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

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Requests for comment

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 94 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 62 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 61 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 48 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 47 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 39 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 38 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 38 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article

(Initiated 31 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Havana syndrome#RfC on the presentation of the Havana Syndrome investigative report content

(Initiated 21 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	12	31
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	18	46	64
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean

(Initiated 56 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 55 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

(Initiated 54 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

(Initiated 22 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 113 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 107 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 100 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Has now been open for three months. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 93 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 30 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 18 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 14 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 13 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_generation_I_Pokémon#Snorlax_Merge_Discussion

(Initiated 42 days ago on 4 April 2024) Proposer of merge, discussion has been open for a month and seems to be shifted towards keep, but I'd appreciate an outside opinion as there have been some votes of opposition on top of my nomination. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Providing text of deleted article to offsite location?

I got the following requested following a deletion I had nominated ([1]) Effectively, the user wants me to provide a copy of the article before deletion to PasteBin. Is there anything "wrong" with doing this? --MASEM (t) 20:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any reason not to. It seems a pity to have deleted it if it was useful to people. It got over 15,000 hits in November. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It went through a proper AFD, based on NOTCATALOG. There's probably lots of pages that fail core NOT policies that had gotten lots of hits that we've deleted. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem providing a copy - the version prior to deletion was licensed CC-BY-SA, so anyone was free to take a copy of it for their own use. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well, nothing obligates you to post the article to pastebin, really. If the user wants it, I'd suggest providing a copy via e-mail as we usually do, then they can do with it as they wish. Tarc (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much that I have an aversion to doing so, just needed to make sure that I didn't step on any established toes. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

We get those requests at WP:REFUND all the time. I personally refuse to action them, but they are typically actionned (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with fulfilling this type of request as long as the article didn't contain BLP violations or the like. In fact, it is often good practice to provide a copy of the deleted material as soon as requested, to minimize the hurt feelings etc. resulting from the deletion of good-faith contributions. (Incidentally, it looks to me as a completely uninformed bystander that this article could well have been kept, although I don't have the subject-matter expertise to be certain, much less to DRV it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I did take a good amount of time before even putting the AFD in for the article. I had to outline why I felt it was different from nearly-similar lists in the AFD nom, if anything to remain true to NOTCATALOG. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

My default position is that articles with hundreds of edits and thousands of hits should be kept whenever possible, in the absence of BLP problems or incurable POV problems or the like. I suppose I'm betraying some form of inclusionist tendencies by saying that, and I'm sure some people will suggest various kinds of treatment for it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Newyorkbrad's second comment to an extent — while I'm perhaps not as fond of keeping articles, I'm strongly in favor of keeping titles that are old. I agree with his first comment: as far as I can see, there's nothing wrong with this content; the only reason that it was deleted was that we've created inclusion guidelines that don't include this kind of list, and there's no problem with someone hosting this that wants to. What if you undelete the article and immediately convert it into a redirect to List of games using Steam authentication? You could then just point the requester to some of the old revisions before it got converted into a redirect. The worst that could happen is that someone un-redirects it, and resolving that issue won't be harder than clicking http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Steam_games&action=protect. Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a very different list, with a different inclusion criteria (and why that was kept), so that would be improper. --MASEM (t) 03:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

How is that a problem? It's a list of Steam games, so creating List of Steam games as a redirect to it wouldn't be problematic, and since there's nothing out-and-out wrong with the content of the deleted list, it won't hurt anyone if we undelete it. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

How does it not violate GFDL to give copies of deleted articles without all of the history? I know this is routinely done, but doesn't that break GFDL? If I contribute edits to an article, it gets deleted, and then someone else asks for a copy of it, they don't have the attribution history to show that my work (and that of others) is part of it. LadyofShalott 02:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that raises an interesting question. What happens with good-faith reusers of our content, mirror sites and such, which comply with GFDL/CC-BY-SA and play by all the rules, and then after some indeterminate time, the articles they have reused legitimately get deleted... How is this any different? --Jayron32 03:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend's comment. Keeping the old history under a redirect would appear to solve the problem of copyright attribution for the provided material. Restoring List of Steam games and then making it a redirect to List of games using Steam authentication would not run afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG in my opinion. The cataloguish material would not appear in the generally visible encyclopedia. On Jayron32's question, see section g of foundation:Terms of Use#7. Licensing of Content which provides some wiggle room in cases where attribution via link is impractical. It appears you should provide a list of authors if the link is no longer working. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

How do good-faith reusers obtain a list of authors after we delete our article? --Jayron32 04:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah ah, I see, and agree with that (or perhaps just redirect to Steam (software). Would one indef protect the redirects? --MASEM (t) 04:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the redirect could go to any reasonable Steam-related page. If there was a concern that people would undo the redirect and put back the article, protection could be imposed. If good-faith reusers of a deleted page are quite concerned about our copyright, I guess they need to contact a Wikipedia admin to see if they will provide the attribution information. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Attributation only requires the list of contributors and that can be sent with the page. I'd be very wary of any mechanism like this that can allow any user to force us to undelete content that has been legitimately been deleted at AFD. Especially when there are just as simple ways of doing this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Attribution would seem to require the entire history not just a list of contributers (One supposes we could send the history data along, of who contributed what and when, with the knowledge that it will then likely be lost down the road, but at least the admin has provided proper attribution at that point). I'm not clear though on what the objection is to maintaining the history on site? It was created at this sites invitation under GFDL (log of all changes to the work), even if it has been later deemed not article worthy. Is it a space issue? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'm alerting the queen of copyright to this discussion -- I know she has provided attribution history for deleted articles in the past, so this process is likely documented somewhere. —SpacemanSpiff 15:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• List of contributors works. See Terms of Use #7(b). This provision was also included in the older Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is clear then. When we delete pages should we replace the content with a list of contributors? In that way external sites already linking to our material and using the URL for attribution can maintain their licence compliance. Thincat (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I wish I were more technologically inclined, because it seems like it would be ideal if we could somehow link to the history in the deletion log. I have no clue if that's possible. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Not the way Mediawiki currently works, but a quick inspection of the relevant code tells me that allowing looking at the history of a deleted article by separating it from being able to actually see the deleted revisions or undelete them is feasible and I could make a patch for that relatively simply.

    That said, there are legal implications there that would need Geoff's input. Do you think it's sufficiently desirable a feature that it's worth it for me to start the ball rolling? — Coren ^(talk) 18:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I remember back in the early days (pre-2005), non-admins could see the entire Special:Undelete page, just not the text of the revisions. The right was later revoked due to possible issues with seeing the edit history (e.g. potentially compromising edit summaries). However, allowing non-admins to see just a list of contributors seems quite reasonable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I heartily agree with this idea. It's actually more of a good idea than it was pre-2005, since we now have RevDel for edit summaries and usernames, and we can oversight a page when its very title is a problem. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

(←) I'm thinking that, perhaps, Special:Contributors/ThePage might be a more elegant solution that does not cause issues with edit comments either. Ima talk to WMF about which work tickle their fancy and propose an implementation. — Coren ^(talk) 22:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you're suggesting a page that would spit out the list of contributors and nothing more? Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like it's just a view of the edit history that only shows usernames and IPs (and maybe dates), but with edit summaries and anything rev-deleted omitted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Right; and possibly coalescing the history to just list the editors and number of contributions, say, in a format more amenable to using as credits. This has the advantage of being generally useful even on pages that are not deleted since it offers a permanent link to contributors that makes it particularly easy to provide attribution. — Coren ^(talk) 02:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that does sound like it would be something useful to have generally, seeing as attribution is a key part of our licensing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This whole thread has my head spinning a bit (in a good way). How do IP's play into this? Do we pretend an IP is a singular "person" for the purpose of satisfying attribution? Technically, an IP is "anonymous" in this context (even if it is less anonymous than a reg'ed account in other ways) so could/would you just state "and 45 edits by various anonymous editors" in a list of attribs? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That, actually, is one of the questions I'm sure Geoff will want to chime upon. I'll be starting a chat with Maggie and him after the new year in order to do this the right way for attribution; I've already got a working prototype on a test wiki of mine, so implementation is basically "whatever we need that works within the legal constraints". — Coren ^(talk) 03:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Legal should be involved, as it seems a proper GFDL log identifies who contributed, what was contributed, and when. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when you create a book, it gives the contributors in alphabetical order by their usernames, and at the end of the list it appends ", and [number] anonymous edits". Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What this entire discussion seems to suggest is that we need to rethink the AFD process in the case of a close as "delete". If the information is not bogus or copyrighted (read: no value to keep), a consensus to "delete" may be getting rid of potentially useful edit contribution information that would be required for CC-By attribution. Therefore, in AFD discussions that trend towards "delete", it would make sense that either the delete !voters or the closing admin figure out some target that a redirect can be made towards, and then the closing admin would be responsible for blanking the page, putting in the redirect, and fully locking the page as to "delete" it but maintain the pretense of a deletion without the actual problems of deletion. We would likely need a template that can be added to the redirect page, saying that if the user wants to replace the template with a user space page that is meant to be different from the deleted material, they must contact the admin that closed the discussion or WP:AN if the admin doesn't respond to request the unlocking to do so.

Note that this would be a different situation if the !votes were to redirect/merge. In such a case the admin may create the redirect but should not lock down the redirect; there's no need to maintain the deletion pretense there.

The only snag in this is if there really is no redirect target, and this might be where we have a special page for listing articles that were "deleted" via this new process, perhaps some WP:AFD/Log/YYYY page. Here again we can list the instructions for requesting "undeletion" (removing the lock). Also we have to be very clear when content should be outright deleted. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Protecting such a page by default is a bad idea. Pages are often recreated appropriately after their previously non-notable subjects gain notability, or after someone comes up with good sources that didn't appear beforehand. Of course we should protect when the page is restored to its pre-deletion version or otherwise inappropriately recreated, but it shouldn't be automatic. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Another thing to conisder, aside from what we do after an AFD, is what we would do with this edit history information in the case of a PROD or CSD? BOZ (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Van Rensselaer

An apparent stalker

Seems that there is someone stalking nearly every edit I make especially on Van Rensselaer, this page should have never been a disambiguation page (which makes all the sense in the world--who would actually be confused between a Philip and a Stephen for example? Which by the way each have disambiguation pages for a good reason). Now let me start by saying "yes, there was a LOT of noise on that page, much of it put up by ME and seeing THAT gone is NOT was is getting to me. [[Van Rensselaer and Rensselaer are obvioulsly more of a "who's who" of van Rensselaers and really does not disambiguate much, so it makes little sense designating it as a disambiguation page.

When running the dragnet through the page at least one editor sees fit to totally delete information simply because it either looks unpleasant or does not fit perfectly as that editor sees it. The minor one was about a character on Archie Bunker's Place whose name was Van Ranseleer I added it to the list as 'Van Rensselaer'. Sure I get it, My bad a minor error that could and SHOULD have been fixed instead of being arbitrarily deleted without any regard to the editors effort in addition to ZERO attempt to using Talk:Van Rensselaer. I can live with that one I made a reasonable fix. Here is where the neglect is obvious in removing useful information simply because it does not look right.... 'Don't fix it, get rid of it all together' (single quotes do not reflect ANY direct Quote!) 2 perfectly reasonable entries that were arbitrarily disregarded and deleted for no apparent reason other than appearance on a page that should neither be titled nor tagged as a disambiguation page.

• Van Rensselaer Hall or Sarah Drexel Van Rensselaer Dormitory for Women.

