered good evidence of actions to take into account in support. I don't disagree with that at all. However, that would be contrary of everything said above. Could the same theoretical candidate be applauded for closing 50 1-!vote TfDs as delete as a non-admin every day but also burned alive for doing the same at AfD? If there's a sole policy page on this, could I be poked toward it, since I could find very very little "officially". My opinion at the low-volume areas tends to be the same, as a lot of users will go through every entry for a certain day and just pass on a couple of them... I assume since they felt nothing more needed to be added. Does silence work, or does everything short at least a handful of opinions get relisted indefinitely? If we do want to have it both ways, that should be said somewhere, I'd think(?).

Hmm, I still have to go with the view of an admin needing to relist as an official action, this being a perfect case in point. Yeah, or it needs to be in writing somewhere that non-admin close as deletes are fine outside of AfD... better yet, very specifically in writing that non-admins should probably never close or relist an active XfD unless in the very tiny frame defined on nominations withdrawn. For consistency, if anything. Believe me or not, I do actually plan on putting whatever learned here to use! I'm just entirely lost on the current system without clarifications. Confusing non-admin broom workers is not good for the mopping industry. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Templates are meant to be used in articles; if no one cares about them, they can probably be deleted; articles are, however, meant to be read by our readers, most of whom have no idea whatsoever about the mysterious letters "N, V, BLP, OR, AFD". So I would argue that to declare something "unsourceable, therefore non-notable, therefore deletable" requires the input of more than one editor. On the other hand, I have no qualms about treating uncontested AfDs as prods after one relist if they otherwise satisfy the prod criteria, and can be restored upon request and not subject to G4. Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason a relist should be necessary if you want to treat the deletion as a restore-on-request PROD. That's just too much bureacracy. And I'd also note that the closing admin is free (though not compelled) to declare it a normal AfD closure and make it a binding close subject to normal DRV review but not an instant-restore. The presence of a nomination on AfD (even for a single one-week listing) automatically guarantees a lot more eyes on the deletion request than any PROD ever gets; there's no need to pretend that this is some secret, backroom process that sneaks valuable materials out of Wikipedia under cover of night.

On reflection, I would actually also strongly discourage non-admins from relisting AfDs. I fear that it may have a tendency to unnecessarily increase the traffic at AfD and distract from new nominations. I also wonder if there might not be at least a small conflict of interest — the wannabe admins doing lots of relisting and other borderline-useful paper-shuffling will certainly pad their edit counts and show their interest in 'admin-type' activities for their RfA, but it may not be the most efficient and productive outcome for the project. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Something else I've just discovered is that all new AfD listings are tracked by Erwin85Bot. Whenever a page is listed at AfD, the bot automatically notifies the article creator and all of its major editors (defined, if I'm not mistaken, as all editors who have made more than five edits to the article). Again, that's a level of specific notification and advertising that no PROD is likely ever to see. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hum. Even though it's a ridiculously niche guideline, per Mr/Ms Ten's rationale of it adding an extra bureaucracy layer when un-delete with fair rationale and normal DRV are entirely available... put "strongly discourage" in the WP:NAC essay as general advice? There's no reason to think anyone who'd actually seek out that page wouldn't adhere to the advice so "official"/"actual" would be silly. You've actually been able to state the problems I was wildly grabbing for words to describe in the first place, so thank you. Agree also on folder clogging, as ironically, deliberately having more discussions open means less average participation in all, so the issue has a feedback loop of creating more and more content for itself. Oh, and the bot thing, which I didn't know was that precise, but sounds like it was created for the purpose of encouraging/starting discussion through the courtesy posts to users. Even if an accidental consequence, it means that rarely if ever does an AfD start with zero persons knowing of it unless manually browsing. Most interesting.

A sigh and tiny nod of at the thought of the "resume padding" with this. Even if not the intended reason, it would have that effect for an RfA candidate. It would better be clarified publicly to avoid someone being unduly supported or opposed based on varying user opinions of these edits... or at best an RfA would turn into a guideline discussion on a tiny, tiny issue. I'd have POV issues if I dug into it-- preferably there's never anything to dig into at all, well, Mostly going to plug my ears on one of my reasons for starting this. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All this discussion is too theoretical as the user's name is not printed. This makes all the difference in the world. Head of Security for the World (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We have no TFP

Ok, main page has just updated and we have no featured picture- just a redlink like a badly maintained portal. I have copy-pasted yesterday's over as a temporary solution, as I didn't want to spend half a while writing up a blurb and generally going against the usual procedure. Ok, main issue- could someone please create one for today, and replace my hackjob? Second issue, could someone please work out how this happened? Third issue, could something be done to stop this happening again? (It may also be worth noting that, for tomorrow, although we have a picture, we have no blurb.) J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on one, but if someone else finishes one first, go for it. -- tariqabjotu 00:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a link to this thread at WT:FPC. Chick Bowen 00:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Howcheng is now back, and has fixed this. Chick Bowen 00:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This was an isolated incident, but as a precaution, I've added code to automatically display yesterday's TFA or TFP content if today's is missing. —David Levy 01:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work David - it's always good to have a safe guard. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One problem using that solution, at least for the TFA section: Every November or December, all the TFA templates for the next year are populated by {{TFAempty}} as a placeholder. So if User:Raul654 happens to be late selecting a TFA, using an #ifexists parserFunction in that fashion will not realistically work. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps we could modify the TFA setup. One alternative would be to move the actual content to templates nested within the placeholders (which Mark would create individually) and use these for the #ifexist construct. (Though this might be too much trouble to go to to prevent a problem that has yet to arise.) Otherwise, the new TFA code will simply have no effect (unless a TFA page happens to be accidentally deleted). —David Levy 02:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's a far simpler solution. Those placeholders exist for display (instead of red links) on the monthly queue pages (e.g. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2009 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2010). This setup is a holdover from the time before the ParserFunctions extension was introduced, and it could easily be replaced with the type of #ifexist construct discussed above (specifying that exactly the same message be displayed if the page doesn't exist). —David Levy 02:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of #ifexists, try {{PAGESIZE}}. Shubinator (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

+1 --MZMcBride (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea, but I've been unable to come up with a working implementation. Here's my broken attempt (with "yes" and "no" substituted for the actual transclusions):

{{#ifexpr:{{PAGESIZE:Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{#time:F j, Y}}}}>150|yes|no}}

This results in the following (irrespective of what page title is specified):

Is there a way to force the page size to be calculated before the rest of the code is parsed? Or is there an alternative implementation that I've overlooked? —David Levy 19:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The page size is calculated before the rest of the code is parsed, but the result is over 1000, which yields something like "1,217" (with the comma). You can strip formatting with formatnum:

{{#ifexpr: {{formatnum: {{PAGESIZE: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{#time:F j, Y}} }} |R }} > 150 | yes | no}}

Shubinator (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[slaps forehead]

So that's the comma to which it was referring. I feel silly for not realizing that. Thank you!

