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

Self-reverting and topic bans

It is my understanding that when a user violates 3RR or 1RR, and self-reverts immediately, it is treated as a good-faithed mistake and gives no reason to block (or report). What about a situation where a user under a topic ban violates it, then immediately self-reverts? Could and should we treat it is a topic ban violation (punishd by a block), or is the self-revert enough to treat it as a good-faithed mistake with no action required? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I consider self reverts which are timely and unilateral to be not normally counted toward 3RR (or less where agreed) or topic bans unless they are obviously part of a disruptive pattern. If an editor is topic banned I may also consider a self reverted edit to the main article to be disruptive, unlike to an article which may be considered peripheral to the ban - the topic banned editor should know that they cannot edit one of the main pages. Except for fairly obvious gaming of restrictions it is likely less disruptive not to enforce any self reverted violation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

An occasional slip-up followed by an immediate self-revert is likely OK. If, however, a user is doing this dozens or hundreds of times, something is up... --Jayron32 22:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both of the above. This (last thread on the page) is a recent case of an editor self-reverting to game the system and copping a firm sanction. It all depends on the circumstances.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Use common sense" is the essence of IAR, is it not? Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with everyone above. Self-reverts can be used to cure unintentional xRR or topic ban violations; knowingly violating a xRR rule or a topic ban is always blockable. One particularly clear example of the latter is this case. T. Canens (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree.  Sandstein  20:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

How does one "Accidentally" violate a topic ban? I was just reading that page and my mouse slipped and hit the edit button. Then I tripped and as I was falling I hit the keyboard and typed all that content. As I struggled to my feet I was pawing at the desk and the mouse came down and hit save.--Crossmr (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

↑ Best conjecture ever – Athaenara ✉ 05:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If one is topic banned from the area of edit conflict A/B because of partisan editing to the B aspect, it might be possible to edit article Z in good faith without initially realising its connection to A? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC) ps. I would thank you not to advertise my content editing method, either.

How about accidentally hitting a rollback button instead of a diff on a watchlist? I know I do it every few months, at the very least :) Or how about when you are doing some wikignoming, like AutoEd or article quality assessment on a new article feed or a category, and around article 250 you realize that one of those you just did might have intersected with the blurry boundary of a poorly-defined topic ban? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between accidentally clicking two buttons side-by-side and banging out content on an article you're banned from. I would say the onus is on the person who is topic banned to be fully aware of the articles they're banned from and if anything is fuzzy seek clarification before editing a particular article. Other than vandalism there is nothing that is an emergency that requires they edit it that moment if there is any ambiguity.--Crossmr (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested edits

Please help Can someone create Talk:Academy_of_Public_Administration_(Belarus) and add {{WikiProject Belarus}}? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Help closing a discussion

Resolved

--Mike Cline (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there "a technically-competent, fair-minded administrator who hasn't been previously involved with Ahnentafels or genealogy" who can help close the discussion on Template talk:Ahnentafel top/Requested Comments 1? It's been going on for five months and there is no more new opinion to be made on this issue.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Buckshot06

Administrator:Buckshot06 acted one sidedly, and deleted Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, Garadaghly Massacre, Agdaban massacre without contributing ongoing discussion. It clearly shows his poor dispute resolution abilities. He should simply stay away ethnic conflict and war crimes related pages.--CenkX (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The proper place to address this is WP:DRV. You could also take up the matter with the administrator on their talk page. --Jayron32 06:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, reviewing the deleted articles, it does appear that they were deleted out of process. I have notified Buckshot06 of this discussion. It still may be better to take this to WP:DRV, but since this is here, lets see what their response it. --Jayron32 06:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. The discussion and the original issue can be viewed at User talk:Buckshot06#New section, including the original request by User:MarshallBagramyan. The question at issue was whether the articles asserted that the massacres did take place without any question, or, whether they should reflect ambiguity over whether the incidents had taken place in the manner described. Not being able to read all the language refs provided (I don't speak Azeri or Armenian), I had to follow the English and what I could of the Russian, and decided that the articles did in fact posit the events had taken place, while they should have only been describing allegations. Therefore, I decided to delete the articles in accordance with WP:IAR so that better redrafting could take place.