And this statement of fact (that I agree should NOT be on a disambiguation page, But this is not one nor is Rensselaer

−

• Rensselaer Westerlo (1776–1851), U.S. Representative (NY)

+ (Undid revision 529553687 by JGVR (talk) this is the pattern)

• Rensselaer Westerlo (1776–1851), U.S. Congressman from New York

The above edit demonstrates the above mentioned stalking These people have a title (regardless of agreeing or disagreeing with their views) Their PROPER title is Representative NOT the misogynistic 'CongressMAN' Where is the "PATTERN"??? JGVR (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Here is the deleted statement I mentioned and forgot to add here:

• Note: When researching as a surname, the vast majority of 'van Rensselaer' surnames are properly spelled with a space. Consider Vanrensselaer a possible anomaly, such as limited space for typeset or in cases where it is known to be 'correctly' spelled without the space, the person may have had their name legally changed and omitted it as one of many possibilities.

JGVR (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This is related to the "Copy&paste/pagemove chaos" section currently at WP:ANI. JGVR was introducing a lot of problematic formatting into these pages and ended up getting blocked when he kept going. Looks to me as if Kraxler, whose edit summaries JGVR quotes, is simply enforcing WP:MOSDAB in these pages. Note that there's nothing wrong with "congressman"; we can be informal here, and there's no requirement that we be politically correct. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

So it looks like there is agreement that the edit I made had no need to be undone and as for the continuation of copy/paste AFTER the ban?? no such thing happened. To see there seems to be no contention with the rest of my concerns as of yet I would still like opinions on wy thought of those 2 pages having the disambiguation tag removed for obvious reasons.

PS I thought people were supposed to be notified when their name is discussed here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGVR (talk • contribs) 21:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC) JGVR (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, they are. Why didn't you do it? I ended up having to notify Kraxler, since you didn't. You brought up the thread in the first place, so I had no reason to notify you. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As Kraxler notes, you keep moving the furniture around. There's no stalking, you just need to discuss your changes with Kraxler nicely, and sort it out, assuming good faith all the way. Use the talkpages of the relevant articles. Acroterion (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

User JGVR arrived on Wikipedia 5 days ago, and has no basic understanding what Wikipedia is, and how it works, and managed to be blocked right away. He has not read any guidelines, and although he has been asked to discuss issues on the talk pages, he does not. Most of what he writes is incomprehensible, his not being a native speaker of English contributing to the chaos. So, I'm a bit wary to debate with somebody who does not understand what I'm saying. I'm not stalking anybody; I'm a member of the WikiProject New York, and have created about 1,000 New York related articles, so I have a few Van Rensselaer pages on my watchlist. Anyway, Rensselaer and Van Rensselaer are ordinary dab pages, like thousands of others. And by the way, the Rensselaer Westerlo revert was because of the abbreviation "(NY)" which should be avoided on dab pages. Kraxler (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

someone seems well prepared pre-concieved notions of my membership (Registration time: 04:02, 11 October 2010), but ILL prepared to address the concerns mentioned above. I thought this was a place to hold serious conversattions about real concerns which have gone totally un-addressed by those who felt they were mentioned.JGVR (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand where you're going here; could you rephrase what you're writing? Basically, you've been adding content to disambiguation pages that doesn't belong on disambiguation pages. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously it was a totally needed thing after I changed a near bigraphical page title from Jeremias Van Rensselaer (sixth patroon of Rensselaerswyk) to Jeremias van Rensselaer (sixth patroon) Wiki Just wouldn't be as dependable without changing it to Jeremias Van Rensselaer (sixth patroon) is it that imperative to incorrectly capitalze this surname??JGVR (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

REALLY? How does this article Hendrick K. Van Rensselaer lack citations?

JGVR (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Obviously someone could not read the 2nd paragraph or use ctrl+f to search "Hen" to find the mentioned name cited in the article to which THIS CARELESS notation was made on article update. "‎(I expect this to be moved around a bit more, since none of the sources so far mentioned in the article actually state his name...)"

So, now that the stalker allegations have been dealt with, can the style and content issues be taken to the article talk pages? Tiderolls 23:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that the Stalker issue has NOT been dealt with, I would like the vindictive editing to stop

• (removed irrelevant image, and redundant cats, needs to be moved back, this is NOT the Dutch wikipedia). Image replaced See page 35 and others

JGVR (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand, JGVR, possibly due to my attempt at being diplomatic. Allow me to try again; the stalker allegation has been dealt with. Your next move is to the article talk pages. You should also acquaint yourself with the applicable MOS and talk page guidelines before you start. That last part is a suggestion, but the first part is not. Tiderolls 23:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Are snide comments needed in edit notes?

My only real problem is the continuation of the snide comments in the edit notes. and deleting things without bothering to read the references. the things that are actual mistakes I have no problem with corrections being made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiliaen_van_Rensselaer_(colonel)&action=history

16:20, 24 December 2012‎ Kxxxxxr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,360 bytes) (-183)‎ . . (→‎External links: wow, this user is quite a bit misguided....) (undo) Is totally uncalled for...JGVR (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if you learned a bit about how Wikipedia works, other editors won't have to revert your edits and point out how misguided your edits are. In fact, if you don't stop posting on the noticeboards in lieu of getting a clue, I'd suggest that a block might be in order for disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

where were the disruptive posts?? JGVR (talk) 09:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You're soaking in them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Continual abuse of editing

I need an unbiased administrator to please take a look at Talk:Van Rensselaer (surname) History and the related talk page and please do something about Kraxler who I just cent notice to about posting this here.

• He has a problem with the correct spelling of a surname and has wasted many article titles simply on his view of name spellings regardless nearly every article I created with the correct lower case "v" is now a redirect page. It is plainly obvious his edits are in some way vindictive by virtue of the fact I informed him of the very same pattern in names such as von Richtofen (which for some reason he chooses not to "correct" them to conform to his view.
• Although I clearly mentioned to him in the talk page and provided him links, he is determined to delete "red links" which are allowed and encouraged for potential articles. plenty of explanation and links to my reasoning in the talk went ignored.

JGVR (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Please notice it is not a DAB page but a list of surnames which he conveniently deleted from the top but forgot the tag on the bottom JGVR (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Unbiased administrator, please see the unresolved "An apparent stalker" section higher up on this page, as well as the "Copy&paste/pagemove chaos" section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779. JGVR was blocked over this issue a few days ago and has received comments from lots of people encouraging him to heed layout conventions and WP:RM more consistently. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I was blocked copy/pasting articles back to articlenames they had no need to be moved from in the first place

So in a way it IS a continuation of vindictive editing as previously stated AFTER the ban JGVR (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:STICK is all that needs to be said, I believe. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree HE absolutely should!!...JGVR (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

JGVR, you've been mucking around in front of a lot of administrators on two noticeboards for about a week, now. You've been warned not to go around hysterically characterizing things as "vindictive", "stalking", "sabotage", and "abuse", and yet you're still doing it. Stop behaving so foolishly. Try to behave like a rational adult. People are not vindictive or stalkers. What they are are simply trying to cope with bogus copy and paste "moves", and disagreeing with you on two points. Those two points appear to be (a) that Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, contrary to your attempts to write zero-information articles about everyone merely name-checked in the single family tree that perhaps-not-at-all-coincidentally happens to match your user name, and (b) whether van Rensselaer (surname) is an anthropnymy article or a disambiguation article. On the latter, it is a reasonable contention, given the existence of the van Rensselaer disambiguation article, that it is indeed an anthroponymy article. But my goodness you don't appear to be able to make it in a sensible, coherent, and mature fashion. Stop this nonsense, please. Because the end result, I predict right now, will otherwise be that a lot of sick and tired people will just decide to topic ban you from anything whatsoever to do with van Rensselaers, you'll be unable to stay away from the family tree vanity regardless, and you'll end up with your account's editing privileges pulled permanently. It has happened to other editors, unable to focus on anything but their own family trees, several times over the years. It will happen to you. Uncle G (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is my HUGE list of all the tons of articles that are being imagined i've created

Pages created by JGVR:

• Van_Rensselaer_(surname)
• Henry_van_Rensselaer_(disambiguation)
• Van_Rensselaer's_Regiment
• Johannes_Pieterse_Van_Brugh
• Nicholas_Van_Rensselaer_(military_figure)
• Philip_S._Van_Rensselaer
• Philip_van_Rensselaer
• Philip_Van_Rensselaer_(author) (to create a DAB)
• Henry_K._Van_Rensselaer
• Kiliaen_van_Rensselaer_(colonel)
• Philip_Kiliaen_van_Rensselaer
• Nightcall_(disambiguation)

Hardly an entire family tree oh and can someone tell me which ones would have no value whatsoever?

JGVR (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Uncle, would there be precedent to simply ban JGVR from starting any AN threads on this or any related matter (including the conduct of users with whom he's in dispute), to encourage him to settle the issue through the normal channels? That way he can go back to editing this topic, and if he gets blocked for edit warring, or topic-banned for disruption, later on, so be it, but at least we're giving him a chance to keep on editing his favorite topic. I haven't been following the content dispute itself, but I'm just thinking in terms of leaving the door as open as possible for constructive contributions. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I would tend to agree with you... for the moment. However JGVR needs to actually discuss with an open mind and courteously. His latest addition to Talk:Van Rensselaer (surname) indicates a fair degree of "I didn't hear that" and a continuation of characterising edits with which he disagrees (despite his rather poor knowledge of various style and naming conventions here) as "done out of spite". His continual blanking of his own talk page [2] makes it virtually impossible for other editors to carry out a meaningful or helpful dialogue with him. I hope he changes his tack soon, because I suspect he's heading down a road to a topic ban or even block. Voceditenore (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    • JGVR just inserted at Van Rensselaer (surname) again a red link to an article which was deleted for lack of notability with this edit summary : "(Vandalism repaired and reported to - info-en-v@wikimedia.org)". I agree with Voceditenore that this is a case of "I didn't hear that". Kraxler (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • And here you are talking about disambiguations right below a big notice that says "anthroponymy" in boldface, and here you are waving around a style manual guideline that explicitly says that it doesn't apply to anthroponymy articles. So there's a bit of "I didn't read that." going on here, too. Go and read Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards#surname and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Given names or surnames. Uncle G (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
        • ? This is a disambiguation page with a lot of material that doesn't belong on it. Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
          • No, it wasn't. See the style manual guidelines mentioned above. It's actually stated at least four times, three in boldface, that anthroponymy articles aren't disambiguation articles. See also the notice in the first revision of the talk page. Uncle G (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Uncle G, your link points to a project page with has a boldfaced list of notable Spencers. So, do you think a red link to an article which has been deleted for lack of notability should be added there?

            Besides, the content dispute should be resolved (if possible) at the talk page of the pertinent article. I posted here an edit summary by JGVR which calls a bona fide clean-up edit "vandalism" after he received several warnings to cease attacks and disruptive editing. Should something be done about it? Kraxler (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

            • Something has been done about it, both above and on JGVR's user talk page. Pay attention. We're also doing something about you, since you're the other half of the problem where a MOS-waver who hasn't read the style manual that xe is waving meets a family tree vanity editor. We're pointing you to the MOS that you're waving around, and the notice at the top of the article's talk page, explicitly telling you about anthroponymy articles — an article that JGVR was actually encouraged to create, moreover.

              And don't mischaracterize this edit of yours as simply removing a redlink. You did much more than that in that edit, as we can all see, waving around the MOS in the edit summary even though it explicitly said otherwise and also arguing on the talk page about disambiguation articles immediately below where there was a big banner saying "anthropnymy" in boldface. And to top it off, you also accused JGVR of trolling. You don't exactly come off as whiter than white, so don't attempt to play the "But xe called me a vandal!" card. As I said, a MOS-waver has met a family tree vanity editor, and we have to deal with both of you, because you've both contributed to this situation.

