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

Privacy problem: posting of IP address in 'recommended message'

In a recent discussion here, User:Od Mishehu said that autoblock message now doesn't reveal the IP but "in other blocks the recommended message does". Does anybody know which recommended messages User:Od Mishehu was referring to? Lightmouse (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would recommend asking this at the village pump/technical thread. People there might know about the various mediawiki messages/tools that might do this. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Lightmouse (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As suggested, I posted at wp:vpt and the response was "WP:AN? Almost everyone there is an administrator and can go to Special:Block and look around...". I am not an admin, can an admin please do that please? Lightmouse (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Locke Cole said "You can see a list of all MediaWiki messages (and their values, default and current) here: Special:AllMessages (warning: large page)." It is a bit complicated for me. Is there anybody out there that can investigate based on the comment by User:Od Mishehu? Lightmouse (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You could take a look at MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext, which still invites the user to supply an IP address as part of his request for lifting the autoblock. Some thoughts:

• Autoblocks only last 24 hours. If the user's IP privacy is important to him, he doesn't have to submit a request.
• If the reviewing admin doesn't see an IP supplied as part of the unblock request, he may be less likely to grant the unblock. Sometimes genuine vandals are caught in autoblocks and the admin doesn't want to make a mistake. (He can check the IP's contributions, if an IP is supplied).
• Rangeblock victims (even if innocent) often have to wait for a checkuser to look at the request, to be sure they are not the person the rangeblock was intended to catch. It is possible that autoblocked users would have to wait for a checkuser as well, under the proposed plan. This is hardly a step forward. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about request messages and those are important too. However, User:Od Mishehu was referring to unblock success messages posted by the admin. Lightmouse (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are speaking about {{unblock-auto}} you should check with Od Mishehu. Though he recently updated that template, it looks to me that {{subst:Request accepted|...|...|...}} still prints out the IP address on the User talk page. I agree that it is pointless to echo the IP address there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

The following temporary injunction has been passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking;

Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, can this be added as a watchlist message? I would not have known about it if I had not seen it here. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a bit too long and does not concern enough people to have it there. Mass editing should be done using an approved bot, so I guess the operators may^{{sofixit}} be contacted individually. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily done by a bot - I have been delinking dates manually and would have carried on had I not just happened across Ryan's message in passing. – ukexpat (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A watchlist notice seems a bit excessive. A simple note to anyone who continues to do script-assisted linking / de-linking should be fine. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:Nickhh

This editor has been following around on a fairly regular basis, getting himself involved in many content disputes to which I am a party, undoing my work for the fun of it, apparently, as per this diff - note the edit summary. In addition to this, some previous examples include Israeli settlement - with this diff - (note the edit summary), Muhammad al-Durrah, Nahum Shahaf and others. I have asked him before to stop, which he disregarded (or rather, described as 'Personal attacks, bullshit, threats'), and continued today to follow me to yet another article he has never before edited, in order to insert himself squarely into a content dispute against my position
I am not the only one who has noted this type of behavior - the editor's talk page is full of such concerns from other editors he has apparently been hounding - see this and this. In fact, the hounding behavior is so obvious, and has been complained about so often, that he has taken to prefacing his hounding edits with a "Stalking disclaimer" - see as a recent example. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record (just in case anyone takes this bizarre complaint even remotely seriously) I have never followed this guy anywhere, other than the one occasion (referred to above) over a month ago, when I admittedly noticed on his contributions page that he was putting up an article about a Polish-Jewish politician who had tried to warn the world about the Nazi holocaust for deletion. I believe removing the prod did WP a service. Other than that, editing or commenting on the same page as someone else occasionally in related topic areas, sometimes weeks apart, is only going to be seen as hounding or following that person in the mind of someone with an overbearing ego. And the fact that a smear campaign to that effect seems to have developed, which generates its own momentum and which I have quite correctly removed from my talk page, does not make the allegation any truer. --Nickhh (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Ignacy Schwarzbart article only: Canadaian Monkey, I note that while he did remove your prod, he (along with a second editor), also over the next two days turned it from one line into a full stub, thus fulfilling the goal of the prod. Bringing it here a month later is ridiculous, stale, and an attempt at a gotcha move.