Since then I've been attacked by what appear to be a number of nationalistic POV-pushers. Yet they do have a point; I probably should have sent the articles to a deletion debate instead. I would welcome attacks over potential misuse of process, but I am annoyed by those who imply a New Zealander is taking the 'wrong' view in a Azeri-Armenian dispute. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I'm not nationalist, I intend to attack nobody. Please stop trying to make ridiculous excuses. It doesn't matter where you are from, you're an administrator here. Keep this in your mind when you take part in discussions. I seriously demand banning of Buckshot from ethnic related issues.--CenkX (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I seriously demand banning of Buckshot from ethnic related issues. Pedantic comments like this don't seem to help out at all. Being upset with edits is one thing, but to call for a summary banning of an administrator seems to show that the same restraint and understanding that the above user is demanding for does not apply to those who he interacts with. Just to add my two cents: while I do not wish to comment on Buckshot's actions, the sources he was looking at most probably did not inspire much confidence in their reliability. When almost every single source was originating from one side and presenting it in such a slanted manner and making non-academic and liberal use of the words "Armenian terrorists" (e.g., here) and republishing century-old racist tracts ("Armenians' morbid ambitions and vanity", etc.), one clearly sees why the articles were deleted in the first place.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Marshall, excuse my tone, but we are not discussing my personality here. You say you don't wish to comment Buckshot's actions, then I kindly suggest you not to write here. Because here, I put his objectivity in question, his ability to bear administrator's responsibilities. Although the source I added to article was Human Watch report, a full English, reliable source, edited in US, I do not wish to discuss it now. Nor I want to discuss Azerigenocide.org's words, cause the article is deleted. --CenkX (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Given how sensitive the topic of Azerbaijani-Armenian issues is and the fact that the articles concerned many living people, I think that Buckshot06's decision to get the articles off Wikipedia after making an assessment of their content based on the sources provided was the right one, particularly as the articles in effect identified (presumably) living individuals as being responsible for war crimes. If the articles weren't adequately supported by their sources and contained negative information about living people they needed to have been extensively re-written before they were suitable, and deletion pending this seems within the rules. I'd suggest that rather than AfD, posting a notification here of this unusual action and asking for other admins to have review the deletions would have been the best option. Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Nick-D - we have restrictions on topics in this ethnic neighbourhood which, while unrelated to this spat, show how volatile the situation is. The comments by CenkX are well beyond the level of civility that we require on Wikipedia. It's one thing to request a review of an action, but his commentary in this section is a pretty disgusting way of trying to make a very poor WP:POINT. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The user CenkX was correct in notifying the board about Buckshot's actions. I personally commend Buckshot's work in Wikipedia in a whole range of articles, however as an administrator he abused his rights and deleted those three artciles with complete disregard to the editors who were involved in the discussion of tags added to the articles at the time. He abused his rights because he deleted those articles out of personal sympathy to the user MarshallBagramyan. Look at his responses on my page and Atabey's page. Looks like he based his judgement on a single thought that User MarshallBagramyan had raised some article to a certain level (?) So? Look at my contributions to Wikipedia and raising many articles to various levels, including those on the conflict. Does that mean any administrator has to go on deleting other articles out of sympathy and affection to me?! Those articles have to be restored, at least because two of them are supported by sources by human rights organizations and experts in the conflict. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, without interfering into civility debate, User:Buckshot06's selective treatment of user edits based on his personal interaction/impression is rather concerning:

• [1]. Note what he says referring to the leading A-A case ArbComs participant User:MarshallBagramyan: I am reasonably convinced of his trustworthness in regard to these type of articles. Because I've had relatively little interaction with you, I have not gained the same perception..