              To address a final piece of the mess that the two of you combined have brought about: Philip P van Rensselaer was speedily deleted because JGVR (the creator and sole content editor) blanked it, and Martha van Rensselaer was speedily deleted because JGVR just nicked someone else's writing wholesale. Neither page was actually deleted for notability reasons, and neither speedy deletion precludes the future existence of an article.

              Uncle G (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

              • Thanks for the clarification, Uncle G.
              • Philip P van Rensselaer was proposed for deletion for lack of notability, and the proposal was endorsed by two other users before JGVR blanked the page.
              • I have edited Wikipedia for 6 years now, and have routinely removed red links from dab and other pages which remained there after the articles had been deleted, speedily or otherwise. Nobody ever even noticed, nobody ever complained. I'm at a loss to understand how anybody could make a fuss about this non-issue. Kraxler (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

N. R. Narayana Murthy topic ban

Moved from WP:ANEW

 – With some minor modifications. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: N. R. Narayana Murthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User: Tib42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 09:31, 24 December 2012 (edit summary: "restored (constant disruptive behavior)")
2. 04:34, 25 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 529644837 by Rtat (talk)")
3. 06:04, 25 December 2012 (edit summary: "do not change the top para since it was there from the very beginning")
4. 05:42, 26 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 529722850 by Tib42 (talk)")

Comments:
This is not a breach of 3RR but a battle that goes back further than the above diffs. I am involved. The main content dispute is over which awards to list in the article. User:Tib42 wishes to list more awards, and other editors, including Kkm010, wish to list fewer. It goes back a long ways. I've been involved in it (although no longer directly). User:Dennis Brown tried to mediate it. The last person who tried was User:Ryan Vesey. I left a message a couple of days ago on poor Ryan's talk page (it's a thankless job) to see if he has the time and is willing to get back into it; I don't think he's around right now. Meanwhile, Tib42 persists, and Kkm010's knee-jerk reaction is to revert. Kkm010 and a completely different editor seem to have worked out the secondary dispute, but I really don't understand why Kkm010 saw fit to revert twice before doing so.

Honestly, I don't know what the right "solution" is. Kkm010's recent history of reverting other editors is not a constructive one. An article ban for both Kkm010 and Tib42 might be a longer-term solution, but that can't be obtained here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Guys its been discussed so many times but unfortunately user:Tib42 simply refusing to give up. From Dennis Brown to Bbb2 everybody tried their best to explain the matter to user:Tib42 still he seems to be so adamant that I have to keep an eye on this article. However, If any misconduct has been done by me I apologize for my behavior. As far as my point of view is concern too much "awards and honors" looks odd and disgusting. Great people won thousands of awards but that doesn't mean we have to list every single awards.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 15:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, if you look at the talk page for the article you will see that I have explained my rationale for each award/honor. I have presented these arguments twice. I have also posted on Kkm010's page to discuss this on the talk page. I am happy to discuss this with Kkm010 and come to an understanding but he/she refuses to discuss this. Please note, Kkm010 has not articulated why he/she does not agree with the list of reasons provided on the talk page. Instead, he/she consistently undoes my changes and refuses to discuss these changes in any way. It is unclear to me why this person would object to honors from TIME magazine, Fortune, etc. whereas he/she does not uphold the same standard for other articles that Kkm010 actively edits (such as Ratan Tata, Dhirubhai Ambani, etc.). Why are not those awards 'odd and disgusting'? Why is an honor by TIME magazine ranking this individual's contributions with Mahatma Gandhi 'odd and disgusting;? It does not seem like Kkm010 is being objective here. This is unfair. As the records on the talk page will note, I have been constructive and I have tried to work with Bbb23 and Ryan and it only when they did not raise objections to my arguments that I saw fit to commit these changes. I did not do so unilaterally. Kkm010 has misrepresented the truth and the talk page for the article will show it. I did not get deeply involved in this discussion about honors and awards when Dennis looked at it back in June. There was another editor (AnimeshKulkarni) who was making the case for the honors/awards. It is only in the past few months that I have been involved and I have presented the case for every award. I am happy to elucidate further and make my case. ---- Tib42 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• As Bbb23 points out, I mediated a discussion trying to find resolution on this article. From my perspective, I see Tib42 as an SPA that has edited tendentiously but has gotten a little better at communicating. I think Kkm010 has generally tried to communicate, but recently become more combative in dealing with Tib42. I'm not aware of any other issues with Kkm010, I think they are just pushed to edge with Tib42's behavior, something I can actually empathize with after dealing with them for weeks. Of course, that doesn't excuse the behavior, but it does explain it. The problem is actually both of them, equally, for very different reasons. I do not think blocks will solve any underlying problem or prevent disruption in the long run, and may actually antagonize the situation. I would support a topic ban for both editors for this single article at WP:AN, and think that is the best solution for all involved, and ask that someone refer (or move) this case to that board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Hi User:Dennis Brown, yes, I am very interested in this article because he is my hero. But so what? My interest in this person got my to wikipedia in the first place. Who is to say that motivation is wrong? In the due course of time I would like to edit articles for the few heroes I have. If you look at the talk page for the article I have articulated for each and every honor/award why I think it makes sense. If kkm010, you, or anybody else disagrees I am happy to discuss this further. But without even a response from any of you to my arguments, how can I be blamed for being tendentious? I would imagine if you responded to my arguments and I am being stubborn about it and not listening to reason only then would you call me tendentious. When pages like Hilary Clinton can list an exhaustive list of awards from very similar sources nobody seems to have an issue. But why in this case? I have come to understand that I must engage collaboratively and discuss these issue. I have tried to do this, as the records shall reflect. But I don't see a response from the other side except an irrational roll back. --- Tib42 (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dennis Brown and Bbb23 you guys are far more experience than me or Tib42. You know that listing awards which are not notable looks odd. Great businessmen like Bill Gates or Steve job's article, editors haven't list awards the way the Murthy article been written. Anyway its upto you what's good for this article. I have already sated my point of view and hope that some justice shall be done to this article. If you guys want both Tib42 and me to block from editing this article you can go ahead, but make sure that the issue get resolved.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose both Tib42 and Kkm010 be topic banned from the article N. R. Narayana Murthy or any article where Mr. Murthy is the subject matter for an indefinite period of time. This is a more effective way to prevent disruption by two editors that have not had problems outside this one article. For the record, I have mediated discussions on the content of this article but have not made substantial edits to the content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Although it's been quite some time, I was more involved in the content dispute before Dennis's mediation attempts. I think Tib42 is sincere but is stubborn and repetitive in their arguments. Even though an award may be rejected as non-noteworthy, Tib42 persists, sometimes with a rehash of their old arguments, and sometimes with slightly new arguments. Once in a while they may even have a valid new argument, but it gets lost in the dizzying shuffle. Essentially, someone less partisan needs to be involved. I have less sympathy for Kkm010, whom I see as passive-aggressive/disruptive. They are inclined to battle but then back off when chided, but that initial tendency to battle is concerning. My recollection is they were difficult to deal with because of this behavior. Regardless, the article will hopefully be better of without either editor, and the resources spent by Dennis, Ryan, and me dealing with the issues are significant.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I was also hoping that this issue could be resolved with a regular and civil discussion at the talk page, but it turned into multiple disruptive revert-chains. I have also less sympathy for Kkm010, who was in my eyes not only aggressive to Tib42 but also recent to Rtat. See User_talk:Kkm010#Narayana_Murthy_2 and related article reverts. I'm not involved in the content dispute. I only requested twice a temporary page protection. SchreyP ^(messages) 00:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support I was hoping to see a more lowered solution, but if both Bbb23, Ryan and Dennis were unable to achieve this, I see that a topic ban is the only way to prevent this. Also, I'd add that the ban may not be lifted (or requested to be lifted) in at least six months. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, and fairly strongly (long but please read) I suppose quite a bit of the blame lies on me because I keep attempting to start discussion, but it's a topic I'm not entirely interested in and I've been unable to complete discussion on. When I closed the first discussion, there was consensus to include 7 awards found at Talk:N. R. Narayana Murthy#Award list listed under Notable Awards. Unfortunately, Tib42 did not return during that discussion, so no consensus was made towards any of the "possibly notable awards". This means no consensus was made to include them, and while it was determined that consensus should be sought before adding any of the other awards, no consensus was made to exclude them. Tib42 has restored the material without going to the talk page. In two instances, I initiated talk page discussion and Tib42 engaged in discussion in each instance. There is a concern to the effect that Tib42 continues to use inherent notability arguments (i.e. someone important has received this award; therefore, it should be included). Nobody else has engaged in discussion. The difficulty I have had is that Tib42 is attempting to restore 10 awards at once. They have widely different degrees of significance and I have been unable to engage in discussion on all of the awards at the same time (my previous involvement had only been to close the first discussion and my only action on the article was to make the initial edit to make the awards section in line with the closed discussion). Now it is clear that despite the failure of all involved editors to come to a consensus on the talk page (through lack of discussion), there is clearly not consensus to include all of the awards that Tib42 wants to include or we wouldn't be here. But I still disagree with the notion that there is consensus to exclude all of the awards, I would be among the group that things some of them should be included. A better solution would be to bring this issue to a more structured mediation forum (possibly Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution) and/or discuss only one award at a time. Ryan Vesey 16:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is a lucid summary of the content dispute, but it doesn't really address the conduct issues. I have a few questions. First, what about a voluntary agreement by the two editors not to edit the article while mediation is ongoing at DRN? Second, and probably more important to the editors, what state do we leave the article in while that discussion is occurring? Normally, that shouldn't matter barring policy violations, but we should be clear as to what we're doing. Finally, what if there is no consensus at DRN? My overarching concern here is to prevent further disruption to the article, not necessarily to "resolve" the content issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• The article, or at least the awards section, certainly shouldn't be edited by either of them while the dispute is being resolved. That was in my mind, but I didn't type it out. I believe the article should be left in the state with fewer awards while the dispute is being resolved. If no consensus for anything can be found at DRN, then it would stay in it's current state. At this point, consensus needs to be found to add any material. Ryan Vesey 19:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support – No matter who is right about the underlying issue, the continued reverting is disruptive. I support the article ban on both parties. If one or both of them believe that a solution has been found, they can return to WP:AN and ask for the restriction to be lifted. I understand that this ban is only from the article, not the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  That is correct, the least amount of restriction that will do the job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support, but non-indefinite. For Tib42: a SPA is not necessarily something I object to. If someone only cares about one battleship, say, and is incrementally helping it reach FA status, hey, more power to them. But when I compare the article from when Tib started and the present day, the net benefit of this article's "improvement" is outweighed by many orders of magnitude by the black hole sucking in editor hours. Has this situation been a net benefit for the encyclopedia? Let Tib42 focus on other things for a while, then get back to it. I really don't get Kkm010's motives here but through looking at situation it appears, in my opinion, like (s)he has long since passed WP:BOLDness into WP:OWNership and think a break is needed. Not indefinite, just a break for the both of them. Gears are locked, the admins hold the grease, please apply. PhnomPencil (✉) 21:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• fine, if you guys want to do this,, go ahead. But don't do it in the name of fairness. I have abided by a consensus decision in the past on a cofounder issue for this article. Once you both decided on the final word, on the cofounder issue I abided by the decision. In this case nobody had presented an argument before for the awards and I presented it on a case by case basis. I also dropped awards that I realized there would be no consensus on. I have provided citations references and arguments for why. In response I still don't understand what you object to content wise. You have still not explained why you object to honors by Time magazine and it's ilk for this person but you have not don't so for peoplemlike Hilary Clinton or bill gates. The precedence that this decision sets is that we must all hold all biographies to the same standard and eliminate any credible list of awards. That is the message you are sending by leaving this article incomplete on this particular issue. Since there is no consensus or let alone a rational discussion, I am being bullied on this issue and I have choice but to accept. --- Tib42 (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As it is a holiday for much of the English speaking world, leaving this discussion up for an extended period may be appropriate to allow a full discussion. It is a strong step, warranting more than a few comments before acting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Julian 'Nitrane' Lane