Before I implement this, is there a particular reason to use "400" instead of "150"? Just in case we happen to have a very short TFA blurb, I thought that it would be best to go slightly higher than the placeholder message's maximum length (144 in September), but I want to make sure that I'm not overlooking something else.

Thanks again! —David Levy 01:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, 150 would work (edited accordingly). I think I was using 400 because that's the pagesize of {{TFAempty}}, but that high isn't necessary. No problem :) Shubinator (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Implemented. Shubinator (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

MascotGuy update

It would seem that I have indirectly made contact with his mother once again as seen by the comments toward the bottom of the page:

[2]

I'm trying to appeal to her while she is apparently trying to appeal to him. I understand this poor woman's frustration (I think that she thinks that I was attacking her, which I wasn't), but I don't think she quite understands what's been going on over here. It seems to me that we're stuck with him despite our best efforts. At least the filter is weeding him out before he can do any real damage. Thoughts? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but shouldn't we be concerned with what happens on-Wiki. He's by no means the only person we have to whack-a-mole on a regular basis around here. As an aside, should you be posting links to his real name? --Jayron32 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course we should be concerned with what happens here. That's why I'm trying to reason with his mother. As for his name, that's been pretty much known since the get-go; one of his original socks was in fact his own name and another was that of his mother. I'm not trying to "out" him since his name has been known for so long anyway. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that the user had an account in what you take to be their real name gives us license to violate WP:OUTING. This may be a special case, but if so, it would be nice if the guideline reflected that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is like saying "User:Fred Bauder's name is Fred Bauder" is outing. It is not our fault that he used his given name as a user name, nor that everyone knows what his name is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. If my username were "William Firehose" there's no reason to assume that (a) my real name actually is William Firehose unless I tell you that it is (or, as Fred Bauder has done, link to off-wiki pages also referencing my identity), and (b) you have no way of confirming that I'm not simply trying to throw you off the track by using someone else's real life identity. These are issues with all usernames, but not a justification for attempting to connect the person with the name. Incidentally, I searched for the username that you and PMDrive1061 referred to, but I could not find it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits made by User:Ktr101 which include the same name (and the purported name of their mother) should probably be revision hid or oversighted if this does constitute outing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Look harder: [3]. He's outed himself in my opinion, by using that name as a user name. If it's not his real name and only an assumption on our part, then no outing has occurred either.--Atlan (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's one of them. I don't remember the exact wording of the earlier username; it was done several years ago and was likely his e-mail address at the time if memory serves. This predates the "MascotGuy" identifier. Again, I'm not trying to out anyone and most users on this site who've dealt with him have known his real name for years. My apologies if I've stepped out of line. I don't mean this person any harm, but I do wish for him to stop logging on and creating sockpuppets. It was my hope that joining the discussion at this other site would bring about a resolution over here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not happy with those edits to the LTA page (RL name, age, location, email addresses??) and am suppressing them. I don't think we can claim exception to rules, nor make a judgment call on whether it's 'safe' or not. I've seen it happen to others with negative consequences - Alison ^❤ 21:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Furthermore, the WP:OUTING policy isn't open to GOTCHA! style gaming. It seems to me that unless someone is right now activily willing to disclose their real name, we should default to not attempting to out them ourselves. I see no evidence that MascotGuy is, today and right now, desiring that his real name be tied to his Wikipedia identity. There are lots of cases where a user, early in their Wikipedia career, accidentally outed themselves, and later finds that they do not wish to have their real names publicly linked to them. We should always make every effort to ensure that people's real identity is protected at all cost. If someone wants to admit to their personal info on their user page and in conversations involving them, fine, but we should not hold every single instance of self-outing against someone. This even includes longterm vandals and disruptive editors. They have a right to be protected too, even if they are a pain in the ass. I don't really care if he once created one sock that may or may not have been his real name. Its not any of our business, and Wikipedia's ethic of anonymity is NOT to be compromised for any reason save the clear and expressed wishes of the individual themselves. --Jayron32 21:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Word - Alison ^❤ 21:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I have personally deleted a number of user pages and even attack pages which disclose personal information. Safety is paramount. However, this person has disclosed his real name on a number of occasions and not just here. He has a Commons account under his real name, for example. Look, I'm sorry if this has caused such concern. That wasn't my intention and I'm hoping we can move on from here and chalk this up to a bad idea on my part. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Personally, I think you were onto something when you noted it was odd that his "teachers" were randomly happening to show up on esoteric websites. I don't believe that person was his former teacher and I don't believe that person is his mother, either. I think it's all MascotGuy playing games with people across the internet. I don't think he's autistic for a second, I think he's OCD or perhaps some kind of invalid or shut-in, whether due to physical or psychological conditions. Getting their internet privileges revoked would be the best course. I don't know why it isn't done more often with perpetual troublemakers. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it may have happened with a user I reported to BellSouth after more than three years of nonsense across multiple wikis. BellSouth took a genuine interest in the problem and I provided them with some basic tech details per their request. He hasn't been heard from in more than two weeks. This guy is all over the place regarding his IPs, so rangeblocks might not be feasible. I showed up on that other site after I Googled his name, so the teacher and mom may be legit. I only wish that I could make a couple of users over there understand the problem we've been put through. I'm the bad guy for "picking on a poor autistic" and nothing could be further from the truth. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Do they all geolocate to the same general area? Seems kind of odd that someone with "autism" would randomly have access to so many IP addresses. You mentioned even government IPs at the external site? Maybe MascotGuy is actually a group of trolls who just deliberately follow the same patterns and MO together. Wouldn't be the first time. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep request

An editor has nominated a Wikipedia guideline, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) for deletion at MfD. Therefore, this meets the fourth reason for a speedy keep, as XfD is explicitly not for discussion of revoking policies and guidelines. I would appreciate an administrator to close the debate as such. Thank you. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a speedy keep to me. Let the discussion run its course. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for discussion, but shouldn't it be on the guideline's talk page? If folks don't like the guideline, they should try to get it bumped down to essay status there – but I see no reason to allow a deletion discussion that violates an undisputed guideline. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