So User:Buckshot06 is establishing as a fact (his personal) trustworthiness of one A-A contributor to question another even longer-established user as an administrator. And this was User:Buckshot06's way of judging whether to remove article or not as well. Based on this judgment, he chose to remove Agdaban massacre article while keeping silent about the removal of Maraghar Massacre. I think Wikipedia administrators need to act more along the lines of WP:NPOV without interfering much their "personal impressions". Atabəy (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, it's kind of a requirement for Admins to use their personal impressions when making judgement calls. Things aren't always black & white, so admins are called in to make a decision. When the facts themselves are in question, the reliability of the editor in question can sometimes be a helpful measure. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

...does this mean he went on a Massacre massacre? I regret nothing! HalfShadow 18:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well his "personal impression" of the contributor is his own business of course. But this does not seem quite neutral in case of articles Agdaban massacre vs. Maraghar Massacre. If he wants to remove massacre articles as not notable, then he should probably do that with other massacre articles that have questionable notability as well, not just those chosen by his "personal impression". Atabəy (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In my understanding, the task of the administrator is to administer disputes and once the disputes are resolved or mediated to be resolved, action can be taken. Otherwise, this looks like pretty dictatorial to completely disregard a few editors out of personal affection towards one editor without even commenting on pages of those articles. Personal affections and sympathies can be shared in private communications and should not affect the work of other editors. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Might I be as so bold to inform the administrators who are now somewhat familiar with this issue to an article which the above two editors seem to be making a POINT by carrying out objectionable edits and adding questionable tags in probable reaction to Buckshot's decision?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the administrators should also look into why Agdaban massacre article with over dozen references was removed by supportive administrator User:Buckshot06 based on suggestion of prominent A-A Arbcoms' participant User:MarshallBagramyan claiming the lack of notability. Why is that Maraghar Massacre or Kirovabad Pogrom did not cause similar notability concern for either the suggesting editor or removing administrator (unless because they were massacres in opposite direction)?

Moreover, after reviewing Maraghar Massacre, I not only found the lack of notability but a clear fabrication of wording and pages from cited sources in this article. I did not make a point but rather clarified the wording from the cited sources exactly as they are presented. I did not remove any single source that was there before, the administrators are welcome to check my edits and question them on talk page.

And I would kindly suggest User:MarshallBagramyan to do the same, providing proofs that this article is notable, instead of WP:CANVAS on the issue, as he has already done here, here, as well as in this thread. Atabəy (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So, you are admitting that your edits were done in retaliation for Buckshot's actions? I will turn to the Maragha Massacre article soon enough. And please re-read the definition of canvas - I have simply notified or been told to notify certain administrators who have some understanding of the issue. Your tacit admission for carrying out retaliatory edits would, in my mind, seem to be a concern for others, especially given the fact that you have been permabanned from editing several articles related to Armenia/Azerbaijan for some time now. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD could be possible. But according to Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, it is impossible to open these topics as independent articles. Takabeg (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot's rationale for deleted the Agdaban massacre article was criterion for speedy deletion (CSD) G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP, and not anything to do with notability. This is one of the articles in which he states above where the sources didn't support the claims being made. This discussion and the posts on Buckshot's talk page seems to be demonstrating how heated this topic is and why precautionary deletions of the articles were justified. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I should think this deletion would probably be overturned at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 12:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would be overturned. Nick-D, the articles were clearly deleted out of personal affection to editor MarshallBagramyan who proposed the deletion in the first place and Buckshot just followed up. If deletions were to occur, the administrator could at least comment on the talk pages and make suggestions or notifications, but that never happened, let alone propose the deletion as per Wikipedia rules. The deletions occured in one-sided manner with disregard to editors who were actually discussing the issue at hand on the talk pages of the articles. This is not about the sources. Sources did support the text of the article. The Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre and Garadaghly Massacre articles were supported by third party sources from human rights organizations and experts in the conflict. Even Buckshot understands that the deletions occured out of process. Here is his good faith comment [2]. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think DRV would make any such finding. It would overturn on procedural grounds.—S Marshall T/C 17:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick note about the banners

Just posting this here so that admins, who may be asked, are aware: Today, I had the fundraising banners disabled for logged in users. This was a data-driven decision: it became clear that those logged in users who wished to contribute already had, and those that hadn't yet probably knew how to. With that in mind, the banners are now running to anonymous users only. This state will continue until around January 1, when we'll turn them back on for everyone for the final push of the campaign. As always, more information is available at m:FR2010 or by emailing me directly (philippewikimedia.org). Thanks for your work, everyone.