Can an admin look at the above article at see if it is a G4 of Julian Lane (fighter) deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Lane (fighter). PortlandOregon97217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed the {{db-repost}} even though a non-admin he has no way of knowing if it is or not and as someone who !voted keep at the afd is no impartial anyway. Then the creator Willdawg111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also removed it. Mtking ^(edits) 23:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a straight copy and I have deleted it. I will point out WP:DRV to the editor. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The new pages looks much different from the last as to point out why it passes WP:NMMA. to quote g4 "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies" PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly close enough, and certainly should not be re-introduced onto Wikipedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Can an admin also look at this edit summary I take it as a violation of WP:NPA (what I have come to expect from MMA fans) I think at the least it is appropriate for the edit sum to be removed. Mtking ^(edits) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Not bad enough to be removed, but bad enough for an "only warning" for NPA's IMHO (which I did) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And that's the way the cookie crumbles. I am surprised that a lowkey comment like that got flagged. I guess there is always someone spying. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Low key? Showing a bit of remorse/understanding for a significant and almost-blockable personal attack might have been a better choice. Accusing someone of spying is really just the icing on the cake here, as it's yet another WP:NPA. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I SPY with my little eye. A spyglass isn't a tool for spying as the Soviets would define spying. Then there are the EyeSpy books. Spy is a synonym for watch. I think you should dig a little deeper into what words mean. Maybe consult the dictionary first? Then you would see what I mean. Perhaps a little good faith is in order on your end mr admin? I'm sure you would advise me to use 'watch' instead. To that I reply: Could you point me towards the policy that is against ambiguous word usage? I'm also not sure why spying (and not in the way that the information collected is to be used for bad) is inherently negative? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Bwilkins, I am hunting for a wet fish to greet you with, so please, wp:Please do not bite the newcomers. Any new, 2-month editor (contribs), especially with an interest in wrestling, can be expected to need a "period of adjustment" to the notion of 10,000 people looking over their shoulder in reading user-talk pages. So, lighten up, wouldya? -Wikid77 (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd have thought common sense would have been a reasonable definer of how one should use language to interact with others. Spying has negative connotations because of its inherent association with stalking or more precisely hounding. Just my couple of lowest-denomination-currency. Blackmane (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CP

Hey, could someone please take a look at WP:Copyright Problems and see if they can find a way to reduce the number of templates on the page? The page has reached the template limit and therefore, in addition to causing the page to load ridiculously slowly, the functions of some templates are not being performed. For example, the footer section currently reads "Wikipedia's current date is CURRENTMONTHNAME CURRENTDAY, CURRENTYEAR. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/CURRENTYEAR CURRENTMONTHNAME CURRENTDAY. Images should be handled by speedy deletion, possibly unfree files or Wikipedia:Non-free content review.[[Category:Wikipedia deletion|PAGENAME]]". I'd do it myself, but I thought a WP:CP regular would have a better idea of what can be removed or streamlined. Cheers, — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 04:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, one quick and dirty fix would be to subst the notation templates that use {{SCV}}. There a great many of them transcluded in the SCV boxes. Perhaps a bot substing just the SCV uses that are older then a week would be enough? Monty₈₄₅ 04:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't {{SCV}} supposed to be substituted anyway? — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 05:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Just clear the backlog and the problem will solve itself. MER-C 13:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MER-C. The main problem is the size of the backlog. If we fix that, the template overflow will go away.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Did my part; I got rid of a couple days today. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend :). If there's still a massive backlog when I get back from holidays in a couple of days, I'll try to lend a hand. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 01:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for "Tailsman67"

There has been discussion on AN/I regarding the latest issue with User:Tailsman67. This user was previously indef blocked for disruption and was considered de facto banned but was later given some rope and allowed back briefly before being idef blocked again. Currently, they have been harassing User:Sergecross73 and block evading via several IPs leading to several range blocks being imposed to deal with him as well as generally disruptive edits on various AFDs and articles. There was a consensus for a formal community ban proposal to be discussed here. For those who haven't been following the drama surrounding this user, please refer to Salvidrim's summary here as well as the ANI linked above. I'm posting this here as I made the initial suggestion for a community ban proposal of this user. Also included for discussion would be whether Tailsman67's latest activity warrants yet another range block. I'll notify the user on their most recently used IP and cross posting to the ANI. Blackmane (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Quick correction -- I do not believe any of the user's IP were ever indef blocked; there was repeated blocks and a number of rangeblocks, however. I would recommend reading the previous AN/I threads found on the summary page, and perusing the various IPs contributions for further clarification. Salvidrim! 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• If any other editors have noticed that "Tailsman67" is not a registered username, I just checked ANI and it appears that it's the name used by an individual editing with the IPs 98.71.62.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 74.178.177.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Also, I corrected your link to the ANI thread, Blackmane. Hope you don't mind. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yea, I fixed the links also, heh. :) Salvidrim! 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Haha, well you actually fixed them the right way.. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for fixing those. It was doing my head in trying to work that bit out and trying to do so late at night after a couple of beers wasn't the wisest idea. I believe the range blocks were 6 month blocks. Blackmane (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. The longest rangeblock was for 6 months. Salvidrim! 23:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban - Per my comments at the ANI subsection. It's been over a year and over 7 blocks and still no improvement. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. Enough is enough. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 17:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban - It was only a matter of time. Good riddance. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Not a productive user, and has been a time sink for far too long. AniMate 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The user has had more than enough chances... sufficient time has been wasted for me to believe there is little probability of this user becoming a constructive part of the encyclopedia anytime soon. However, despite everything, he has shown dedication and occasionally good faith editing, thus I believe in a year or more, a successful return is not out of the question... but we'll see then and there. Salvidrim! 22:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - more than adequate time has been given for this editor to reform. KillerChihuahua 12:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well you can't say I never tried to help this place but since it's almost the end of the month,oh bye,wait what happens if I see vandalism?Well it doesn't matter if I get banned,all I want you to know is that I tried,thank you Salv for giving me a chance,thanks Serge for helping me out,giving me pointers,and sorry AniMate for not being good enough.98.71.62.112 (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(Responding assuming that the above IP is Tailsman67 again) If you become banned, as the above appears likely to do, then you are banned. You should not edit the project for *any* reason. You're likely best off not reading the project either, to avoid temptation. If you see vandalism, you do not get a pass to fix it. Banned is banned. You will be banned from making any edits, helpful or otherwise. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay see you in later unless i get ban,then see you never.But can someone tell me what the mean of disruptive editor means,I keep thinking it means an editor who is unneeded.98.71.62.112 (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, if you're blocked, you're already not supposed to be editing as the block applies to a person. A WP:BAN means you've been a disruptive editor after the block as well. It doesn't mean someone who is "un-needed", more like "someone who continuously fails to follow the rules and policies of the site in a manner that make more and more people do more and more work to correct the problems caused by said person" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A Formal Report on Schappelle Corby

Let's not do this on two noticeboards at once. You all know where Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Schapelle Corby is. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Unauthorized bot? Babel AutoCreate

Resolved

 – These aren't the droids you're looking for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Babel AutoCreate seems to be an unauthorized bot since it says it automatically creates categories under certain situations. It's created a number of deleted categories and I can't figure out who the bot owner is. Ryan Vesey 18:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Its user page was created by SPQRobin, try them? — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've left a notice. Ryan Vesey 18:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As the userpage makes it clear, the user in question is not a bot, but rather a token username used by a MediaWiki extension to perform certain edits. As the deployment of MediaWiki extensions pertains to developers (and only in portion it is of concerns to the community), unless there are issues, don't worry about it. If there are issues, report issues to bugzilla. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether it is part of the extension or not, the thing is making botlike edits. I don't know if it is doing anything outside of that (the portion that doesn't concern the community), but I fail to see why it should not go through a BRFA like any other automated editing bot would. Ryan Vesey 18:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, we don't require on wiki approval of extensions or other software updates, which this essentially is. Maybe we should, but I don't think this falls within the remit of BRFA. Monty₈₄₅ 18:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

<bag hat="on">That is correct. It is outside of the scope of BRFA and the bot policy.</bag>. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As Snowolf says, it is indeed a fake account used by the software (implemented similarly to e.g. User:MediaWiki default). The Babel extension was enabled Wikimedia-wide, and categories were defined for a number of wikis, on which the AutoCreate account creates categories automatically. On some wikis the account was misunderstood as being a bot, which it isn't, so I created the user page to try to explain what it is. I also had done some coding in the Babel extension to fix some of the bugs that appeared, but the extension is still not perfect. SPQRobin (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

The accepted case is hereby suspended pending SchuminWeb's return to editing. SchuminWeb is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for removal of his administrator userrights. Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Jerusalem

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what will be included in the article Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with a specific emphasis on the lead section and how Jerusalem is described within the current, contested geopolitical reality. As with all decisions about content, the policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in this topic area. The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Errant AfD

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

---

Would it be possible for an admin to pop over to this AfD real quick and determine if it should be speedy/snow kept? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Essien Etok. My apologies for the inturruption. Thank you all and be well. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Has 3 keeps, no real reason to rush it at this point is there? This time of year, participation can be slow, so I would be hesitant to snow keep on 3 keeps. Of course, another admin may see it differently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• There's nothing errant about the AfD. As far as I can tell, the claims of celebrity and a connection with Michael Jackson are extremely unreliable and are based on gossip, hearsay and the subject's own blog. Shritwod (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

personal attack

Could someone look here and tell me if LlamaAL's edit comment about a recent barnstar given to me constitutes a personal attack? Thanks PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is undeserved because you have very few edits to MMA-related articles. And with substituted, I was referring to {{subst}}. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I also suggest you to read WP:WIAPA before taking someone to the AN or AN/I. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would suggest that this is the sort of very mild, insignificant incident that is best dealt with by ignoring it. Who cares if somebody thinks you did not deserve a barnstar? Somebody else thinks you did, or they wouldn't have given it to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have seen someone blocked for referring to another persons improper edits of their page "vandalism". This seems to be in the same general area. While it may be mild it is still insulting to my efforts. I also feel that his comments were not in good faith PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

a) He fixed a problem on your talkpage b) you probably didn't deserve the barnstar, so he was right, c) he apologized on your talkpage for that edit-summary and you removed it, d) it wasn't a personal attack - it's not like he referred to someone by a specific disorder in their edit summary like someone I know. What else is there? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• User:PortlandOregon97217 already in top 3,000 active Wikipedians: I think the judgmental claim of "undeserving" can be considered an insult to an October newcomer (re wp:BITE) who has made over 232 article edits within 2 months (edit-count stats), which places User:PortlandOregon97217 in the top 3,000 active Wikipedians for November/December, by article-edits, among the now 600+ edits. Remember, about 9,500 editors average over 25 article-edits per month, but over 115 article-edits is rare. I think, perhaps, PortlandOregon97217 should be given another barnstar, for diligence, for maintaining a high level of activity especially during these 2 months when many editors must cope with holiday/travel plans, and we need extra help on Wikipedia. Well done. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• The edit summary in question clearly does not rise to the level of an actionable personal attack. Arguing about barnstars is a waste of everyone's time. Monty₈₄₅ 16:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The barnstar is incidental. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:Featured picture candidates

We're a bit low on reviewers due to the holiday, and even with a five-day extension, we're still running rather behind. If anyone would like to participate, Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria is the criteria featured pictures are evaluated against, and anyone may vote. You may want to review some of the pictures already promoted to get an idea of the quality we're looking for for certain image types. Cheers! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Username policy question

Can someone have a look at Vietnamesefreedomflag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I am not sure this is an outright username policy violation, but the username is clearly one intended to either promote a cause/soapbox with. Also likely to be a sock or bad hand account of an MMA editor so maybe a CU might want to have a look to. Mtking ^(edits) 07:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The name itself isn't terrible and block worthy. The only thing I can suggest is to keep an eye on the account and see what goes on from there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Momoka Ariyasu (urgent!)