< I tend to agree that this guideline shouldn't be MfD-ed, as per WP:SK#policy. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 23:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Some have asserted that this isn't a guideline because there was no RfC before it was tagged as such. However, a bit of digging shows that there was extensive discussion before the guideline was tagged with {{proposed}}, was uncontested on the talk page, and was promoted to guideline status by an administrator about a month later. Was WP:PROPOSAL followed? No. But should a guideline that has been tagged and treated as such for almost two years be eligible for a speedy keep at MfD? Absolutely. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, no I do not believe it is eligible for a speedy keep. But don't take my word for it, I tend to think outside of the box. JBsupreme (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably not a speedy keep situation, but already at the point where it could be a snowball keep, which means no difference in practical terms. Discussion has focused on merging/redirecting into a broader page. As always, I remain amazed that I tend to be amazed at how much time and effort tends to be spent when one dedicated individual launches a crusade against consensus. Resolute 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It probably does meet criteria 4 if you accept that it's an actual guideline, which I'm having a hard time with as it looks like it's bypassed the requisite discussion and "high level consensus". I don't know if there was discussion about it elsewhere, but I hope there was because from looking at the talk page, it looks like one person proposed making it a guideline, no one replied either for or against and then the same person declared it was now a guideline. Unless there was a proper discussion elsewhere, I don't see how this can reasonably be considered to have satisfied the requirements of discussion and high level consensus outlined in Policies and guidelines and this shouldn't be considered an actual guideline until such a discussion takes place. Sarah 10:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• The "guideline" is m:creep and contentious, spreading a dispute to more pages rather than reducing or solving any actual problem (see also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)). There are several people who feel that a separate guideline for baseball players over and above sportspeople in general is simply unnecessary. 80.176.82.42 (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  That's an issue that belongs elsewhere. This is a discussion about whether WP:SK#policy applies, not whether the naming-convention is a good one. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Or not. The consensus leans towards merging and redirecting (i.e. not having a separate an largely redundant guideline), which seems fine. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't revoke, downgrade, dispute or simply remove a guideline or policy on the deletion pages... it needs a much wider discussion. If people disagree that it is a guideline, they need to dispute it on the talk page, get consensus for its non-guideline-ness, and then delete it. I think speedy keep and send to the talk page is the correct action. Ale_Jrb^talk 17:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration clerks seeking interested users

We want you!

• Do you consider yourself a good communicator?
• Are you a motivated individual, who is willing to work varying hours?
• Do you enjoy doing thankless work (you are editing Wikipedia, so the answer is yes)?
• Are you interested in the inner workings of the Arbitration Committee?
• Do you want to wear a Fez?

If you answered yes to all the above questions, then Arbitration clerking is for you! And seeing as the clerk corp is currently in the process of vetting new candidates you are encouraged to apply. To do so, simply send us an email at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In this email, be sure to include your username, what you feel you have to offer the committee, and why you are applying for the position.

Please note: Non-administrators are encouraged to apply.

Tiptoety ^talk 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow fancy. Do they get to drive cool little go-carts too? Grsz¹¹ 08:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Cool! I want a funny little Model T to drive in parades! Seriously, count me in. I've been looking for other things to do beyond playing whack-a-vandal. I can concentrate more on writing as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is the funny little man in the picture? Aren't wizards supposed to have pointy hats, anyway? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm...not the picture I originally put up. Not sure I really get it either, but oh well. :-P Tiptoety ^talk 05:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Cask of Amontillado... ;-)

Why would anyone want to be an arbitration clerk? --Malleus Fatuorum 06:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The main reason is that it puts one on the fast track to becoming an arbitrator. The question then is why would anyone want to be an arbitrator. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be more accurate to say that being a clerk attracts the same kind of people who would be attracted to being arbitrators; people who feel they can best contribute by helping keep the more volatile areas of the project under control. I suppose the closest real-world analogues would be firefighters: it's hard work that is only valuable to minimize damage when all hell already broke loose, but it's important that someone does it to prevent things from spreading into a catastrophe. It's also all about wading through the smoke to put out fires. — Coren ^(talk) 16:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Zaphiro

I've just indef blocked Zaphiro (talk · contribs), who claims to be this person of the same name on the German-language Wikipedia. I suspect this is a case of impersonation as Zaphiro seems to be active on the German-language Wikipedia (filing some vandalism reports?) and doesn't seem to be ruffling any feathers. However, I cannot speak German. Someone should contact Zaphiro to inform them about this case of impersonation or (if it isn't impersonation) ask what's going on. Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I should think that the account you blocked is an impersonation one, as it was created today per this (I think the next two accounts may need to be looked at, too). If you wish to have someone contact the German editor, who incidentally has been editing since 2007, I suggest you look for the German speaking Wikipedians category (or similar) and drop them a line. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I see a discussion about this on his/her user talk page at de:Benutzer Diskussion:Zaphiro#Wie wärs mal mit SUL. It looks like he has suffered related cross-wiki problems at the spanish and french wikipedias. If I spoke German, I'd encourage him to sign up for SUL, to at least limit the damage potential. GRBerry 20:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board‎. Nev1 (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Zaphiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

• es.Special:Contributions/Zaphiro
• de.wikibooks.org Special:Contributions/Zaphiro
• de:Special:Contributions/Zaphiro

Here are the cross acounts I come up with.--Hu12 (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

see also User:Zaphiro onaniert in seinem Büro!, a diffamation account, thanx (real) Zaphiro from german WP PS: and user:Zaphiro-Löli!, same in fr.WP that was deleted. Also Vandalism at my user talk in de.WP, the account in es.WP is not from me, but not vandalism--89.12.118.227 (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you very much--89.12.118.227 (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo use ?

I noticed that File:Wikipedia-logo.png and its derivatives (such as File:Wikisanta.jpg) are used in several user and article talk pages. As far as I know, these images are copyrighted and such use violates WP:NFCC, but am asking here in case there is some special provision with regards to this logo that I am not aware of. Abecedare (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The copyright notice is a bit confusing. It only seems to state that the use of the Wikimedia logo specifically (the red-gree-blue one with the circles) is subject to the usage guideline, however I can find nowhere where there is a clear restriction on the use of the "Puzzleball" logo. Indeed, as the logo is hosted at commons, that would imply that it has been liscenced under CC-BY-SA, because as far as I am aware, all submissions to commons are so liscenced. --Jayron32 21:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons' hosts all wikimedia logos, so I don't think that is an argument for the logos being CC-BY-SA. Obviously, an exception is being made for wikimedia owned logos (justifiably), and I am wondering if that exception extends to NFCC not being applied to them. Abecedare (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What we need here is clear guidance from The Foundation over this. Is there any policy page or other page that makes unambiguous discussion over the proper usage of the Puzzleball Logo? Because if there is, and the usages you cite above are in violation of it, it would be a hu-jung-ous problem, given the way in which the logo is used all over Wikipedia in all sorts of namespaces. I am not saying there is such a problem, but if there is, its a can-of-worms we may not be prepared to deal with if we open it... --Jayron32 21:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it must be allowed. What about all those logos saying someone has rollback rights etc? And what about the admin mop? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Uh oh. I have a puzzleball logo on a large sticker sitting on my desk (stole it from a WikiMedia employee). Will I be getting meatballed soon? tedder (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike Godwin was asked by Zscout about this some time ago and his response I believe was that the WMF does not object to the reuse as described above. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, MBisanz. If WMF is fine with such use, I guess we don't have to worry about it either. It would be good to document this somewhere on-wiki though, since I am unlikely to be the first or the last to raise the question. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably worth emailing him at mgodwin wikimedia.org and asking if he could make a statement onwiki. MBisanz ^talk 07:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe Mike's on vacation. I can't speak to this with any kind of authority, but I would suggest that I think trademark rather than copyright is the relevant concern. Hopefully Mike can provide some wisdom about how it's applied in cases like this, though. (In the meantime -- could somebody link to a couple of examples of what the concern is about?) -Pete Forsyth (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