Note: this decision only applies to users who are not in an area that is running chapter selected banners. Chapters control messaging within their areas, and some of them are continuing to use banners, as is their privilege. I know that they're all making smart decisions based on their financial needs. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Islamic views

Resolved

 – Closing and redirecting per discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin please take a quick look at User talk:Someone65, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Dealing with the articles of Islam, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Consents, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic view of Sarah and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic view of Cain and Abel. It's not as bad as all those links make it look and differences would not help except for this. Also the Islamic view of Elizabeth was PRODDED, removed, re-added and then removed. This is something that started out poorly but the two editors are discussing this in a civil manner and seem to have come to an agreement on what should be done. I think the AfD for Islamic view of Sarah could be closed but I'm a bit too involved to do it myself. Someone65 knows I'm posting here and I'll let Imadjafar know as well. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 11:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We have agreed to merge all the articles that include are based on hadith and not Quran. All the rest will be deleted; so stand by for a few more deletions. Someone65 (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hope you have seen the new page, dealing with all the figures. We have come to the agreement.--Imadjafar (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Smackbot and Rich Farmbrough

Resolved

 – SmackBot (talk · contribs) unblocked by Magioladitis (talk · contribs). HeyMid (contribs) 12:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• SmackBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SmackBot, operated by Rich Farmbrough, was blocked on 8 December 2010 by MSGJ (talk · contribs) for the reason: "bot breaking editing restriction, and operator not responding to concerns". Rich Farmbrough has since requested the unblock of his bot, but the two admins who have commented on the bot talk page have noted that the unblock request does not make clear what exactly the problem was and how it has now been addressed. I agree and submit the unblock request to the community for review, in the hope that more knowledgeable people can make sense of it.

In addition, the bot-like edits and edit summaries made by Rich Farmbrough recently ("... build 590: using AWB") are so similar to those of SmackBot ("... build 582") as to make me wonder whether Rich Farmbrough is not evading the block of his bot by operating the bot on his own account, which is prohibited per WP:EVADE. I have asked him to comment about all of this here.  Sandstein  12:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the block was vague (and the notice to me buried in the middle of a thread) it is difficult to respond to it precisely. However rules such as

<Replacement>
        <Find>{{\s*(Citation[ _]+needed|Facts|Citeneeded|Citationneeded|Cite[ _]+needed|Cite-needed|Citation[ _]+required|Uncited|Cn|Needs[ _]+citation|Reference[ _]+needed|Citation-needed|An|Sourceme|OS[ _]+cite[ _]+needed|Refneeded|Source[ _]+needed|Citation[ _]+missing|FACT|Cite[ _]+missing|Citation[ _]+Needed|Proveit|CN|Source\?|Fact|Refplease|Needcite|Cite[ _]+ref[ _]+pls|Needsref|Ref\?|Citationeeded|Bollocks|Are[ _]+you[ _]+sure\?|Citesource|Cite[ _]+source) *([\|}\n])</Find>
        <Replace>{{Citation needed$2</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
	<Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>

have been replaced with

<Replacement>
        <Find>{{\s*(dummytemplatename|[Ff]acts|[Cc]iteneeded|[Cc]itationneeded|[Cc]ite[ _]+needed|[Cc]ite-needed|[Cc]itation[ _]+required|[Uu]ncited|[Cc]n|[Nn]eeds[ _]+citation|[Rr]eference[ _]+needed|[Cc]itation-needed|[Aa]n|[Ss]ourceme|[Rr]efneeded|[Ss]ource[ _]+needed|[Cc]itation[ _]+missing|[Ff]ACT|[Cc]ite[ _]+missing|[Cc]itation[ _]+Needed|[Pp]roveit|[Cc]N|[Ss]ource\?|[Ff]act|[Rr]efplease|[Nn]eedcite|[Nn]eedsref|[Rr]ef\?|[Cc]itationeeded|[Aa]re[ _]+you[ _]+sure\?|[Cc]itesource|[Cc]ite[ _]+source|[Cc]itation[ _]+requested) *([\|}\n])</Find>
        <Replace>{{Citation needed$2</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>true</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions />
     </Replacement>