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

---

Please do something quick. I'm the creator of the page Momoka Ariyasu, so I can't remove the speedy deletion notice. The page in on the top of DYK right now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I contested the CSD because the article makes a credible claim of notability; however do note that I doubt any admin would've CSD'ed that page as it currently stand despite the request. Salvidrim! 09:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've left the tagger a note, he appears to have done similar with related articles. GiantSnowman 10:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I should have contested the deletion before writing here (just in case). I will contest other speedy deletions made by the same person now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(Other notices have been removed already by GiantSnowman.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not resolved - do we have potential Twinkle abuse here? GiantSnowman 10:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it. He's still a relatively new editor. Nevertheless, I've warned (and trouted) him twice, but it appears he's willing to tag more. Despite the article making very evident claims to notability, he believes that the articles should be deleted because "they will be forgotten in 3-4 years," even though notability is not temporary. If he does it again, a block might be the only solution. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• It appears the user's understanding of CSD criteria is flawed. He needs to understand that being notable and making a claim of notability are two different things, and only the latter is covered by CSD. I'm willing to give some leeway here and would rather see this used as a teaching experience than see him sanctioned. Salvidrim! 10:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I tagged those articles because I believe those bands and singers are not notable, and that the articles are basically frivolous, fan-written hagiographies. It is not because they will be forgotten in three or four years (I believe I prefaced that comment with “besides,” which should make it painfully obvious that it is not my primary reason.) As to whether I’m a relatively new editor, perhaps you should check my background. IIRC, I made my first edit in 2005. Meanwhile, I will review csd to see whether I understand the criterion properly. If I do, and I decide these articles meet the criterion for deletion, I will continue to pursue their deletion in spite of your mobbing—which, given the tone of these messages—is what are least two of you are engaging in. Best regards, and have fun Jim_Lockhart (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is criticising the fact you want to get some articles you view as non-notable deleted; it is the fact you attempted to use CSD to do so when they are patently not eligible. Review WP:N (particularly WP:MUSICBIO) and then use WP:AFD if you wish to start a deletion discussion. GiantSnowman 10:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I feel compelled to reiterate my earlier explanation -- CSD A7 applies when the article makes no credible claim of notability. These articles obviously do. Whether or not such claims of notability are verifiable and correct is another matter that can usually be dealt with at AfD, if you truly believe that these articles do not pass the notability guidelines for inclusion. Salvidrim! 10:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And please don't tag something for deletion, whether speedy, prod, or through AFD, while the article is currently linked from the Main Page. KTC (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find something fundamentally wrong with the fact that editor Jim_Lockhart lives in Japan (since 1981, see his userpage) and wants to delete the pages. To do it, you need to be completely withdrawn from society (or hate the group). By the way, I find it very interesting that Momoiro Clover Z has surpassed AKB48 by the number of views in the Japanese Wikipedia. And AKB48 was the most viewed article back in December 2010 (not counting the main page and a list of pornographic film actresses.) See the December 2010 statistics and the latest statistics: Momoiro Clover Z, AKB48. (It's not related to notability. It's simply an interesting fact.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed the criterion at CSD and see that I was wrong in using the Speedy Delete tool, so I rescind my posting of the request for speedy deletion. I also see that it is against convention to tag for a deletion an article that is linked to the Main Page, and apologize for that offense. I appreciate the points that Giant Snowman and Salvidrim have made and thank them for their patience.

That said, I do not appreciate the attacks on my person and attendant innuendo about what kind of person I am made by Moscow Connection. I will admit that Japanese pop culture—especially of the [Name your locality abbreviation]+48/54/69 ad nauseam type—is not exactly my forte, but perhaps it is because I’ve lived in Japan since 1981 that I want frivolous stuff like this deleted. It is, as Wikipedians used to say, unencyclopedic; how many hits a page gets on the Japanese Wikipedia is immaterial to the noteworthiness of the subject to English speakers. In any case, Moscow Connection’s tone and insinuations are offensive. I believe that sort of thing also violates several Wikipedia conventions, not least of which are the one about no personal attacks and the one about assuming good faith. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Moscow was quite correct in his tone. It may all have been just a simple mistake or misunderstanding, but he simply said something relevant. If a page is one of the most searched on that encyclopedia, it is very likely notable for other pedias too. A person from the same country might be expected to know more about the notablity than others.

All in all, There was no bad faith or personal attacks from his side. Just an observation. An interesting fact, as he put it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry. I didn't want to imply that you were actually "withdrawn from society" or that you actually "hate the group". I was just a way to put my amazement into words, to show that I thought there was no way to not know about them skyrocketing to the top right this moment. Sorry. I assure you, no personal attack was intended. I hope you re-read the sentence and see that the words "something fundamentally wrong" indicate that I was simply wondering how could that be possible. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Moscow Connection. If it wasn't intentional, then I apologize for over-reacting. But I disagree with TheOriginalSoni's assessment, so in future I recommend that you work to avoid expressions that could be construed as calling a person's integrity or motivations into question, or their degree of familiarity with a subject as broad and deep as Japan. As I've admitted, I'm not real familiar with popular youth culture at this point, because I'm not as exposed to it as I was, for example, when our children were living at home. If you were living here, you would probably be unfamiliar with numerous aspects of this society, too—like, say, which enka singers are popular or on their way out the door right now. This would be because you weren't focused on those areas, whereas your antennae for what's going on in youth culture would be very sensitive. In any case, best regards—and thank you very much for your kind words. :) Jim_Lockhart (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. When I'm re-reading what i wrote, I don't think you overreacted. It can be understood as being very impolite. (It looks terrible, so I better not re-read it again.) I understand 100% what you are saying. I know that I don't know much about Japan apart from idol groups. I recently met a group of people, none of who had heard about "Gangnam Style", and I wasn't amazed. Some people are interested in pop culture, some aren't. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just a note about "CSD A7 applies when the article makes no credible claim of notability": The bar for avoiding A7 is actually lower than that, it is "CSD A7 applies when the article makes no credible claim of importance", and a claim that stands up to Notability standards is not required. As it says at WP:CSD, "This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• As that article stands, if it went to AfD I suspect it would probably be merged to the band - she doesn't appear to have much, if any, independent notability. That should've probably been picked up at WP:DYK. Black Kite (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not to mention the poor English and lack of MOS. DYK really needs to look at more than just "interesting" facts.

• If they can get past the poor English on this one, let's just hope they don't click on the band article. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There are two reliable sources that discuss her in detail: [3], [4]. The latter is actually dedicated fully to the DYK fact, so it must be an indication of that the fact is important. She alreasy meets the basic notability criterion. There's also Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. At least one movie, Shirome, stars all Momoiro Clover members as main characters. They regularly rank in the top 10 of BIGLOBE polls, which indicates a cult following: [5]. --Moscow Connection (talk)

The band article is yet to be expanded (fivefold, to meet the DYK criterion). I'm planning to do it in a month or so. There are virtually countless sources, Natalie writes about the band virtually every day, Oricon every few days. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't read Japanese, but from the way the article reads it appears that those sources are about the band, but happen to mention facts about her. Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Read the section Momoka Ariyasu#Image, after that Google Translate will work with this one: [6]. The other article is maybe just about an event, but still about her. There are also many interviews. For example, in this interview there are sections where they discuss each member individually. I didn't use them yet. I can't comment on the language because the article has been rewritten already after it appeared on the main page. It looked like that at the time: [7]. And it had been reviewed prior to that: [8]. If the article wasn't good enough, I can ask someone to review my DYK articles in the future. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There's also a straight-to-DVD movie called "ももドラ momo+dra" (you can search YouTube for a trailer), where all the Momoiro Clover Z members appear as the main characters. That makes it 2 movies at least, enough for Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. Anyway, they are big. The group also has its own TV shows, but it may not count towards their notability as individuals. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I read the article now and in its current version it misses some of the points that were there originally. For example, there's a sentence in the Image section that looks completely random, while it had a meaning before. I will fix it later, but not now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Another thing: Momoka is a member of Momoiro Clover Z and she was a member of another notable group, Power Age (see the Japanese Wikipedia article). That makes her notable as "a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. She was also a member of a unit called Sisters Rabbit (sic!) (Sisters Rabbit in Japanese Wikipedia). The unit is most probably notable, it originally featured Namie Amuro. But Momoka was a second generation member, I couldn't find sources for that period. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Remove the wikibreak javascript code from my user account

Hi,

I am user kazemita1 and would like the wikibreak removed from my account

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kazemita1#Sockpuppetting

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.59.250 (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Try logging in now (ps: bypass your cache)(✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Just curious — if you disable Javascript in your browser, will it be possible to log in anyway? Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Totally. Firefox+Noscript = no wikibreak enforcer. Rd232 ^talk 02:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Or simply any browser that allows disabling of javascript or doesn't support it. This issue came up at the time of the enwiki's blackout which was likewise accomplished with a mix of js and css. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Review requested

Please see Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Mis-use_of_User_Page NE Ent 20:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia

Hello. Anamasry contribute in Arabic Wikipedia (I leave study now), not good at only Arab (so use automatic translation by Google), but I want to take part in the English Wikipedia because it sister major and leader of our major, so I want to introduce my service to administratorsin the English Wikipedia: This is a list of the pages you've created in the Arabic Wikipedia, but some is not in the largest electronic scientific encyclopedia, I want create a project to translate the articles we present in Wikipedia and Arab non-existent in the English version --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You should put your ideas at the bottom of this page, not here. If you ever need help with Arabic to English translation, check out this coordinating page. dci | TALK 20:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Andybrevard and Badboyzshop

Can someone handle this to show the accounts are linked, and probably deactivate the old one? Badboyzshop (talk · contribs) has changed his name from Andybrevard (talk · contribs) to Badboyzshop, per details given at user talk:Badboyzshop diff.

-- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as he's not attempting to evade sanctions or scrutiny, I don't believe there's anything an admin could do, even if they wanted to. I'll advise Badboyzshop to throw up an {{Altuser}} on the old account and a {{User previous account}} on the new one.