MFD backlog

There's a bit of a backlog at WP:MFD, just FYI. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:25, 29 Dec 2009 (UTC)

My bad... I wasn't aware XfD's were changed to seven days. There are a couple of discussions that are due for a close, but not what I'd call a backlog. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:30, 29 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Proposing ban of sorts

Hello everybody, i am proposing that User:JBsupreme be banned from participating in AfDs and from deleting from articles anything that isn't clearly contentious or vandalism, perhaps until he has sourced an article in his subject area of choice to a GA or near-GA level.

Observe.

[4] <-- This is two chumps all WP:OMGWTFBBQ to an editor new to content writing, before they have even checked allmusic, AKA every 12 year old's first stop when sourcing some music info. This is despite being told by the editor what to search for.

[5] <---This is me providing sources showing notability. The AfD is withdrawn. All good.

( [6] <-- This is another genius questioning the notability of the subject, despite having just returned from realizing the AfD was withdrawn as said notability was demonstrated.)

[Your imagination] <--This is me waiting several hours to see if any of these chumps will use the sources i have spoonfed them with grandmotherly kindness, to help the poor fellow they WP'd all over.

[Some more of your imagination] <--This is me confirming that that isn't gonna happen, and getting to work on the article since i felt bad for dude. Note that I used his imperfect text as a guide when writing the article up and that was much easier than creating from scratch.

[7] <--This is me realizing on completion of the rewrite that I started rewriting the article only half an hour before JBsupreme, far from using the sources given, actually decimated the article, despite all of it being easily source-able with sources he did not even have to search out himself.

Okay, still with me? These are some of JBsupreme's unsuccessful AfD nominations between whenever I started and whenever I got bored:

You kind of need a knowledge of the subject area (mainly hip hop) to get a grasp of how big howlers some of these are.

Here's some vandal-would-be-proud decimation of articles: West Coast Hip Hop:

25 Sept 2008 [8] stubs article with numerous authors, removing 28 K of text with edit summary "Undid revision 240748061 by 67.233.212.231 (talk) no sources cited - pls do"

4 Oct [9] 5 Oct [10] 21 Oct [11] 12 Nov [12] 23 Nov [13] 4 Dec [14]4 Dec [15] 20 Jan 2009 [16] 17 March [17] 31 March [18] 1 April [19] 10 April [20] 11 April [21] 5 May [22] 19 May [23] 26 May [24] 6 June [25] 19 Aug [26] 20 Aug [27] 21 Aug [28] 22 Aug [29]

Rah Digga [30]

[31] edit warring on info already in cite contained in article...

Numerous other and better examples of easily verified non-controversial stuff removed without warning, go find for yourself.

Here's some runs through AfD voting in ascending order; note time spent deliberating (too lazy to look up how to link these right now, apologies):

1. 07:01, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swimming Pool Deck Tile Layout ‎
2. 07:00, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakewood Elementary School (Dallas, Texas) ‎
3. 07:00, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area 58 ‎
4. 06:58, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubmood ‎
5. 06:57, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snipe (rapper) ‎
6. 06:56, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 25 ‎
7. 06:56, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sudan-related topics ‎
8. 06:54, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sudan-related topics ‎
9. 06:54, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) List of Sudan-related topics ‎
10. 06:54, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) List of Sudan-related topics ‎
11. 06:53, 25 September 2008 (hist | diff) Kev Brown

1. 06:58, 3 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spellsong Cycle ‎
2. 06:55, 3 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Order (Silent Hill) ‎
3. 06:52, 3 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Jose Golddiggers ‎
4. 06:50, 3 September 2008 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 3 ‎
5. 06:49, 3 September 2008 (hist | diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z-Ro ‎
6. 06:48, 3 September 2008 (hist | diff) Z-Ro ‎
7. 06:46, 3 September 2008 (hist | diff) GMTV ‎

These are typical.

What say you? Is this conducive to writing an encyclopedia? Does anyone wonder what articles and info has slipped through the cracks? How much work by others? I certainly will not be adding the sweat of my brow to a subject area where I have to deal with such willful incompetence. Your opinions, please. 86.44.47.43 (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The AfD for Termanology was not unsuccessful, the result was "delete" – that's just the first random one I sampled. Your use of phrases such as "until I got bored" and "[your imagination]" don't encourage people to take you seriously. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 10:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The AfD for Skyzoo had a result of "delete" and was thus not unsuccessful. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 10:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The AfD for Max B had a result of "delete" and was thus not unsuccessful. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 10:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The AfD for Ebony Eyez had a result of "delete" and was thus not unsuccessful. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 10:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As a side, you should post stuff like this @ ANI next time, and maybe {{hat}} your long lists. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Think you're wrong there since i'm proposing a ban of sorts.86.44.47.43 (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The AfD for Gillie Da Kid had a result of "delete" and was thus not unsuccessful. Why did you post that long and completely falsified list of "unsuccessful" AfDs? ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 10:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The AfD for 20Bello had a result of "delete" and was thus not unsuccessful. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 10:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This is the IP's first post ever. Sock? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's just a dynamic IP, this is them too. Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 10:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

One also can't help but notice the edit summary "(undo JBSupreme's idiotic illiterate butchery)" in there. Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 10:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You disagree with that assessment? 86.44.47.43 (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the user, but that edit summary is obviously a personal attack and entirely inappropriate. You kinda lose credibility by acting like that. Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 10:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is a nice way to suggest one is a buffon who ignorantly shits on new and industrious content writers, and who could not account for a single fact were they under house arrest at the library of alexandria, then i'm afraid it's quite beyond my art.86.44.47.43 (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Get outta here, treasury. you guys see an IP and you go crazy. Don't you think your links are awfully blue to call those AfDs "successful"? Clearly these are examples of how this cavalier editing causes shit to fall through the cracks. Gillie Da Kid slipped in there by accident, i saved it because it is a very interesting AfD, just a nom and an IP keep and closed as delete.