Rich Farmbrough, 21:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

• Not this again. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• I understand the unblock reason and I think the block is not necessary anymore since the new build doesn't unnecessarily capitalise {{reflist}}, etc. I think the problem with the 2 unblock admins was that there were unable to understand what's going on. I am willing to unblock SmackBot in the next few hours. I already contacted the blocking admin but I had no response. I did some steps to reduce the work of SmackBot by requesting AnomieBot to do part of/the whole of date tagging which seems to be the task causing the problem. Moreover, new version of AWB provides better handling of dated tags by correcting common errors. AWB bots and AWB based bots can use this function now. We also disactivated older versions that had bugs in general fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• How many times does RF and his automated editing need to be brought up here before someone finally says enough is enough? I propose that RF simply be banned from automated edits; use Betacommand's old restrictions as a template. End of problem, end of nearly biweekly threads about the problem. → ROUX ₪ 14:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, there was no strong reason to bring this matter here and in fact the discussion is not about SmackBot's edits but whether blocking reason and unblock request re clear enough. I agree with the admins who tried to examine the unblock request that both should be clearer. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you have a few hours on your hands, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Rich_Farmbrough/October_2010#Edit_restriction_proposal_for_Rich_Farmbrough (I just noticed that you actually commented in that discussion, don't know how closely you followed it) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. (I don't recall me participating in this discussion and I can't find my name in there). -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I edit conflicted with you, was intended to be directed at roux - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Curious how ROUX is always there at AN or ANI to comment negatively, whether this is reserved for me, or is just his habit I neither no nor care, I merely observe and comment. Rich Farmbrough, 19:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

Actually, that was my first edit to AN or ANI since 6 November. Oh well, facts, who needs 'em when hyperbole will do? → ROUX ₪ 23:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah so it's just AN/ANI realted to me then? Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

• (edit conflict)x2 As I read it, SmackBot would still be editing contrary to the restrictions, as it will still be changing template capitalisation (but only when it's dating the template). I find it difficult to really care about that, tbh. Although I find it frustrating that Rich still seems to be unable to explain what's going on clearly (as apparent by uninvolved admins not understanding what his unblock request really meant). FYI, Rich's restrictions are found here. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think that the reason for the block has been addressed and Smackbot should be allowed to continue editing. The block reasoning was weak to begin with. --Kumioko (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • IMO many of the blocks (but not all I admit) were based on things that Rich and Smackbot didn't have control over such as other bots or editors fixing the things that smackbot normally did (because it had been down for so long), causing the bot to make a null edit. If we let the bot go we have to give it a little time to catch up before we block it again. If it blanks a page or adds a bunch of crud thats one thing but a couple of blanks while it plays catchup isn't going to kill us. If this bot isn't reinstated then we need to develop a plan to split up the multitudes of things that Smackbot did and get other bots to do them or create new bots to do them. If there are any takers on taking on the responsibilities of Smackbot who think that there is a better way or they can do it better heres your chance to shine. --Kumioko (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• As I was the admin who blocked this bot I have been asked to comment here. The bot was certainly infringing the editing restrictions imposed on its operator; more importantly the operator was not responding to concerns within a reasonable time. That's why I blocked the bot. Looking at the wider picture, this is a bot which frequently malfunctions and seems to have a high ratio of errors. It has been blocked many times in the past; each time it is unblocked on the understanding that the problems were fixed, and each time it malfunctions again. Therefore any temptation I might have to unblock is tempered by my doubt that the issues will be resolved. The current unblock request does not inspire much confidence (although the humour was appreciated). Personally, before unblocking, I would like to see some comments from other editors who have been involved with Rich/SmackBot recently, e.g. (Rd232, Fram, Sladen, etc, and I think an early unblock would be inadvisable. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand your block was made while the bot was not editing, and within 3 hours of a comment left on my talk page. Boradly speaking:

• 00:08 last edit
• 08:00 comment left
• 11:00 block for not responding

Secondly we are not talking here about "malfunctions" in the sense that it creates errors on the page. Simply a small percentage of edits (approximately a half a percent historically - i.e. until, let us say, the ANI/I that sparked this in September) which happened for any one of a dozen reasons not to date a tag.

