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

More eyes please.

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair - MfD of User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair - MfD of User:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair (which is merely a copy of the first page)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 26 - DRV which only lists the copy's talk page

(While noticeboards like WP:AN are specifically noted at WP:CANVASS, it still may be considered that this is not a "neutral" notice. To that, my response is: "shrugs". Even were I to do a Barnum-esque '"Come one, come all - vote the way I want you to", I highly doubt that that's in any way going to affect how people are going to choose to comment.)

This all seems a mess given the circumstances. I'd like some more eyes on all of this.

I can do a quick chronology, if you'd all like, though it's been explained several times on my talk page (User talk:jc37#Closure) and at the DRV.

Apparently (before I was aware of any of this), On 9 November, Giacomo created User:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair. Which I see now apparently had it's own MfD on the 9th, though it was withdrawn the same day.

Looking over the page histories, it would seem that about 2 hours after Giacomo created that page, though an hour before the MfD of it, User:Demiurge1000 created User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair. (For clarity, referring to that as the DU2 page and DU2 talk page.)

On the 14th, Giacomo copied the DU2 page and DU2 talk page to: User:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair and User:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair, respectively. (GR2 page and GR2 talk page - again, for clarity.) He later stated that he did so because he felt that the DU2 page and talk page would be deleted. Presumably due to User:Alpha Quadrant posting a request for a speedy deletion on the DU2 page.

Alpha Quadrant then listed both DU2 and GR2 at MfD. (MfD of DR2 and MfD of GR2)

This is where I come in.

User:SmokeyJoe posted a note to WT:MFD that there was a backlog. I noticed that note on my watchlist, and so went to help out. (As an aside - and I think I'll be starting a discussion about this elsewhere - the "separate page" process of MfD stinks, in my not so humble opinion. It may be useful in many instances for AfD, due to discussion lengths, but the discussions at MfD don't appear to be any longer than typical at CFD. and the daily log system there works rather well, making commenting and closing much easier. And imo, part of the subsequent confusion here might have been avoided.)

So I started in at the bottom and started working my way up, eventually closing both MfDs

And closed the 2 MfDs as supporting the G10. (Though I might say that - due to this being a cleanup of a backlog, this wasn't exactly "speedy".)

Initial follow-up explanation of the close is on my talk page, with further clarification at the DRV.

Also, I salted both deletions, immediately following closing both MFDs (and noted there), due to this.

A few things I'll note:

• Giacomo has been taunting, threatening, and so on, towards me. I don't care. I think at this stage it's ignorable, so please no one think about blocking him on my account, at least. (preventative and not punitive, and all that...) Normally, I'd think this goes without saying, but this has ben an interesting several days. Also, I won't attempt to guess at his motivations in all of this, but at face value at least, it's mostly the suggestion that this is all part of a white-wash campaign to protect certain arbitrators in some way.

• The DRV is a mess. For one thing, only the talkpage of GR2 was listed, while I would presume that we would want an airing/discussion of all of it. (Which, I might suggest, is partly the fault of the separate listing "process" at MfD.) And because of that, it's been more than a little confusing as to which page is being referred to by commenters. (See the DRV for examples.) To be clear, when I refer to "the original page" there, I am talking about DU2, and "the copy" is GR2.

• Another reason I would like more eyes on this is because I feel that there is are some decided questions emerging from the DRV, including:
  • a.) whether fear of on-wiki drama should be a reason to not do what we would normally do.
  • b.) whether disparagement through humour should be considered disparaging, and thus G10-able.
  • c.) whether this should apply to the userspace of an active editor. (Does WP:BLPTALK, apply?)
  • d.) whether WP:IAR should be cited due to the assertion that this (the talk page at least), may be seen as tangently related to the recent events regarding User:Rlevse.

Needless to say, I strongly oppose "a". Any sort of fear tactics or attempts at bullying, even if seemingly passive, should always be denied, and never considered acceptable or appropriate.

And I am currently neutral on "d" - I'm honestly not sure. Though I do question how close to the events this page should be considered.

Thanks in advance for your (plural) thoughts on this. - jc37

---

DU2 restoration

(If wanted, this part could be split to a separate section.)

I also would like more eyes on my decision to restore DU2 temporarily for the elections.

This diff shows giacomo adding a question linking to the talk page of DU2 on the 22nd. (noting that the GR2 copy was made on the 14th, and the MfD of each was on the 15th.)

Due to this, following the MfD closure, User:Jehochman requested that the page be undeleted for transparency during the elections.

I did. (For the reasons noted on my talk page - User talk:jc37#Closure.)

But, I am concerned that this may be somehow gaming the system.

If this is just: "I'll ask a question to an arb, in the hopes of getting a page I want kept, restored".

I dunno if it is, but I'm leery of us setting any sort of precedent in that direction.

I'm also wondering if merely restoring the talk page of DU2 would be enough for the purposes of transparency, or if the main page of DU2 is needed for context. I deferred to the latter in restoring it, choosing to err on the side of transparency.