"that long and completely falsified list" Really, now? That is dishonest, in contrast to my post. 86.44.47.43 (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

All six of those AfDs were closed as "delete" – read the pages yourself. They were thus good-faith nominations, and were "successful" from JBSupreme's point of view. Therefore, your list was falsified. The links are now blue because the pages were re-created (either to acceptable standards, or as redirects). ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 10:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Reposting from my talk for you: I might as well accuse you of "false allegations" for saying i posted on ANI when i did not. Notable subjects that get deleted are part of the point, so the blue-linked articles you cite that JB sent to AfD are not great successes, sorry, but the system failing in the face of cavalier incompetence. <--I believe I made this point above. 86.44.47.43 (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I "falsely accused" you of posting on ANI when I meant AN – I will now pay millions of dollars of compensation to you.

Can you stop the persiflage, please? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 10:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

... 86.44.47.43 (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.47.43 (talk)

"get outta here"? read WP:NPA; this borders it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556^{> haneʼ} 10:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC) OK. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. "Get outta here", especially when prefacing a comment, is an innocuous colloquialism meaning I disagree with what you say. The rest of the comment clearly addresses the issue. Try not making mountains out of Beverly Hills Cop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard! How many more months of AfD noms do you think we need to go through to demonstrate a possible problem here, or do you also think i have slipped up too much by including such great successes as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gillie_Da_Kid, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ebony_Eyez and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/20Bello without rewriting their articles first 86.44.47.43 (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked 86.44.47.43 for 24 hours

I considered the above ip's last edits to this discussion, coming after I had attempted to cool the situation regarding their previous comments, as disruptive. I thus enacted the 1 day sanction. Looking at the entire thread, I don't see that the editor has been attempting to engage with editors regarding their concerns. I suggest that discussion can continue more productively without 86.44's participation in the short term. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What to do about User:PalestineRemembered

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

---

As discussion seems to have dried up, I've closed it. There is a clear consensus to ban PalestineRemembered and any socks can be dealt with in the normal way banned user socks are dealt with. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser and behavioral evidence strongly suggests that PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing anonymously as a series of IPs.

• 86.159.187.87 (talk · contribs)
• 81.152.36.143 (talk · contribs)
• 86.159.70.117 (talk · contribs)
• 86.159.240.147 (talk · contribs)

I have blocked anonymous editing from two of these IPs and asked him to log in, and he just changes IP addresses. He is editing Israel-Palestine articles in an allegedly disruptive manner. As an IP he has received numerous warnings. He has been blocked several times in the past for disruptive editing. Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, editors may be placed on discretionary sanctions by uninvolved admins for disruptive behavior. By editing as an IP it makes it difficult (if not impossible) to track his behavior and apply any necessary sanctions. He has made broad accusations that a number of editors opposing him are "cheating" and using sockpuppets; these accusations were investigated with checkuser and none of them have any substance. He has hinted that if his IPs continue to be targeted, he will create a new account to continue to avoid scrutiny.

Brought to the community for review. Thatcher 12:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Time to ban. Long overdue. Scrutiny evasion and logged-out disruption is the last straw. Moreschi (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• This is very regrettable. But I can see no alternative to a ban. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Thatcher is right. Durova³⁹⁰ 17:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Disclosure: some editors doubt my neutrality because I used to mentor an editor on the Israeli side of the issue. When the CAMERA scandal emerged I sided with the Palestinian editors. Let's run a clean bar.
• As someone who argued in the past for PR getting another chance using mentoring (and preventing his banning before), I have to regretfully say that it seems not to have worked. Not only has PR not tried to work with other editors in the I-P field, he is now resorting to trying to obfuscate his edits through IP use and threats of sockpuppetry. That indicates someone who, at this time, cannot edit in accordance with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, and especially with the ArbCom-instituted strictures that are applied to this very contentious area. As such, sadly, I think the project would be better off without his edits until such time as he can convince ArbCom that he will act in a constructive, collaborative, and collegial manner. -- Avi (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Question - if the user has proven adept at switching IP addresses, will the issuance of a ban accomplish much other than to make a point? I am not arguing that a ban of some kind is not in order, I just wonder about the utility of issuing a ban against a user who has already proven themselves capable of and willing to (ab)use multiple anonymous addresses to make an end-run around policy. Shereth 17:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  Well, the principal difference is how further socks are handled. Being under a ban has the effect of allowing any administrator to simply block and revert without much ado or the need for yet another (dozen) AN/I threads. — Coren ^(talk) 17:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  That makes sense, and thus so does a ban at this point. Shereth 17:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to be time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• The last thing the I-P topic area needs is more alternate account/IP use. This falls pretty clearly under "avoiding legitimate scrutiny". I think a ban is probably a formality at this point, but I would endorse Thatcher's formulation and handling of the IPs. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• As one of those accused, I won't offer an opinion on bans or free sodas for life or whatever else, but I would say that PR had always maintained that PalestineRemembered was a legitimate sock (something he used to avoid I/P involvement for his main account). Does this alter things or are we presuming that this claim was never really serious? --Narson ~ Talk • 18:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• {{resolved}}?? Improper complaint because user not notified on his user talk page of complaint. Improper complaint because user is not blocked. Users who are not blocked may edit by IP, at least that's what I remember reading. This complaint should not go on until that person has been notified and given a chance to respond. This is common courtesy and avoids a kangaroo court. AG191D (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • PR knows that he has restrictions, both due to the ARbCom ruling and the community decision to have him mentored over a year ago. If Thatcher, one of our most sophisticated checkusers, confirms that 1) this user is PR and 2) PR has been informed of Thatcher's knowledge of his socking due to the IP blocks and 3) PR is threating more sockpuppetry, that is more than enough. -- Avi (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • AG191D is Dereks1x (talk · contribs). Thatcher 18:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• This action would be long past due. In addition to the other issues of abusive behavior from this user, we are well rid of a tendentious and disruptive force here. IronDuke 00:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Ban. Edits that are too anti-Israeli are not welcomed nor are the editors who write them. A little anti-Israeli stuff is expected just as a little anti-Bush stuff is expected. Head of Security for the World (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The editor's personal politics are irrelevant. If a pro-Israeli editor had a similar history and dodged scrutiny on a series of IP addresses and threatened to create a sock account, the community would respond the same way. Durova³⁹⁰ 02:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