If there's a concern that Badboyzshop is not the same person, you might want to ask him to confirm it through the old account, but otherwise I'd encourage you to read WP:SOCK#LEGIT, 70.24. Yes, Badboyzshop should have requested a name change, but as far as I know there's no rule against changing usernames "oldschool." — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I was operating under the impression that when you switch usernames, an admin was supposed to block your old account? -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is overlap in a way that means it is unlikely they are the same person. Very likely, they are working in tandem. As long as it isn't abusive, then it isn't meatpuppetry, although any time you see this kind of editing on a new article, it is worth monitoring. They both should not be voting at AFD for instance, since it is obvious they are two people but acting as one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Diffs, please? If it is two people, they've done a very good job making it look like one - even pretending to forget to change accounts, after I suggested to Badboyzshop that he use the old account for his updates to his old userspace, to verify that he's the one operating both. Either way, if Andybrevard doesn't edit any more, this shouldn't be an issue. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

70.24, you're allowed to request that your old account be blocked, but no, I don't believe there's any policy that old accounts should be blocked. It's good to declare them, so that no one can accuse you of trying to sock if the old one is compromised someday (indeed, this is what I've done with two somewhat less benevolent accounts I made once upon a time), but I think the general idea is that if you have reason to believe that an account will not be editing, you want to know if they start editing again (e.g. why we don't block users who've been confirmed dead). Furthermore, occasionally one does want to use a secondary account to test things out - for instance, I use FRC&AND (talk · contribs) to experiment with Pending Changes in the designated sandboxes, occasionally. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Requesting Reviewer permissions

I don't mean to be picky but I submitted my request to to be a reviewer 5 days ago here and I haven't got a accepted or denied and I was wondering how much longer is it going to take? I don't mean to be rude but is my nomination to be reviewed thoroughly or something otherwise I don't know why the long wait. I also noticed there is a backlog notice at the top. Hopefully things can get cleared up, cheers JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing having to do with you more than likely, it's just backlog. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've cleared the backlog a bit, and got up through your request. Seems PERM could use some more attention. Monty₈₄₅ 01:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you much , cheers JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by 124.188.33.97 (talk · contribs)

124.188.33.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalising Beijing–Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong_Kong_High-Speed_Railway persistently, claiming that the article is biased. The user has reverted changes at least five times (most likely more by the time this is posted) and threatens to do so until the article 'includes factual details'. Thanks 86.151.98.79 (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User is also posting comments on my talk page, about the article being biased and they will continue to say its biased until something is done.--Mjs1991 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Chinese Shinkansen

It is being suggested that I am vandalising an article on the front page of Wikipedia (the Chinese Shinkansen). I am not a vandal. I am simply seeking to have the article corrected for accuracy. It makes no mention of the source of the technology (clearly Japanese)

My name is Alan Erskine and my email address is <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.33.97 (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alan. This is a content dispute and should be discussed at the article's talk page, so I've gone ahead and made a section for discussion here. Wikipedia follows a particular cycle of editing, in conformity with which, please comment there rather than continuing to make changes to the article (which has been PC-protected by King of Hearts (talk · contribs)). Λυδαcιτγ 07:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are not going about it the right way. Placing that bold face edit into the article, although you do not consider it as such, is not generally received as a constructive edit. Whether the rail line is, or isn't, based on Japanese technology is not up to Wikipedia, or more specifically the editors writing the article, to decide. If reliable sources write about the rail line being derived from Japanese technology then please by all means include it in to the article, but until such time your edits will be challenged as original research with no sourcing to back it up and other editors who challenge this material may remove it per WP:BRD. Please discuss, on the talk page, the inclusion of your edits into article once you have found reliable sources. Blackmane (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA SPA's/Socks

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

---

Looks like some new MMA SPA's (more likely socks) have turned up today :

• MMAFAN4LIFE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ILUVMMA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Likely to be one of a handful of masters. ✍ Mtking ✉ 09:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Unhelpful interactions

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

---

I would like you to ponder a ban of sorts--a ban preventing A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) from commenting on Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs). I don't understand what AQFK's interest in MF is (certainly MF couldn't care less about AQFK), but what I see is edits like this one and this one--reopening a thread at ANI that they had nothing to do with at all. I'm sure others can more easily provide diffs from various ArbCom cases where AFQK brought charges against MF. I don't really want to go digging through AFQK's history; right now I'm interested in the principle of a ban that said something along the lines of "AFQK, thou shalt not bringest charges against MF in such and such forum, nor shalt thou comment on thine or others' talk pages about said MF". Something of the sort. Because I'm tired of seeing what I can only call a vendetta, unrelated to any conflict about a specific article (thus involving hounding as well), and I don't accept the rationale that they're doing it for the benefit of the project. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like it would be simpler to ban Malleus from interacting with all the "fucking idiots" he encounters. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Support a ban on AQFK commenting on Malleus, unless required to do so by WP policy (or responding to any comment by Malleus mentioning AQFK, if any ever are made). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone calls another editor a "fucking idiot" and an "ignorant idiot", and the perceived solution is to have an interaction ban for anyone who points this out? The initial thread was closed, people should just let sleeping dogs lie. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I think sometimes we get so used to editors using the various disciplinary processes to advance their grudges that we forget that some people wish to use them as intended. Not that I'm saying AQFK's done that; in short, I agree with you that he's not helping the project by what he's doing, but I'm not totally sure that he doesn't think he is (though perhaps someone can find some diffs to say otherwise). My personal opinion is that the best way to respect AQFK's right to comment on proceedings, while at the same time reducing his ability to create drama, is to topic-ban AQFK from initiating any disciplinary procedures against Malleus. I'm not saying that I, personally, would or would not support such a ban, but, from my moderate familiarity with this case, and going off of what you're saying, Doc, I think that an appropriate wording might be A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) is hereby banned from initiating any disciplinary procedures against Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs), or from attempting to prolong any such procedures once another editor has marked them as concluded. Once again, I'm just speaking from an outlining perspective here, not from a support/oppose one. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Malleus has stated he has retired so I see no real reason to do anything.©Geni 15:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

[9]. Or are you saying we should put any action on hold until it's clear it will have any practical effect? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think this is a symptom of a wider problem, that whenever Malleus is mentioned it attracts a bunch of shit-stirrers with personal grudges and civility agendas, even when it has nothing to with them, or if it the involved parties have already moved on, or if it is some trivial comment that from anyone else wouldn't even be noticed - that includes some admins and some arbs. I honestly don't know what, if anything, can realistically be done. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • • You are failing to acknowledge that whenever Malleus is mentioned, it's usually because he very rudely told somebody else off, quite possibly calling them names in the process (and he's the one that complains about childishness?). Whenever and wherever he is mentioned, it's probably going to draw a few editors who dislike him and a bunch more who will defend him at every turn, regardless of if his actions are defensible. I still have yet to see any of his supporters address whether or not what he said to this most recent editor is ok. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I consider this editor a master shit-stirrer, which is why I'm bringing it here. For the life of me, I can't imagine why they can't get their kicks elsewhere, and I think it is disruptive that they don't. In general though I share your pessimism. Thanks Boing, Drmies (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, This thread seems to indicate that AQFK reopened the ANI discussion after it had been closed. That is not an accurate portrayal; Scottywong reopened the thread and AQFK posted the level III header shown above, after it was reopened. --My76Strat (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got to be fucking kidding me. Let's recount the timeline of events to see what has happened:

1. Malleus refers to another editor as an ignorant idiot and a fucking idiot, presumably for the massive transgression of initiating a GA reassessment on an article that was previously edited by Malleus. An obvious case of childish name-calling, violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as Malleus has done so many times in the past.
2. An obvious sock reports the incident to ANI. Why he chose to report it as a sock is unknown, but perhaps it is because he anticipated the predictable backlash from Malleus' harem, who are apparently in hyper-sensitive mode now that Malleus is threatening to retire for the 79th time, as he seems to do every time he needs a little extra attention.
3. The discussion on ANI focuses exclusively on the sock, not the personal attacks, and the sock is soon blocked with talk page access removed, even before a checkuser has the time to confirm/deny. When a checkuser finally gets around to it, they find no relationship between the blocked user and any other user on the site. Yet, he remains blocked with talk page access removed.
4. The ANI thread is reopened by me (not AQFK) to examine the original complaint without regard to who posted it. It predictably attracts Malleus' supporters, who, instead of discussing the blatant personal attacks, focus on the fact that I mentioned that Malleus has been blocked many times in the past for civility, has an arbcom sanction at RfA for civility problems, and nearly got site-banned for civility problems last time he was at arbcom. They apparently took offense at the notion that someone believes Malleus has a history of civility problems.
5. The thread is closed again, 2 hours after I reopened it, with no substantive discussion on the personal attacks.
6. Drmies starts this thread in an attempt to get an interaction ban between AQFK and Malleus, and for what?! Because of a single comment by AQFK, rhetorically asking when it is acceptable to call someone a "fucking idiot"? I, for one, think it is a perfectly reasonable question; one that should actually be discussed without closing the thread after 5 minutes. And certainly nowhere near worthy of an interaction ban. There were no personal attacks in his comment, and his comment was perfectly civil and reasonable.

I'm tempted to continue starting threads on ANI about the incident until it actually gets discussed rationally for longer than 10 minutes. But, I already know what the response will be, and I honestly don't fucking care enough to put myself through the bullshit. The events in the timeline above are concerning to me. These events would never take place if the user involved wasn't Malleus. Malleus' supporters continually refer to complaints about Malleus' behavior as "lynching"; but then they respond by starting threads like this one (an obvious "lynching" of AQFK, who has done nothing wrong). Obviously, I oppose the proposed interaction ban, but I am very concerned about quite a bit more than that. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 16:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Ha, that's nice: you are very concerned, well, so am I, and your inflated rhetoric only confirms that. You know as well as I do that AQFK has no business trying to be the civility police by asking some innocent question. It can be an innocent question, of course, but not if it comes from this editor. No number of fucking bullshits will change that--you know he's out to get Malleus. There's a few more who are, and some of them have wisely laid low and stayed away--what I want is for AQFK to stay away. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Why don't you stay away from AQFK, and do something more constructive than thinking about ways to defend Malleus and attacking those who "are out to get Malleus" with your time here. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 19:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I think we would all be better off ignoring Malleus' bouts of moderate incivility and, if we are going to ignore them, I don't think it is reasonable to sanction the editors on the other side of the dispute who are acting no more disruptively then Malleus. Monty₈₄₅ 16:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As presented the whatever-this-is proposal does nothing to convince me that it is necessary. I don't have a stable enough internet connection at the moment to dredge through interaction history, but I'm not aware of any history that would make me think there's enough clashing between these two users to warrant this ban thingy. --Ks5stm (talk) ^{[alternative account of Ks0stm]} 17:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this issue is long dead. --Rschen7754 17:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, this is definitely ax-grinding and should be closed. --Rschen7754 19:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Scottywong and Monty845. Seriously, Malleus can be far more of a problem than AQFK, who's main crime appears to be attempting to draw attention to Malleus's misconduct. If you want to crack down on someone, crack down on Malleus. Besides, Malleus is still retired as far as I know, so why should this be necessary? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, having read through some of this page, I find that Malleus's behavior was once again bullying, abusive and condescending toward an editor with fairly little experience. This sort of trash has been allowed and even encouraged for a long time. Silencing the opposition to it is nothing other than censorship. Perhaps Cornellier didn't understand the GA criteria. Does that mean s/he should be treated like dirt? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment...it shouldn't be a surprise though that this website may very well have a few editors that are "@#$*&@#...idiots". In some very rare situations, it might not be such a bad thing to say it as it is. Generally speaking, in ones own usertalk, I think great latitude should be permitted for venting. I would really like to emphasize that for our administrators to ponder. I'm not saying that this would make it okay to threaten bodily harm or similar, but seeing anyone blocked or dragged to arbcom for comments thay make in a frustrated or disgusted state in their own usertalk worries me somewhat.--MONGO 18:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• MONGO, I couldn't agree more. BTW, thanks for fixing my poorly formatted notification. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note that neither the "ignorant idiot" nor the "fucking idiot" comments were made on Malleus' user talk page. ‑Scottywong| express _ 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  I think they were made on someone else's talk page weren't they? So the same principle applies. I do have to apologise though, as what I'd mean to type was "fucking dishonest idiot", but the "dishonest" bit seems to have been lost. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• The same imaginary principle applies, perhaps. However, there is no provision within WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL which allows for exceptions based on the location of the uncivil comment or personal attack. You are free, of course, to start an RfC to add such an exception to the relevant policies. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 19:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - There might be less disruption if Drmies stayed away from AQFK. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Pfff. That's BS and you know it. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Let it go. Malleus's supporters have for some time been more disruptive than Malleus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to think it's not BS. I think we need to start handing out interaction bans for people whose entire existence here seems to be devoted to defending one editor. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 19:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What hypocrisy, Scottywong! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