I haven't looked TOO deeply into the rest, but it looks like you saw the other disagreement about Nick's followingor not of another editor, and decided to stack yours onto it, since it's more credible that way. ThuranX (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to really intervene here with any archaeological diffs as my issues with Nickhh have for the most part subsided and normalized but, in general, this diff is certainly not "a month later" and if Canadian Monkey feels there is a problem and that he'd tried to solve it by asking nicely and was ignored, then this is a very reasonable place to request assistance. I would suggest Nickhh make some note that he'll make a sincere effort to avoid even the appearance of following Canadian Monkey's contributions page and we will end this at that. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, is the suggestion that I am not allowed to do anything on any page where another editor I've encountered before happens to be as well? And that it is my responsibility to prevent other people coming to their own odd conclusions that I am following them when I am doing nothing of the sort? There's no problem to solve here. And note the diff you've raised above is indeed, er, a month after the Schwarzbart diff; and also, pace CM, I was not reverting any material of his or "editing against his position" on the Gaza page (some five days after his last edit), but never mind either of those points. But hang on a sec .. you yourself dived in, a whole three minutes after my edit to revert it in its entirety. And now you've turned up here too, to add your "no smoke without fire, surely" observations. All very strange. --Nickhh (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot say that I see any merit in the complaint against Nickhh. Reviewing the discussions on his talk page and his contributions, it seems the worst he is guilty of is minor incivility in response to provocation. Leaving the warning Canadian Monkey left above is NOT asking nicely about a problem. (if there are other contacts, please provide diffs) It was an uncivil warning that failed to assume good faith. Personally, I believe that while technically against policy, Nickhh's reply to that warning can be explained, if not justified by the tone of the warning itself. Canadian Monkey seems to be caught up in seeing what he wants/fears to see in Nickhh's behavior, which is stalking. I do not think any reasonable user would consider a review of the contribution page of someone you had contact with stalking. The prod removal for example was certainly justified, and there is no evidence that I can see that Nickhh followed Canadian Monkey around and made changes just to harass/disrupt/hound him. Reading the page on harassment, simply following the work of another editor and occasionally dropping in to oppose that editor is NOT harassment. It is only a policy violation if it is "in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor" as per WP:HOUND. Even if in all of the cases cited, Nickhh WAS watching Canadian Monkey's contribution page and went to the articles in question because he was there, the incidents are so spread out that no reasonable, uninvolved person should consider them hounding. For these reasons, unless substantially better evidence can be provided in the form of diffs, I don't believe the complaint has any merit; referral to Wikiquette Alerts would not even be justified as Nickhh has already been warned on his talk page by a third party. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree of course. Even if I had been picking up pages from CM's contributions page from time to time - which I have not, whether to argue against him or otherwise - that is not in itself a crime under WP law. As noted I have recently been on the receiving end of a whole rash of these claims, all from editors who I have disagreed with from time to time on the occasions when I venture into Israel-Palestine pages. That's why I get p#ssed off when it happens, because it's a rather nasty smear (remember the policy used to refer to "stalking") often delivered with a very aggressive note on one's talk page, and it's happening with tedious regularity from a bunch of editors with the same POV (who are also making similar wild accusations against others, eg here and here). In a way I'm glad one of them has finally brought it here so it can fall under some third party scrutiny, as it now has. But can someone now close this off? I'd really rather have much less unresolved mud flying around with my name attached to it. --Nickhh (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Please note that the Arbitration Committee have announced that they have established a new central noticeboard, which will serve as a forum for arbitration-related announcements, notices, and other discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard for more details.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

MOAR NOTICEBRDZ PLS. John Reaves 21:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely there can be no need for a noticeboard? ArbCom is so dull, nothing exciting ever happens around them. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I have updated the Noticeboard Noticeboard accordingly. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