Thirdly, almost all the previous blocks (previous to September)were from an SPA, and most of the rest were in error.

Fourthly I wonder what is meant by "an early unblock" - since an "early block" was imposed in 3 hours of a comment, 2 weeks for an unblock does not seem "early". How the "earliness" affects anything is a mystery anyway. perhaps SmackBot is meant to feel chastised? Rich Farmbrough, 22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

Rich, your quoted times are rather misleading if I may say so. The first concern was raised more than 24 (not 3) hours before this and you were editing in between which means you had time to respond. Buy "early" I mean before consensus develops on this page for the appropriate strategy, and we are not there yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the long-term pattern of malfunctions is the main issue to think about before unblocking. The malfunctions also make the block evasion that Sandstein pointed above out more problematic: R.F. often runs the bot on his main account when it is blocked on its own account.

I think that we need to look at a more comprehensive solution, rather than continuing with a pattern of block/unblock/reblock that hasn't been working. My suggestion would be:

1. A tighter edit restriction that R.F. is not permitted to use AWB from his main account. This is motivated by the continuing block evasion in which he runs SmackBot AWB under his main username, and by the ongoing violations of the previous edit restriction that R.F. makes using AWB ([3]).
2. SmackBot's tasks need to be divided up to separate bot accounts, e.g. User:SmackBot 1, each with a single clearly-stated task. The huge list of tasks given on User:SmackBot makes it very difficult to tell whether edits are working correctly, or even whether they have bot approval.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 22:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess this is in response to Fram, I have not read most of Fram's comments in that thread and have no intention of doing so. Fram's contribution to these discussions has seemed wholly negative and I would in fact challenge the characterisation "contribution". Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

The benefit of making many fixes at the same time is to reduce the load on the servers, the noise on the watchlist etc. I would suggest you simply evaluate an edit by establishing whether it does harm. If it does tell me. Easy? Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

I agree with point 1: Rich not to use AWB on his main account (non-Smackbot tasks can be on a different alternate account, but Smackbot-like tasks shouldn't be done while Smackbot is blocked). Point 2 seems to me like it would make Smackbot vastly less efficient. One thing I wonder about is whether it wouldn't be better to just take a completely different approach; at the moment Smackbot is basically AWB; maybe it would be better if it were done in perl. At any rate, transparency about the regex or coding helps. Generally, I'm willing to unblock and give Rich another chance to sort this out; but if the problems recur, I'm not sure I'd give another without something else happening, eg Rich cooperating with someone on the task. Rd232 ^talk 22:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support both of Carl's proposals. I believe one of the main problems, and the reason that Rich has been unable to fix SmackBot up till now, is because of the complexity of the code. It needs to be simplifed and broken down, and each separate task needs to be reevaluated. Splitting up the accounts may be slightly less efficient but would be worth it for the gain in accountability. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

recoding in perl is something I am looking at, and would frankly be pretty much done (as would much else) without all this bureaucratic diversion. The tail, here is firmly wagging the dog of an issue long long resolved. Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