Thanks in advance for your (plural) thoughts on this. - jc37

Adding time stamp. It's true Giano can be an ass, but the issues this thread raises appear to have been resolved roughly two weeks ago. It's time to archive this and move on... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected image on the Main Page Part X

Not to be confused with Cod throwing.

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.

To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

for letting File:Flag of Singapore.svg reach the main page unprotected. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No need. It's already protected, just not locally. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats because it was left unprotected for 35 minutes before I found someone to protect it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else but me feel like going for sushi all of a sudden? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Trout makes lousy sushi. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest a nice backyard grill-out but it's effing cold here - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Beta (or delta), your bot seems to be flawed; File:Royal Avenue Belfast2.jpg was unprotected on the Main Page for more than an hour. Also, why doesn't your script alert humans before the image hits the Main Page? Let's try to be proactive instead of reactive. Shubinator (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I wish you would have pointed that out then, I cannot for the life of me figure out why the bot did not detect that. If your on IRC its easy to check, I run a IRC bot that alerts people. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that MPUploadBot did detect that it should be protected, and the log says it was. Yet for some unknown reason, it appears the upload failed. I'll have to look into this. (X! · talk)  · @560  ·  12:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Does cascading protection not effect files?— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not if thr file is on commons. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Amazon have added Wikipedia into their site

I do not know if anyone has seen this [1] but Amazon.com has incorporated Wikipedia [2]. This will hopefully be good for both organizations. Is there any direct collaboration going on? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a marketing technique to me. Not sure if this is going to help or hurt both in long run. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

So Amazon is going to host copyright violations of the books they're trying to sell. That's novel. :) --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Just... why? I can't see how this helps with shopping. You can't search it, and you can't add the International Space Station to your basket. Useless. --Dorsal Axe 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a no lose move for Amazon, this certainly won't decrease their sales and could well just increase them, all at no cost to Amazon. E. Fokker (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, visitors could get fascinated by the never-ending content and never get to shopping. Especially with no search function! Yworo (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• There's no direct collaboration; WMF didn't know about it until it was announced. They're using a database dump, presumably. Shimgray | talk | 20:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, here come even more spammy articles about non-notable authors and their non-notable books when publishers adjust to this. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, might be a career opening there. Where do I apply? Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Here presumably. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Get a job in a publishers marketing department or advertising agency ;) Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that I haven't already got one? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The wiki is awaiting your writing here, Jmh649. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What?!?! To me, it looks like Amazon.com has finally flipped their lid wide open and gone off the deep end. :-D<L.O.L.) Amazon's copy of Wikipedia is nearly ridiculous, because if someone is reading an article on [the real] Wikipedia abou something he/she wants to buy, all he/she has to do is go to either Amazon.com or eBay and just buy it! And that is exactly why Amazon copying Wikipedia into their website is so nearly absurd. Next thing we know, eBay will be following in Amazon's footsteps next. :-D<L.O.L.) --[|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I love Amazon :D -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm curious about how eBay is going to respond.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what Amazon really expects from doing this, except huge laughs from us at Wikipedia. :-D (And the laughing urge is building up within me as I look at this, but for some reason it just will not come out. :-D{L.O.L.)) Being that Amazon and eBay are probably arch rivals, who knows what to expect from eBay because of this. :-D Of course, a lot of people know about this original, real Wikipedia, so I wonder how many people will find Amazon's Wikipedia copy, and how people will respond about such a not-too-extremely-user-friendly (as its missing the number one most important part of such a website--the search box! :-P) Wikipedia copy, like Amazon has made. ;-) Regards. --[|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 09:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I just looked at that CNET news article on this, linked to above, and now I think I may be getting the picture now on what Amazon is trying to do, :-) but I still do not see how too many people are going to find their Wikipedia page copies outside of Amazon.com, ;-) and even further with the search functions missing. :-D{L.O.L.) Regards. --[|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 09:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The real stinker about Amazon's Wikipedia pages, is that all redirect pages redirect to the real Wikipedia, instead of Amazon's Wikipedia pages! X-D<L.O.L.) Regards. --[|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 07:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Admin attention needed at Talk:September 11 attacks

There is an ongoing active disruption at Talk:September 11 attacks by an extremely persistent sockpuppeteer and conspiracy theorist, who appears to be User:Freedom5000. Yesterday, the talk page had to be semi-protected for several hours (there was a major disruption, see the page history log), but today he is back again. Either the page needs to be semi-protected again or an admin (or several admins) need to chaperone the page for a bit and keep blocking the socks to see if that helps. Maybe some rangeblocks could be explored as well. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

174.89.55.48/24 could a start Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The IPs that I found were 174.89.48.0/20 and 76.68.52.0/24 which I blocked previously. Given that accounts have been used, I cannot completely verify whether the accounts used these ranges or not. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Subtemplates of Template RussiaAdmMunRef