4chan mass vandalism

I just wanted to let the administrators know that some users on the website 4chan are planning mass vandalism because they are mad that their site article was the featured article on wikipedia. My usertalk was vandalized by them and I didn't know what 4chan was so I looked it up and saw their plans on the site. Mygerardromance (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

See the above threads. It's under control, don't worry about it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Which threads are you referring to? I cant really see any thats relating to this issue. I may be blind though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

/b/ moves so fast that any post referring to a /b/ thread is outdated within an hour, Saddi. Just because there isn't one now doesn't mean that there was before. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

False "orphaned image" alerts

I frequently upload fair-use images to use in articles' infoboxes, but for some reason, I still get "orphaned fair-use" alerts often. Yet when I click the images, it says "No pages on the Wikipedia use this image...Yet when I click the article, and the image in the infobox, I find it's the exact image page!

Probably a database issue...Could you guys help me please? Thanks, Tom Danson (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

See the notice at the top of User talk:BJBot. BJ^Talk 21:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen images get removed by vandalism, then the bot sees them as orphans and reports as such, and the images get restored. Could that be happening here? EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess more along the lines that the bot is using a cached version of the page, and a purge would be required on its part to avoid this (no idea whether or not this is a good idea, though). If the images are in fact used, feel free to just ignore the notices and remove them from your talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page deletion

A bot has deleted the talk page of User:AlexLevyOne as an "old temporary userpage." It seems to me wise to keep the talk page of a multiple-block-evading sockmaster like this around, since it may (I don't really recall) contain evidence of why he was indef blocked in the first place. Is such a deletion standard operating procedure? Deor (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The talk pages of blocked socks are not supposed to be deleted. I've restored this one and removed the temporary category from the talk page. - auburnpilot talk 04:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few of these have popped up on my talkpage recently, usually with an editsum along the lines of "Talk/userpage of an indefblocked/banned user." I had assumed there was a good reason for it... perhaps I was wrong? //roux   04:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Before this turns into a big discussion, I'd just like to interject my thanks to AuburnPilot for the action and the explanation. Deor (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 04:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was a bit surprised to see this bot pop up, as I know I've seen the automation of this task shot down before (for the very concern that sock talk pages would be deleted incorrectly). Otherwise, the talk pages of indefinitely blocked users can be deleted; see Category:Temporary_Wikipedian_userpages. - auburnpilot talk 04:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TempDeletionBot. Interesting. - auburnpilot talk 04:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It only checks the page its deleting, I'm not quite sure why it would check anything else :) The pages are supposed to be kept if needed for tracking purposes, the template on the userpage serves this purpose. If you want I can have it check both, but I'm not sure I see the purpose, the talk page was a bunch of template warnings, most about article deletion. (part of the reason they're deleted is to get rid of such useless pages). Mr.Z-man 04:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The current version of the talk page may be just a bunch of warnings, but try the history tab. User talk pages of socks are frequently full of information that can help track and confirm connections between accounts. I think the better question is how this task was approved, when it was so clearly rejected at the RfA I linked above. The bots may have different names and operators, but the task is no different. - auburnpilot talk 04:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)And to respond to a few more points:

"It seems to me wise to keep the talk page of a multiple-block-evading sockmaster like this around, since it may (I don't really recall) contain evidence of why he was indef blocked in the first place."

The evidence is exactly where it should be, in the block log, SSP reports, and the sock template.

"Is such a deletion standard operating procedure?"

Yes, people have been doing it for years.

"I've seen the automation of this task shot down before"