The Rev

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

---

Resolved

 – Not an administrator issue. Take to Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. tedder (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Rev, the drummer for the band Avenged Sevenfold, died recently. While this is tragic and sad, his article is a mess at the moment due to the sudden attention. Could some helpful administrators or autoconfirmed people do something about this article and keep an eye on it? I can't, since the page is semi protected. 98.66.193.52 (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Harrassment III

My stalker is back, as 166.205.137.235. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin Secret

Resolved

 – ArbCom is aware of the issue and a resolution will be forthcoming. –xeno^talk 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure as to the relevant issues but Admin Secret seems to have health issues and his family have posted User:Secret a message on his userpage. Perhaps it is in need of some action or confirmation.Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hrm... Emergency desysop I think... –xeno^talk 18:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the message from the cousin (which imo provides too much detail) and replaced it with a generic wikibreak template and notified arbcom-l of the situation. –xeno^talk 19:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, the account could be compromised and anyway if it is correct he will not be needing his admin status for a while. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your report. –xeno^talk 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Secret (talk · contribs) has been temporarily desysopped because of concerns that the account may be compromised. This was done under emergency procedures and was certified by Arbitrators Risker, FloNight and Roger Davies.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 20:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate change discretionary sanctions proposal

The climate change dispute is currently at arbitration, but I figured that as a community we could solve this dispute ourselves by imposing the discretionary sanctions to the topic area. I've taken the usual wording from the Arbitration Committee here and I suspect that this would give administrators more leeway when dealing with disputes arising from this area. The community sanction would be as follows;

Wording

The Climate change article, and parts of any other articles that are substantially about climate change, are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Discretionary sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an affected article if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this discussion; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia’s communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeal of discretionary sanctions

Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this community decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, or the appropriate noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Talk:Climate change/sanctions.

Hopefully this would really help in the area without the need for a long, drawn out case. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording 2

Pages related to Climate change (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation:

• Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
  • Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the climate change pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).
• Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.
• Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so.
• All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log of sanctions.

Discussion

• I think this is a great chance to encourage more administrators to act in this area of editing which can be quite contentious, and on which there are frequent brawls, edit wars, sock puppeting, and use of talk pages and articles for advocacy. I encourage all uninvolved administrators to support this proposal. --TS 01:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Blocks of up to one year? Should it not be topic bans of up to one year? Or at least a choice between the two?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• I see a serious problem here. A large part of the disruption comes from a neverending series of socks, many by one, but several by other sockmasters. Some are easier to recognize, some harder. All are discarded when identified. Such socks don't care about warnings or blocks, naturally. The proposed simple model would hence put serious editors under an additional disadvantage compared to the sock flood. If a suitable solution to this problem can be found, this might be a step in the right direction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Surely this would allow admins to place protections and/or page bans on articles as soon as socks seem to appear - it's basically here to give more clout to admins who work in the area, and may encourage more administrators to work here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    • This adds nothing as far as I can see. The Scibaby socks are summarily blocked indefinitely already, what more can this add? This only adds fuel to the sockpuppet fires. --GoRight (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think this is an excellent idea. I'm sure you've already thought of this, but perhaps you should adopt the model that was used (very successfully, as far as I'm aware) for Barack Obama-related articles? See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. You could probably copy and paste that page almost verbatim. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • That is very similar to my wording, but it could be simpler and thus more effective. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Added wording two taken from the Obama sanction. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I think that wording works better. Simplicity and directness are always better, I feel. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
        • I think wording 2 is preferable for two reasons: it's tighter and more digestible, and it's been tested in the field. --TS 03:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
          • I have changed one instance of "Obama" to "climate change" in the proposed "Wording 2" section above. Perhaps the Obama restrictions have worked well, but we do need to adapt them minimally to the present situation. — æk^Talk 04:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I do think the sanctions ought to recognise the specific problems of sockery. Editors should be expected to file a proper sock report, and once somebody has done that administrators should take account of this. The question of whether good faith newbies are being inappropriately bitten by a particular editor (who for that reason should not be left to make reverts on his own sole judgement) can be made by an admin and appealed in the usual way. The point is that much of the mess is due to parties failing to extend good faith and engage in reasonable discussion, and that can be handled well by discretionary sanctions. --TS 01:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident proposed editing restrictions for some earlier discussion. Prodego ^talk 01:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• For the love of all things holy, yes. These pages have been in desperate need of administrative oversight for ages. I do share Stephan's concerns though. Semiprotection doesn't help because Scibaby (and some of the others) age their socks to get around semi. Tony's suggestion for formal sock reports becomes impractical when dealing with someone who has created over 500 socks. We need a streamlined process for that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree with that suggestion. The sock problem in this topic area is the worst I've ever seen on Wikipedia. How would you envisage a streamlined process working? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    • For a start we'd need a few admins who are familiar (or willing to become familiar) with the MO of the usual suspects. We'd also need a straightforward way of reopening cases for repeat offenders. The current WP:SPI is quite cumbersome in that regard. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

      Cumbersome? How much more streamlined can it get? The current reports simply list the suspects and the poster simply states "the usual reasons" and then the list gets checkusered. There are accounts being accused with a few as a single edit. --GoRight (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

      • That just means Wikipedia is a police force, not an encyclopedia. Just ban editing on the article for anyone with less than a years worth of edits. Head of Security for the World (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
        • While that idea would certainly keep out the swarms of ranting newbies that descend on the articles whenever a blog or Fox News throws them a fresh piece of red meat, sadly I suspect it would not be in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
          • But that doesn't address the POV-pushing from editors with over a year's worth of experience. I'm concerned that this might give these editors free reign to violate WP:NPOV at will. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
            • Agreed, POV-pushing from experienced editors is a problem. Having more admins looking in, with more freedom of action, should help to curb that. But that's a separate issue from the onslaught of sockpuppets. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Heaven's no, these articles are already a bastion of wikilawyering, WP:OWN, and meatpuppetry and this will simply make the problem much worse. I've noticed a couple admins will edit some global warming articles, staying away from others, while another admin will edit a different set of global warming articles, but then ban/use admin power in the articles the other admin is edit warring in - these regulations will increase this type of behavior and keep already badly balanced articles in the horrible shape they are in. If this "must" pass, then it should be made clear that an admin involved in one global warming article is involved in them all - skeptics are far more frequently banned/sanctioned over non-skeptics - the use of admin power in these articles is neither balanaced or fair. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Ryan's proposal is effectively a carbon copy of the regime already in place to manage Barack Obama-related articles. I'd suggest you have a read through Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation and the sub-pages to see how that has worked in practice. I might add that if sceptics are being sanctioned more frequently that is probably a reflection of more frequent disruptive behaviour on that side of the dispute. I've certainly not seen any non-sceptic counterpart to the rampant sockpuppetry being pursued by the likes of Scibaby, though admittedly the breadth of my experience in this topic area is very limited. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