How is that hypocrisy? What editor does Scotty defend? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, would you accept a two-way interaction ban with AQFK? You don't comment on him or his edits, he doesn't comment on you or your edits? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose criticising an editor for calling someone a "fucking idiot" is perfectly acceptable, let alone sanctionable. Hut 8.5 19:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• I would like to ask AQFK to not bring forth complaints about Malleus he is not a party to. While I don't have objections to third party complaints or efforts at litigation, in this specific case, no good can come if AQFK initiates another he is not directly involved in. I don't condone the use of any wiki space to call anyone a "@#$*&@#...idiot" or similar, but we need to apply less zeal, step outside the issue for a moment and get well educated on what the underlying issues are. I therefore oppose an interaction ban, but strongly advise AQFK to not participate in any further efforts at seeking sanctions against Malleus unless he is directly part of the dispute.--MONGO 19:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Close This proposal is, apparently, not being well received. Now, if we had some committee that dealt with intractable issues . . . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - AQFK is an unhelpful busybody who just needs to find something else to do and mind his own business. The community has made it rather clear by now that Malleus being generally right about a given topic outweighs any perceived incivility. We used to call people like AQFK "net cops" back in the Usenet days. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose As too broad and vague. The restriction should be to prevent him from raising concerns about Malleus as a third party. AQFK has caused a great deal of disruption to the community and Malleus by repeatedly trying to go after him as a third party, I noted this when AQFK filed the ArbCom case because one of the previous ArbCom filings this year was instigated by AQFK taking a frivolous complaint to Jimbo's page. He should definitely stay out of it unless he feels he has been treated uncivilly. Malleus is getting stressed for obvious reasons and when there are numerous members of the community, including Arbitrators, denigrating him repeatedly without provocation and people making frivolous complaints about his contributions it must be very hard for him to maintain his composure. If this restriction were changed to be a ban from making complaints about Malleus as a third party, I would support it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this nonsense and let's hope to see a little more maturity from Drmies in the future than this blatant attempt to silence anyone still daring to be critical of Malleus' frankly outrageous behaviour. Small wonder that the only people who still risk calling a spade a spade are socks now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I would be happy if AQFK voluntarily concluded that commenting on MF isn't helping, but a community one-sided band requires a lot more justification than has been presented.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Administrator abuse

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

---

• I've Spun this off as a separate section since it has no direct connection to the previous thread. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  I've updated the section title - "Administrative abuse" is abuse occurring in administration; "Administrator abuse" is abuse of administrators. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Administrator Scott MacDonald has not withdrawn his personal attack against me, and has faced no penalty. Perhaps some of the champions of civility enforcement and no-personal-attacks could show that they have principle and indefinitely block Scott for personal attacks and disrupting discussion (probably not intentionally) rather than just heap abuse on Malleus? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you attacked him first. Were you disciplined for it? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Did you really think this was acceptable? Scott MacDonald's response seems remarkably restrained. Hut 8.5 19:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Did Kiefer withdraw that blatantly inappropriate remark? If not, he should be blocked. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Purely WP:POINTY post; this WP:BOOMERANG worthy. You trolled an admin about cancer and he responded to you, citing how inappropriate it was, and now you call for him to be blocked two months later, citing some perceived personal attack. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC) (added 19:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC))

I am not going to comment on the "cancer" discussion. I have nothing to add to my post which Kiefer helpfully links to above and you can draw your own inference. You will note in it I stated I would not comment or interact with Kiefer in any way after that, and instructed Kiefer not to post on my page again. So, I am disappointed that having posted this here, he took the opportunity to appear on my userpage to tell me. I'd thank others to instruct him that the project would be best served if he should not attempt to communicate with me in any way at all going forward. I have no desire to be made aware of his contemptible presence ever again.--Scott Mac 20:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Boomerang proposal

Per the evidence provided by Hut 8.5, I am proposing that this thread WP:BOOMERANG on Kiefer. Trolling someone about cancer is not cool (cancer is not a joke) and it should not be ignored. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Per Demiurge's comment below, I will be more specific: I think that a one week block would be appropriate. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC) 24 hours is probably more reasonable, given that the incident is two months old. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - you're going to need some sort of concrete proposal here if people are going to support/oppose it. ("Boomerang is needed" is not a concrete proposal.) So suggest one. One year civility restriction? Six month ban on KW opening new AN/ANI threads or re-opening existing ones? One year ban on KW calling any other editor a liar or otherwise accusing them of dishonesty? Twelve hour block for blatantly offensive trolling about cancer? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

How about a 24-hour block? Seems good enough to me. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for the sake of it, if passed, can the blocking admin do it exactly at 12:00 on 31st December 2012, so that he can say "Blocked until next year"? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind Kiefer was indefinitely blocked 3 days ago for disruption. A 24 hour block isn't going to work. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Non-Free Media Usage Warning

Good Evening,

I am Malikussaid, a newbie Wikipedia editor. Here, in my personal opinion, I felt that mechanisms of warning users of inappropriate edits is quite highly... (sorry) shocking. I uploaded a few screenshots, having good faith that these are appropriate ones and complies with Microsoft Screenshot Licensing practice. Unfortunately a bot (which I cannot blame) posts warning on my user page, and I panic-ly checks the pages of my screenshots, and there I found the following warning :

{{di-orphaned fair use}}

I know it's my bad to unable to link it immediately to any articles, but I was consulting with a more senior editor to help me decide the best form of those images to use. And then suddenly a big red scary warning (for me) appears underside of screenshots I uploaded, giving me a 7-days chance to fix it or it's going to be speedy deleted.

As I known (tell me if I wrong), a speedy deletion is reserved for downright wrong edits, such as vandalism, blanking, harassment, etc., but now I am is getting threatened with the same action. This is... really scary for me. I tried all my best to comply with screenshot uploading policy and/or licensing rules, and with one mistake (orphaning the image), I am being faced with the consequences of speedy deletion.

I am suggesting that the way of notifying user upon this form of offense is modified, so, as for example, the user is told that his images must be modified in a certain way to kept in Wikipedia, instead of telling them that their images will be deleted if they do nothing. I think it is more informative, and helps user learn upon mistakes they've made. I also suggests, in a way I don't know, the "scare level" of speedy deletion is decreased.

Thank you

---

Malikussaid (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-free content enforcement is something that we are supposed to handle quickly, given the Foundation's resolution on handling of non-free media. We regularly delete non-free content not used in articles (per WP:NFCC#9), and do so in a timely manner. And the message is correct - you have to include those in articles to keep them around, so there's no "modification" that can be done. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

One thing, speedy deletion is not reserved for downright wrong edits as you state, it's reserved for any content where the result of any deletion discussion would result in overwhelming consensus to delete. Downright wrong edits are definitely part of that, but not only, there's a number of purely routine deletions that are covered by speedy. As Masem explains above, we will not keep non-free content on the servers that aren't used, and deletion of such unused content within 7 days is routine maintenance.

There's also an important notion in that warning, which is that non-free material should not be uploaded without a valid reason and a plan for inclusion. A non-free image isn't "yours", in this case it's Microsoft's, and while there are a couple of good reasons to use them, limiting that usage to what is strictly necessary is a sound policy to help ensure that our access to what we DO use doesn't get more restricted in the future. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I fully accept the MASEM's reply and first paragraph of MLauba's reply. But I has a plan for inclusion of those images in articles.

Malikussaid (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Realistically until you know you can use them , you shouldn't upload them here. If you were asking for advice of which of two or more images to use for an article, it is much better to use a free image hosting site to provide the links, and then once you're ready to include the selected image in WP, upload then. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know this policy.

----

Malikussaid (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Resysopping RFC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices impacts administrative practice, so it's relevant to watchers of this page, so please contribute to the discussion if you are interested. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 18:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Drmies block

User:Ironholds blocked User:Drmies for 24 hours for a personal attack. I have unblocked Drmies. I will add to this but wish to post it quickly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ironholds blocked both Drmies and ScottyWong. Why act on only one side of the dispute if you're unblocking? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Do you intend to unblock Scottywong as well? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: from my perspective, in response to perceived or real goading, Drmies left an utterly inappropriate comment on Scottwong's talkpage. It's for that that I've blocked him. I note that Bbb23 not only failed to discuss the unblock with me, but failed to even leave a notice anywhere (other than AN) that the unblock had taken place - and inquire as to how Bbb23 can possibly consider himself utterly uninvolved from a block of the person who nominated him to become an admin in the first place, less than six months ago. Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for fucks sake Bbb23. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, DO NOT unblock a civility block without discussion. That's never ever been helpful.--Scott Mac 22:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well this is an all-round fucking disaster, isn't it? GiantSnowman 22:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to remind the community that it isn't wheel warring if you unblock the user who nominated you for adminship. Obviously. There is a policy for that, right? —Tom Morris (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't see any discussion between you and Ironholds, Bbb23. Did you try discussing the block with him before unilaterally undoing it? That's generally considered, at the very least, a minimum requirement before unblocking in a heated situation, especially when you're unblocking one side of a two-sided dispute while leaving the other blocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Apparently, Drmies was blocked for this post on User:Scottywong's talk page. Although Drmies's comments are harsh, they do not rise to the level of a personal attack, and even if they straddle the line (e.g., "mediocre editor"), they do not justify a block.

I don't know what it is about today, but I can't remember seeing so much drama in such a short space of time. People need to get a grip.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I think I'll extend my holiday vacation from WP another few days. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered actually trying to respond to the rather serious issue with your block raised above? Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Scotty has been unblocked by Floq. Youreallycan was also blocked. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If the personal attack straddles the line, it's pretty inadvisable to unblock the admin who nominated you for admin, without discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Floquenbeam unblocked Scotty. Go Phightins! 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Re-instate Bbb23 failed to discuss the block with Ironholds (or seemingly anyone else). Bbb23 is also involved. The original blocks (plural) were justified. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I should highlight that I think both Scotty and Drmies make great contributions to wikipedia, this doesn't change that the blocks were justified. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I didn't know Scotty was blocked because he's not on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess ignorance is bliss :) --Malerooster (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• A bit of research before unblocking seems warranted. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  I was going to say, "I unblocked this one because I knew who he was" is a really bad defence to the issues raised. Ironholds (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Bbb, I think that shows that you were involved and shouldn't have acted in an admin capacity. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Many a time poor behavior by MF has been excused on the grounds that he was baited. Well, so was Scotty. Are we going to be consistent? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  Certainly! Next time you see Malleus say something that crosses the line, let me know and I'll block him fast enough to make your head spin. Ironholds (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As much as I respect Scotty and hated to see him get blocked, I've got to admit I admire your mentality. No favors for anyone. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