I know nothing about bots and coding, and can't understand the bunch of code posted by Rich Farmbrough above. I am however concerned that he hasn't explained in a clear and nontechnical manner what changes he has made to his bot in order to address any perceived problems. On that basis, I agree with point 1 of the proposal above and think it is prudent to keep the block in place until it is clear to all of us what the bot was doing wrong and what it will no longer do wrong. In addition, Rich Farmbrough risks being blocked for block evasion if he makes bot edits, as he continues to do, while his bot remains blocked.  Sandstein  23:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That particular "code" change by Rich above doesn't really seem to be that helpful. Although it does add and remove a few templates that the bot identifies (e.g. remove Template:Bollocks), which is helpful. Other than that it just seems to make so that the bot doesn't pick up every casing of the template (e.g. it will pick up Cn but not CN) but it does pick up on either case for the FIRST character in each template (e.g. it will pick up both cn and Cn). The problem? Well it doesn't change what the bot replaces the template with, it will still always end up replacing with Citation needed (using an uppercase C). So for example, both Citation needed and citation needed will still end up being Citation needed... As far as I can tell anyway. Sorry if that isn't all that clear - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it won't/ because the list does not include "Citation needed" itself. Once upon a time it did, thus picking up typos like CItation needed. ... The fix of removing the template itself, however did not work for items where there was a redirect like "Citation Needed". For that you need to search case sensitively for "[Cc]itation Needed". That is what this does, and I was reluctant to do it because of the added complexity, but in fact it turned out to be relatively easy to implement. Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

Eh, my example was indeed faulty, what I mean is the text which the bot replaces the template with isn't changes by what was previously used, so it's pretty much useless, because all it changes is what the bot replaces, not what it replaces it WITH. So for example, both cN and Cn will be replaced with the same thing. Anyway, I don't quite see the point of this particular rule..? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it was the replacement of {{citation needed}} with {{Citation needed}} that was being complained about. The point of the rule is to change the indefinite number of (grmmatically and syntactically correct) variations of the citation needed template to a canonical one. By doing this in one step, subsequent rules can be massively simplified, the rule that deals with mis-spellings of November, for example, need only apply to relatively few templates, rather than thousands, and does not need to legislate for things like {{_ : Template _ _ _ : ___ _ citation _ _ Needed _ _}} which is perfectly correct wikisyntax. Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

But there were also complaints about bypassing redirects, which this would do, correct? If you want to just use one "canonical" template, you need to get community consensus to do so, rather than just using a bot/AWB to impose your preference upon others. I note your restrictions state "prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged". If this has been done already please point it out, otherwise you need to go through RfD/TfD before you start bypassing template redirects (in general, dunno about this specific case). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes the only redirects replaced are those allowed by the editing restriction, I.E. those which standard AWB replaces or those replaced under a BRFA. And please note that this does not by any means orphan those redirects, some of which (possibly most of which, I haven't counted) I would be in favour of keeping even if they were orphaned. Rich Farmbrough, 11:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

A summary of reasons

1. The rulebase scales in number of rules more like O(t) instead of O(t2) 2. Some templates were specifically moved because the old name was considered unsatisfactory (Fact -> Citation needed for example) to use in wiki-code. This resolves that issue. 3. Some redirects are typo catchers. This resolves that issue. 4. Some redirects are cryptic shortcuts (wfy, cn, dl, uncat, unref, EB, VC, VS spring to mind). This resolves that issue. 5. People learn templates through seeing them in source - if they "only" have 570 clean up templates to see, rather than 2000 this makes learning about them easier. 6. It helps free up redirects, which are sometimes re-purposed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

• The edits I am making are using a different ruleset than SmackBot has used, and one designed to change the behaviour in a way cromulent to the complaints. There is no reason that I (or anyone) should not use this ruleset manually. The block on the bot is based on two things, 1. behaviour that is not occurring with these manual edits, and 2. response time on my talk page. neither are reasons i should not make these edits manually, moreover, I am not supposed to make manual edits on the bot account (although that does happen).
• The rules I posted are for clarification, since my previous explanation "Will not change the capitalization of tags it is not dating" was said not to be specific enough.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

OK. Unblocking and testing is the only way to do this. Since most of the dated tags get tagged by other bots anyway I fail to see the drama here. The discussion can be kept open but this is not a good reason to keep SmackBot grounded. The whole thing loses the idea of "automated" edits". We have a bot running and 7 people watching it! I'll unblock and I suggest Rich to use more of the build-in functions of AWB. We now provide much more tools for the scope of dating. I also suggest not to double run with AnomieBot which seems to make clearer edits (even if it should be bypassing some redirects to make wikitext easier to read and help us avoid more drama). -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I unblocked SmackBot for reasons explained in Smackbot's talk page. This doesn't mean the discussion on the matter should stop. To blocking admins: Feel free to reblock if you are not satisfied with my action. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Smileys and Co.