    "I might add that if sceptics are being sanctioned more frequently that is probably a reflection of more frequent disruptive behaviour on that side of the dispute." - Did you have a straight face when you typed that? Just curious. The skeptics are fighting to bring balance to the currently POV status quo. Changing the status quo is by definition disruptive and vehemently resisted by the WP:OWNers of that status quo. Team AGW has no need to do anything other than stonewall any suggestion of change. Stonewalling has never been viewed as disruptive as far as I have seen. --GoRight (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

People like "SciBaby" come into existence when people (William Connolley specifically) ban them as sockpuppets, or tag team new editors until they get 3rred or worse. Besides, if AGW-advocates had socks there would be no way to find out - editors who are AGW skeptics seem to always be accused of sockpuppetry and get checkusered. How many AGW advocates have been checkusered? Anyway, skeptics are not more "disruptive" - they just tend to be newer and less experienced at gaming the system and provoking people into getting banned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If as you suggest there are people who are gaming the system, then this proposal to encourage more administrator involvement will help to address that problem. --TS 03:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

More admins simply mean more marks for the gamers - these people have been doing this for many years now and do it well. The solution is less admin involvement, not more - I'm a free market kind of guy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So you propose a free-for-all? Or do you just propose that the current situation (in which you claim longstanding abuse of Wikipedia by regular editors continues) should continue? --TS 03:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A free for all is more preferable than having one side with their hands handcuffed behind their back. If past observations are any indicator the rules will be strictly enforced for one side while the other side will be able to do whatever they want. The only way this could possibly change is with at least 1-3 very good admins with the sense and the balls to apply the rules equally or through less admin interference. I'm quite skeptical of the former happening since any admin volunteers for this will either be masochistic or biased. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

TGL: I'm pretty sure less admin involvement is not the answer here. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And I would suggest that characterising admins as "marks" is not exactly doing justice to the admin community. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, calling them "marks" seems a dang sight better than calling them "meatpuppets" which is what Team AGW did to Tedder. --GoRight (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps this side discussion is in danger of becoming a recapitulation of the Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee discussions on various talk pages, so I suggest we leave it there. We've all had our say and Thegoodlocust has clarified his point as I requested. --TS 03:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I support either the first or the second wording. Neither is perfect but both are better than what we have now, which is too chaotic. As for combatting socks, if SPI used the normal way is too cumbersome maybe we need to keep an SPI page open for Scibaby (and similarly for other repeated sockers) and not close it but just let reports pile up and CUs deal with it on an ongoing basis. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with lar. Prodego ^talk 03:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• A question: many of the issues I've seen personally have been a combination of behavioural and content issues - for instance, editors repeatedly adding unsourced personal commentary to articles. Are these proposed sanctions meant to deal with content issues or just behavioural ones? So for instance, if someone repeatedly violated BLP or NPOV on an article, would that be actionable? -- ChrisO (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That is actually one of my bigger concerns. NPOV claims are subjective, which makes enforcement more open to interpretation and therefore bias/manipulation. :*[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is a case in point: an editor is repeatedly deleting a cited summary and replacing it with uncited personal commentary on completely bogus grounds (apparently the police and a major university aren't reliable sources, who knew?). This is the kind of behaviour - completely ignoring prohibitions on original research and lack of verifiability - that needs to be penalised. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Please. Edit-warring & editing against consensus, incivility and a disregard for BLP are all problems that we need to shut down, Guettarda (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• More admin intervention would be good, but it must be informed. This debate is about global warming related articles (of which climate change is one, but that particular article is relatively uncontroversial) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Thegoodlocust

Okay, if admin interference must be implemented then here is my proposed solution and it is far easier to implement and will be far more effective. Topic ban anyone who makes more than 100 (200-500, or whatever we decide on) article edits to global warming related articles. The articles will be just fine, it'll calm things down, and make the articles more welcoming for new input and eyes. Nothing could be more fair than that. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That would have the effect of getting rid of all of the experienced editors and turning the field over completely to newbies and socks. I can't see that working. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The experienced editors are a problem and have been for years. They may have gotten better at hiding it, those who've studied criminology know older criminals are less likely to be caught, but the problems they cause continue and will continue until they either quit obsessing over the subject or are made to quit obsessing over it - in fact, it'd probably be doing them an enormous personal service. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If, as Thegoodlocust has suggested at 02:39, banning only encourages socking, this proposal if implemented would pose a further temptation to socking. --TS 03:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I said "if admin interference must be implemented." The only difference is that this would be applied equally, people would know about it, and it would be intrinsically fair and less likely to inflame passions on the subject. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd add, from a technical point of view we could do 'enhanced' semi-protection like this, obviously these criteria wouldn't be a great idea. But if you wanted to say, protect a page from editing by anyone with less than 500 edits, or who registered less than 3 months ago, you could do that with the AbuseFilter. You could also do editing rate limits on a group of articles, as well as some other things. I'm not sure that would be the best way to fix this situation though, unless semiprotection combined with strict edit warring rules were to fail. However, best to keep all options on the table. Prodego ^talk 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to restrict to experienced admins (old accounts), but only those with less than a certain # of edits to such articles? That sort of compromise might be ideal. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, and as outlined above, that is a bad idea anyway. Prodego ^talk 04:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a really bad idea. Since this is a technical subject (or the science is, at any rate), we'd be banning everyone who actually knows what they're talking about. This is doubly bad here because once implemented, the scokpuppets (who necessarily have few edits) would rule. So then once the admins interfered, they'd be letting loose a storm of sockpuppetry. Yowzers. Awickert (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, which is why we aren't going to do any of the things TheGoodLocust suggests. Lets get back to the restrictions proposed above please. Prodego ^talk 04:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you concerned that you'd be banned from the articles? I might, I'm not as proflic, but I wouldn't really care since I think such a policy would be for the greater good. Besides, if only experienced editors could edit the articles then that'd cut down on sockpuppet use. This reminds me of the whole Social Security situation, it is going bankrupt, but nobody wants to do what is necessary to stop the system from collapsing because a vocal minority would get upset at the only solutions. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not so concerned for myself, and due to the ECx4, I was still actually replying about the <X edits - sorry for the confusion. I wouldn't mind only allowing selected editors to edit post-admin-intervention. That would allow the real editors to deal with the dispute without sockpuppets and SPA-vandals sabotaging everything. Prodego's "accounts <X days old" suggestion might do a good part of the trick. Awickert (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea of a "accounts <X days old" restriction has its attractions - it would raise the bar for the sockpuppets and would reduce the number of disruptive new users - but it wouldn't do anything to tackle the disruptive established users. They are probably the bigger part of the problem. Absent an Arbcom ruling cutting a swathe through the SPAs, we're probably stuck with them for the time being (or at least until they cross the line). -- ChrisO (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> How would the "real editors" be selected? How would "single purpose" be defined? I have no problem with the proposals if they are implemented fairly and evenly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The "real editors" would be difficult to define. SPA-vandals could be prevented from editing via a ">X day old account" rule. Not perfect, certainly, and I actually am unconvinced of what I am saying, so perhaps this is not the route to take... Awickert (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd think a more accurate way of identifying SPAs would be by the proportion of global warming articles edited compared to non-global warming articles. The only question would be what % defines a SPA? Over 50%? 75%? The attractive part of this, assuming fair application, is that it'd dampen extremism a bit. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust, This is the best (only?) good idea I've seen to reduce the tag-teaming and socks. tedder (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks fellow Oregonian (Vote no on 66/67! :)). TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I'm all for reducing vandalism where possible, the proposals of only admins, people with 500 edits, >3 months, etc are all unreasonable to apply to dozens of articles. It's contrary to the purpose of the encyclopedia. Oren0 (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, but I'd say right now that SPAs are making it, in a de facto manner, impossible for anyone else to really edit those articles. I think it comes down to either letting the SPAs continue their reign or making the articles more welcoming to other people. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Easy to game. You just do a few minor typo corrections. If it is over 50% for example, you search for an obvious typo, fix it, then do your edit on the main page. Or you start chipping in on AFDs/Talk page RFCs etc etc etc. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by GoRight