We can't afford to lose good editors. But for every one editor slapped on the wrist if we enforce incivility, a dozen leave if we don't - not people we know, not people we see, just people who walk into an increasingly hostile and aggressive atmosphere and go "this is not for me". Ironholds (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Seriously? Ironholds, there's no need to be trigger-happy, particularly when you didn't even discuss it with either of them. Not to mention it's an admin in good standing who has never been blocked before who made a borderline comment. Then you went farther blocked the target for rising to the bait (not well, I grant). Then Bbb23, you unblocked someone you are clearly uninvolved with? Typically you try to find some consensus first. Blocks are meant to prevent drama, not make it worse. I think it's time to break out a few whales to smack people with. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  Ed, both of them were baited, by each other. Quite frankly, I'm tired of the "but mummy, the other boy said a bad word first!" as a defence. It wasn't acceptable in primary school and it's not acceptable here. Being in good standing does not give you carte blanche to do whatever the heck you want, which is, I understand, precisely what Drmies and SW were arguing over in the first place. Ironholds (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't, but blocking established contributors (like it or not, those who have been here longer tend to be more well-known) without any discussion first tends to lead to more drama, no matter how you slice it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  In my experience blocking established contributors under the civility policy, or not blocking them and instead taking it to AN/I or AN, are both actions that seem to attract precisely the same semantic argument from Known Parties and precisely the same cheerleaders and hangers on. Faced with two equally dramatic options, I picked the one that prohibited both parties from exacerbating the situation directly. Ironholds (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  Eh, we have philosophical differences in our approach, as do most people who have opinions on the whole civility enforcement debacle issue. Also please note that all my comments mean nothing against you, as I really do admire your work, but I disagree with your stance here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  Totally understandable; I'd point out we have both managed to disagree about something of great import without at any point directing the f-bomb at each other. Even on Wikipedia, miracles can happen! :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  I was tempted to post a comment using every swear (including British slang) I know or could find, but I feel like that would not be taken well, given the general tone of this section. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Moving back one meta-level and looking at the dispute that led to these blocks...I'd like to hear any of the involved parties explain exactly why they felt attacking each other was a good way to go about...whatever they were going about. Ditto for why Bbb23 thought this was such a horrible emergency that he not only couldn't discuss with the blocking admin, but also couldn't research the situation. Guys, you're both more than experienced enough to know that what you were doing could only make things worse, and not correct the issues you felt were occurring. Bbb23, you're experienced enough to know unilateral cowboy unblocks with no discussion make situations that were bad enough worse. Perhaps blocks here weren't the only solution, but good lord you all know better than to have done what you were doing, and I find it difficult to support anything that looks like acting like the behavior tonight wasn't a problem. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• As noted above, I've unblocked Scottywong. I assume my dislike of SW is well-enough known that accusations of protecting my friends won't be thrown about. I don't suppose everyone would be willing to holster their block buttons and their mouths, go to their corners, and chill out for a while? That would be what grownups would do.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • When you jumped in with your tools before discussion, I don't think you are in a position to come the adult and lecture the children here. You took an action you knew would be controversial, in haste, and without waiting for consensus. There will now inevitably be a prolonged shitstorm, and you are partly to blame.--Scott Mac 23:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Um, no. That shitstorm started with the original comments and subsequent blocks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Bad unblock Aside from the fact that Bbb23 failed to discuss this with blocking admin, Bbb23 is not uninvolved with respect to Drmies. Drmies nominated Bbb3 for adminship. Bbb23 shouldn't be using their tools when they're involved.

@Bbb23: Can you please help defuse the situation by undoing your unblock? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• All aboard the Arbcom Express! Train leaves the station in fifteen minutes--so get all your block-warring and personal attacks in pronto. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) If the administrative consensus is that I am involved AND that Drmies should be reblocked, I will defer to that consensus and do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You should have waited for consensus before taking such a controversial act. Whether the unblock was justified or not (I think not, but others will disagree), the haste and lack of discussion were extremely poor judgment.--Scott Mac 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)There was a heated exchange between the two of them, over a discussion that has since been closed. I think the blocks were excessive and did more to fuel drama than reduce incivility, and I'm pleased that both have been unblocked. As the interaction between Drmies and Scottywong is now over, any reblock would not be preventing anything - I'd say it's time to move on. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not a bad unblock - This is all getting extremely petty and retarded. Civility blocks have no consensus at all these days, so undoing one, esp one as poorly-thought-out as this, is justifiable. Tarc (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock both. Administrators don't have to obey rules. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this doesn't exactly bode well for your complaints about admins getting a double standard, does it? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There's clearly a double standard here. Some editors/admins are expected to follow the rules while others get a free pass. I wouldn't mind it so much if someone actually enshrined it into policy: Some editors are more equal than others. At least, it would be honest. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much agree. I've seen the exact same situation before where admins have stepped in and blocked two editors who were personally attacking each other etc. The editors weren't admins. They weren't unblocked by any admin. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What we're seeing here is more along the lines of "the admins couldn't put together a conspiracy to protect their ranks if we paid them, because put two of them in a room, give them a topic, and they will instantly disagree on how to handle it." It's not "admins get away with murder" so much as "admins constantly running headfirst into walls, flailing wildly at their buttons and each other. Occasionally, the buttons do something. Usually the worst possible thing, in the eyes of at least one other admin." I would hesitate to say that this unblock shows admins being held to a different standard even if it's is upheld, given that "block-> unblock-> ANI -> screaming about block" is basically how blocks on a lot of popular non-admins also go. It just shows that Bbb23 held them to a different standard than Ironholds does. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I would probably agree with fluffernutter except that apparently we're not allowed to agree with each other. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I was unclear; I don't think it's admins being held to a different standard. Just that friends sometimes help friends, and if your friends happen to be administrators, so much the better for the blocked editor. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Tarc. This was not a bad unblock, it was a terrible unblock. --My76Strat (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think you mean the first part. Either you're disagreeing with Tarc or you're agreeing with AQFK.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why does the Admin corp not seem to learn anything, each time this happens? It's all bad behavior. And, it's over, and over again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  There's no such thing as an admin corp. There's over a thousand of us last I checked, elected in different eras of Wikipedia, active in different areas of Wikipedia and coming from completely different backgrounds, both as editors and as human beings. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  Why would that mean there is no such thing as an admin corp? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatorum

On a related note, I've indeffed Malleus Fatorum. Both Drmies and Scottywong have complained that blocking them constitutes a double standard, and, unfortunately, they are quite correct. I expect that they thought that meant that they should be unblocked, but I quite disagree. There's no interpretation of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ferret_legging/GA2&diff=prev&oldid=530255820#GA_Reassessment that doesn't cross the line of WP:NPA.—Kww(talk) 00:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• For all that it's going to matter in the uproar that will inevitably end in someone controversially unblocking, this looks like a good block to me. Treating other editors like people worthy of something other than insults is and should be one of the most basic requirements we ask from our editors. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Good block but unblock In an ideal world Malleus should have been blocked, but this isn't an ideal world. Any block etc should basically be left to ArbCom because otherwise things will go crazy; if you think a block is justified, go there, because no other block will stick. Whether you wish it or not, Malleus will be unblocked in 5 minutes, and we will be back where we started. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• That should help calm things down, KWW, nice one. --John (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've unblocked; there's clearly no consensus for an indef block, you're substituting your judgement for others'. Do not make blocks that you don't believe have consensus, it's an abuse of your admin tools. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

O'Dea's block by Hex

I've just undid Hex's block on O'Dea - I see no reason to block and all the reasons to unblock. Didn't contact the blocking admin because with all these negotiations the block might expire and even though it's short this doesn't make it less outrageous. Max Semenik (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, not again. What is it with admins rushing to unblock without discussion - always a poor move.--Scott Mac 23:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• The block was blatantly incorrect, and unblocking was obviously the right thing to do. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posting here and getting a second opinion first would have been better. That's all I'm saying. If the block is plainly bad, a couple of others will endorse you and then you are not imposing your judgment over that of the blocking admin. If blocks can be bad judgement (and they can) so can unblocks.--Scott Mac 23:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • When the block is so obviously an abuse of admin tools, there's no prior discussion needed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Jaw-droppingly bad blocks like this one are best immediately reversed, and discussed later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, but... The problem is that one admin's "Jaw-droppingly bad block" isn't another's. With a bad block the blocker has made a bad judgement call - however, humility tells me that when I judge it as such, it is entirely possible I've missed something, or indeed that others would say my judement is bad. So, unless we want one admin simply overriding the judement of another, it is best to take 5 min and come here for a sanity check. If it is obviously bad, you'll get your unblock call endorsed immediately. Much less dramatic than risking the lone gunman stuff.--Scott Mac 23:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't think that this was quite an "abuse of admin tools", but a block for not using edit summaries is clearly unjustified given that no policy requires them, and many experienced editors chose to not sure them. As such, I think Max did the right thing by lifting this block without delay and reporting the matter here for additional opinions on his and O'Dea's actions. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  He hadn't actually "not used edit summaries" - the blocking admin just didn't think one of them was good enough, and blocked when it was pointed out to him that he was wrong about policy. That's abuse in my book. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Wrong. You're very poor at reading a situation.

I noticed a while back that O'Dea was misusing - I assumed in good faith - the minor edit feature. Advised him of the fact. He responded by blanking his talk page. I checked back later, noticed no change in behavior. Advised him much more strongly that he needed to start using it correctly and that he should not ignore the advice. He blanked it again. Checked back later, found a very poor edit summary, advised O'Dea of that fact and provided - politely - a link to help on how to correctly use the feature. O'Dea responded by grubbing through my edit history to attempt to find something to attack me with, and leaving a comment with a gibberish edit summary. I advised him not to be unreasonable as it might be interpreted badly. O'Dea responded with an inflammatory comment with another gibberish summary, clearly intended to anger me.

I blocked O'Dea for disruptive editing, exhibited by his interactions with me. Not because he didn't use an edit summary. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment prior to blocking was "Keep taking the piss and see what happens" - he wasn't taking the piss, he was pointing out that a) policy does *not* require good edit summaries, and that b) you were not perfect regarding edit summaries yourself. The block looks to me like it was out of spite. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You look wrongly. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was out of spite; sometimes blocks are just bad blocks, and people need to learn from them. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the incivility/PA; none of the comments were severe enough to justify any action. I think it's a matter of interpretation whether this is ok: [10], personally I think it's fine. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no requirement for edit summaries to make sense. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought we stopped even posting stats about edit summary usage on RfA talk pages... Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Some constructive, wild spitballing

Just woke up from a nap to find a good many users I respect (on both sides of the aisle) in a fair amount of trouble. Suffice it to say that there's probably a combined half-million contributions between all the editors who deserve trouts right now. So, something revolutionary occurred to me. I have no idea if this, or anything like it, has ever been suggested, but... why, exactly, does one admin need to be able to block another admin? Hear me out here: If you read through old ArbCom cases or Signpost issues, as I have on many a late night, it seems like a recipe for disaster; what was the last time that one admin blocked another and it ended well?

Now, I know, I know, this seems like the wrong direction to go as allegations of "admin abuse" are ever on the rise - and don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in WP:NOBIGDEAL, and I don't think admins should be "above the law." The thing is, though, blocks of admins can fall into one of two categories: urgent and non-urgent. If there are urgent grounds to block an admin, it's generally appropriate to also emergency-desysop them, either in conjunction with the block, or as a back-up if they self-unblock, depending on the nature of the urgency. Anyways, I don't have a fully-formed proposal here, or anything, but here's the general lines I'm thinking along: There's been a whole lot of wanderlust, so to speak, among the bureaucrats lately; everyone agrees that we need them for something, but no one's sure quite what that is. And at the same time we have yet another dispute involving admins using tools against each other. So why not change the policy to say that only bureaucrats can block admins? 'Crat attention is already needed in any emergency cases (since even if you start out with a block, you need someone to have their finger on the 'desysop' button), and in non-urgent cases, we could simply require some sort of consensus on AN before blocking an admin, which would then be carried out by a 'crat. That way the only way an admin can get blocked is if they're judged to pose a threat to the project, or if there's a consensus to do so - without ever giving the impression that admins are as a rule more trusted or more valuable, but simply acknowledging that pretty much any non-urgent block of an admin will be controversial.

Anyways, if anyone else has any ideas for a general solution to this type of problem, related to my suggestion or not, feel free to post it here. The section title says everything. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)