Are all the templates at Category:Subtemplates of Template RussiaAdmMunRef really needed? It looks like many templates are used only in one page (transcluded into the reference section) and many templates have their own redirect. Is there really a relationship beween the text in the article and the transcluded references? If not, it would be difficult for an editor to revise the references in any one article since they are transcluded and perhaps transcluded into two or more pages. Also, would would be the purpose of a redirect to a template transcluded onto one page as the reference material for that page? Perhaps the transcluded reference templates for the RussiaAdmMunRef scheme, including Category:Subtemplates of Template RussiaBasicLawRef should be substituted, if the template is only used on one page. -- 14:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzma Gamal (talk • contribs)

There's nothing an admin can do here, unless you go to TfD. I would, however, ask the creator of the subtemplates first, to see how it is supposed to work. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

sitenotice?

dunno the best spot to note this - but I think '• Voting to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee will close at 2359 UTC today. [dismiss]' is out of date now? Privatemusings (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Removed [3] - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about censored quotes...

...such as here

Now, of course, in most national publications, if someone swears, they censor it, but do we?

That is, if the quote censors the word, do we censor it as well because that's the way it was quoted? HalfShadow 03:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Privatemusings (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)that is to say, I think it's best that we just repeat the info. from the source :-)

I don't really mind one way or the other, it's just a bit of a grey area, you know? We're not censored, but the quote is; what do we do? HalfShadow 04:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is really quite interesting. When he said it, I assume there was no BLEEEEEP so he wasn't censored at that time. But we use the sources, which do censor it. So I think it doesn't hurt to censor it, because we're quoting sources, not him directly. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur: we don't censor, but we don't UN-censor, either. The direct quote is to be used exactly as it appears in the RS. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit summary has it correct. No matter how obvious the word is filling in the blanks is WP:OR. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 07:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maer_Roshan#Radar.2C_Radaronline

Maer Roshan - please assist with edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emetemet13 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place for a minor edit dispute. Talk to the user who you are having issues with. If this isn't a dispute, then you need to tell us what to assist with. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

{{{Allmusic}}, Editprotedted-Request

Resolved

Could someone work on this request? The sandbox version has to be copied to actual template. I will continue migrating external links to allmusic, there are about 70000 pages left that will be migrated using template. Now there are only about 6000 tpl usages and it would be better to do the template edit now before bot continues cause the cache becomes unnecessarily bigger. Regards --Cactus26 (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Request to delete duplicate images in Wikipedia

Hi, would someone please delete the following images. These images already have duplicates in Commons.

These were uploaded in both places by User:Konkani Manis, and have received OTRS tickets on Commons.

Check the following link for the list of images uploaded on Commons.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Konkani_Manis

These are their duplicates in Wikipedia:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VJP_Saldanha.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karnadsadashivrao.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kamaladevi_Chattopadhyaya.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jagannath_Shankerseth.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DinakaraDesai.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blasius_D'souza.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Benegal_Narasing_Rao.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ammembal_Subba_Rao_Pai.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ravindra_Kelekar.jpg

Thanks. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 09:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. — Edokter • Talk • 12:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of inappropriate language by User:Ibn.Kathir

Moved to WP:ANI § Use of inappropriate language by User:Ibn.Kathir

 – GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Adélie Penguin

 Done Can someone move Adelie Penguin to Adélie Penguin? I tagged the page hours ago for G6 but ain't nobody touching it. So much for "speedy" deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There's an old page move discussion on the talk page that closed as "no consensus", so this is probably not an uncontroversial request. Mind you, I would support such a move, I just don't think it's a speedy candidate. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing a talk page

Please assist Can someone go to Talk:Florida_State_Board_of_Administration and add {{WikiProject Florida}}? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done - KrakatoaKatie 01:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Round two

Please see Talk:Michigan_Occupational_Safety_and_Health_Administration and add {{WikiProject Michigan}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Open proxy

Apparently 208.87.234.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a WebSense proxy (WHOIS resolves to SurfControl). Just saying. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposing article ban on Ronda2001

Apologies if this is in the wrong please, but Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement appears to be for requesting enforcement of existing sanctions not proposing discretionary sanctions.

Ronda2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disruptive on Lebanese Civil War, which is under a 1RR restriction under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. He was blocked for violating the 1RR restriction to try and keep his preferred version, which most people agree is a one-sided point-of-view nightmare. The block was then extended for evading it using an IP sockpuppet. With his first edit back from his block he reverted to his preferred version, and was warned about discretionary sanctions. Despite this, with his second edit back from his block he has reverted to his preferred version. Obviously slow motion edit warring is not helpful either, so another approach is needed.

A block would probably not work, other than indefinite one, since we will be back in the same situation once the block expires. It is too early for an indefinite block in my opinion though. A topic ban would amount to an indefinite block also. Therefore I am proposing that Ronda2001 is banned from editing the article, for an amount of time yet to be decided. He would still be welcome to propose changes on the article's talk page, according to his posts he does have access to apparently excellent sources. I think this would be the best way for Ronda2001 to learn how things work round here.

Someone please move this to the appropriate venue if this is wrong, or to write up a proposed sanction in a more conventional manner. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)