Hello, there is a user Drinas who is massively editing only « smileys » and « emoticons ». Also on commons and WP-fr (didn't check more). For what I know, he really look like a payed POV-pusher of some sort about copyright of Smiley. I don't have much time look at all his edits. Can I have help of some administrator to make sur all his claims are purely verifiables and not controversial ? plz.

I just did the same message on commons. Iluvalar (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not only did you sent them to the wrong noticeboard but you never tried to sort anything out with them. Try talking to them and see if you can work something out and figure out their motive to their actions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I just did what the banner was telling me ({{subst:AN-notice}}). I don't have that much time so I might not "try" what you are asking me. Iluvalar (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears like you might have used the ANI banner by accident. No harm done as I'll go correct that right now. I might engage them later tonight but there does appear to be an issue going on here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

They are trying to claim that smiley face images are copyright on Commons, I've reverted this and pointed them to sources that suggest that such a trivial image cannot be copyright protected. Trademark is another matter. This user does seem to be pushing the "Loufrani" line on this. Also see a recently created semi-ad for Nicolas Loufrani by another user. Fences&Windows 02:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist's editorial role on Signpost

irrelevant to this page; Rodhullandemu 02:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ncmvocalist included a summary of the lifting of my topic ban in WP:ARBR&I which appeared to be designed to cause offense. He himself had actively attempted to block the lifting of the topic ban by extensive lobbying on Newyorkbrad's talk page.[4] On Signpost he wrote a biased report making apparent a personal grudge he appears to have against me, expressed unequivocally on Newyorkbrad's talk page. Signpost is not the place for Ncmvocalist to continue his petty disputes. If he cannot maintain objectivity, perhaps it might be time for him to relinquish his editing of Signpost. Mathsci (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC) To be honest, I don't see much bias in this version, which seems to be Ncmvocalist's most recent version. I see a good deal of irrelevant fluff, but not so much a POV. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC) I can't immediately find anything wrong with that specific report, although I haven't followed the case. It's unnecessarily verbose, but not patently biased. But in general terms, I would have thought it to be a matter of basic ethics that one should not write Signpost articles about conduct disputes in which one is personally involved or about which one has expressed a strong opinion elsewhere.  Sandstein  23:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC) I'm just wondering what this thread is doing here anyway; admins act on breaches of policy and have no editorial control over the Signpost. I see no breach of policy here, and unless it's changed recently, the top of this page clearly states "This is not the complaints department". Therefore, I'm proposing closure as off-topic. Rodhullandemu 00:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Shouldn't Ncmvocalist have been notified about this complaint? This page also states, "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion." --Captain Occam (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I've notified, but I see from his Talk page that there is previous discussion. However, I maintain that this does not belong here, and Mathsci seems to be taking a break. Well, hot dog! Rodhullandemu 00:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

Since admins can now remove individual edits, perhaps someone can remove one recent edit summary and while you're at it perhaps also this advertisement. Thanks a lot Hekerui (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Nakon 16:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Need some help with AFD

Hey guys, I goofed up in the AFD nomination process, and could use some help. I tried to nominate The Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth and Rich Iott, and like a dumbass, thought I'd double up on step three, listing the two rather than opening the AFD log and adding, saving, then repeating. The result has been to somehow entangle the two nominations into one. Both are displayed in the source of AFD, but the texts for both—without the headers for the second—appear under one entry on the page itself. I don't want to make even more of a mess by trying to untangle it myself, so I'm here to beg some assistance in extricating the two.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

On it, let me see what I can do here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. The Savior's Alliance was missing headings, so it fell into the debate above it - which, by coincidence, was also yours. Both articles link to the correct debates, both debates are properly formatted, and both appear separately in the text and TOC of today's log. You're all set. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thankyou very much! :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)