Well if we're thinking out of the box on things that aren't going to see the light of day, how about 1 edit per person per article per calendar day (as opposed to per 24 hours like 3RR)? That would cut down the edit warring and article churn AND it's trivial to enforce. --GoRight (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. Plus 1 on each of the talk pages as well. --GoRight (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I think a lot of things could help if implemented correctly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your PS though - I don't think conversation should be stifled - esp. not to that degree. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Which time-zone, though? UTC? Sceptre ^(talk) 06:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I vote for Martian (UTC+4387.62) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, how about automatic checkuser for every new editor that shows up to edit climate change articles out of the blue with full knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and dispute resolution procedures, and no known learning curve? I estimate that at the current rate, this would require at least 30 checkuser requests per month. Want an example? Adam.T.Historian (talk · contribs). This guy shows up on December 30, makes 62 edits to date, 39 of which are made to Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. What about Gunnanmon (talk · contribs). User shows up on December 30, and makes 12 edits on the same talk page. Guess which two editors suddenly became friends?[32] Even more interesting is how the Adam.T.Historian account is being used as an expert vote wrangler, straight outta the box.[33] All starting with this. The likelihood that this is a new user is close to nill. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, checkuser would be better than banning users based on as little as a single edit per "WP:DUCK." In my opinion scibaby is a scapegoat that was created just so people can ban certain users on site, which has resulted in massive IP range blocks, many people being falsely accused and/or blocked. I'm not even sure if it's possible to calculate how many legitimate users and donors that have been aborted by the entire "scibaby" affair. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any example of a user being banned based on a single edit per WP:DUCK? If yes, please tell us. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No. GR is a SPA; if you want to see whether he is serious about improving wiki or just causing disruption, then his attempt to enable wiki-lawyering by User:Abd is instructive William M. Connolley (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Avast, me hearties!

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

---

Resolved

 – There are better places for silliness. Congrats, Ironholds, on cleaning up Newpages. Other editors, feel free to pile on at User talk:Ironholds. tedder (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I, the glorious buccaneer Ironholds, and some scurvy sea-dog, have sailed the high seas of Special:Newpages and relieved it of its loot!

Now if you excuse me, I'm going to imbibe copious amounts of alcohol and fall over. Happy New Years Eve, everybody :). Ironholds (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor form. You shouldn't take JPG screenshots of webpages. PNG's better for that :p Sceptre ^(talk) 04:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Eww... Windows Media Player. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh No! Wikipedia is dying! No new pages are being created! All the predictions were true! The sky is falling! ...

I hold Ironholds and Tim Song responsible. I propose they be banned for the rest of the year. All in support, vote below. Abecedare (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban. Abecedare (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. His multiple featured and good articles, along with the triple-figures of DYKs, make me, a simple anti-vandalism campaigner, sick. Also he's like 12. Ironholds (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Block everyone so that Special:Newpages always looks like that. Nick-D (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support just so we can give Ironholds a life. =) Aditya Ex Machina 04:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Timotheus Canens (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support site ban for putting half of the Newpages patrollers out of a job for a month, and for not having a life. ;) The Thing _{Merry Christmas} 04:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Great work. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 05:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support site ban. As mentioned on his talk page, I am now bored, and it's his fault. He is interrupting my Wikipedia experience. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support banination - has clearly lied to us all! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Kissle doesn't patrol redirects. Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I think he should be blocked. Take a look at his edit history and you can see that he is nominating articles for deletion faster than any human being can read them. Obviously he is not exercising anything that might be considered "judgment". Apparently he thinks that Wikipedia is some kind of first-person shooter game, and the above comments by him demonstrate that he's more interested in making high score or executing some kind of clean-sweep, and doesn't really give a damn whether his actions are constructive as long as they are earth-scorchingly thorough. When an anon vandal goes on a disruptive editing spree like this, you take action. When it's one of your cabal....? - Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Did the new pages database really crash? If so, I wonder why Ironholds brought it up. Schfifty3 05:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, he did a very significant amount of work in legitimately cleaning out the queue. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If he's getting them right, then I'm not sure what the big deal is. I looked and didn't see anything that stood out at me as being horrible. I mean, we all make a mistake every once in a while, but think about the number of pages he patrolled vs. how many mistakes are made. The fact that there's no backlog means that a much closer eye can be placed on new pages now. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Launching personal attacks is blockable, too. –MuZemike 05:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Jason, you removed a comment in your edit. Please be more careful in the future with regards to that (I've fixed it though). Calling for a serious block is nonsense.

@Schfifty: The database didn't crash, Ironholds cleared out the backlog of pages needing to be patrolled. Killiondude (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@ JasonAQuest: What? If this were true, do you think he would be getting barnstars and praise, from nearly everybody else, for clearing a massive backlog?

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

--The Thing _{Merry Christmas} 05:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Judging from the number of redlinks in his contribution history and the reasons he's putting forth for PROD's and AFD's I'd say you're dead wrong about him not exercising any judgement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Killiondude - Thanks for clarifying! I also am wondering why users are supporting a block/ban. It closely reminds me of WP:EFD... Schfifty3 05:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is "we were bored" a good enough reason? Ironholds (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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