And since no one is actually willing to manually go through (what's at some times tens of) thousands of pages of pure crap to find maybe a couple pages that have information that might be useful (though not likely) in the future, people just end up doing with unapproved bots. In any case, the linked RFA was from more than a year ago, opinions regarding adminbots have changed significantly in the meantime. Mr.Z-man 04:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I have no doubt the opinion on admin bots has changed quite a bit, but I very much doubt that opinion on this task has. This should not be done blindly through the use of a bot. - auburnpilot talk 04:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you volunteering? As I said, there is currently, and there has not been since the decline of the last bot, anyone willing to do this manually. Mr.Z-man 05:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CAT:TEMP deletion bot. Seems like approval to me. And since its linked to further up this page, I think that if people objected, they would have commented--Jac16888^Talk 05:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[1] - Talk pages where the corresponding userpage has a sock template will be removed from the category starting on the next run. Mr.Z-man 05:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes me happy. I'm still very disappointed in the way this very rejected task was slipped through the back door, with half a dozen editors supporting (compared to the 30+ that rejected it). Very poor form. - auburnpilot talk 05:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? You willing to help with clearing the backlog? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Red herring? --Onorem♠Dil 05:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I don't really care much if adminbots are run to make non-controversial deletions, but saying a person needs to be willing to clear the backlog themselves in order to complain is a non-argument. --Onorem♠Dil 05:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Be willing to help or stop complaining. And "willing to help" isn't necessarily clearing a backlog, it can be commenting on bot requests or talking with bot ops about how to improve their code. But sitting around on a noticeboard and kvetching helps nothing. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean like commenting on the original discussion? Or you mean the second one? Because the first discussion, where the task was rejected, had the input of 70+ people. The second one had only half a dozen. I didn't realize the bot approval group had the authority to override community decisions, but clearly I need to start watching it more closely. - auburnpilot talk 05:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you're interested in bot discussions, you should participate in them. And they're at the same place every time. I think there's even a pretty chart somewhere that lists all open requests. It may even include colors. And, things change, a fact that you seem to try to be ignoring. In the last year, attitudes toward adminbots have shifted significantly, as others have pointed out in this thread. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, MZMcBride, you can take your condescending attitude and shove it. I'm not ignoring anything, and so long as sock pages are not deleted, I don't have a problem with this task. The only thing that's being ignored is the fact (yes, fact) that this task was rejected. A year later, it was swept through a back door without even a mention of the previous discussion. Fine. That's fairly typical for the general MO of the bot approvals. And looking at Mr.Z-man's talk page, it seems I'm not the only one who has noticed his bot incorrectly deleting user talk pages of sockpuppets. - auburnpilot talk 14:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Stay classy, Auburn. Stay classy. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the way I see it, there's basically 4 options here:

1. Someone or some people go through these pages manually. Its been more than 14 months since the last bot was denied, that's 17% of the history of Wikipedia, and not one person has volunteered to do this. This is not a realistic option. We cannot always do what's perfectly ideal, at some point we have to look at what's actually practical and make a compromise.
2. We continue with the old status quo. That is, people clear the category with random, closed-source, unapproved adminbots on a semi-regular basis using unknown deletion criteria.
3. We use my approved, open-source adminbot with publicly stated criteria, open to any reasonable, realistic suggestion.
4. We don't delete any of these such pages, which as with old IP talk pages can have demonstrable negative side effects on things like statistics and maintenance.

I would also add, complaints != incorrect. User talk:WitchieAnna for example has no relevant information either currently on the page or in the history. They were the sock of a user who created 1 sockpuppet (WitchieAnna) 3 months ago and have done nothing since. The sock made <20 edits outside its own userspace. Why does that need to be kept around for all eternity? All the information is exactly where it should be, in the archives of RFCU and SSP, and the block log; not scattered around a bunch of random talk page histories. Why do we even keep the SSP archives if we would rather use user talk history? Mr.Z-man 20:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Aurora Publishing using Wiki to promote itself

Aurora Publishing has some serious sock puppetry and/or meat puppetry going on here to spam Wikipedia with their catalog and self-promotional stuff. The anime and manga project has been trying to police the articles since being alerted to the issue, but the socks continue appearing. The SSP report has sat unresponded to since the 9th because of the backlog and transition going on. It would really be helpful if an admin could review it and deal with them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• If there is an active WikiProject then I suggest that you work together to identify what of the spammed content is significant, and then AfD the balance. I'll be happy to help supervise the AfD for sockpuppetry etc. if necessary. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We've been doing that, with Prods and AfDs. The problem is the socks keep returning and making more articles, and particularly trying to spam those that remain with a lot of promo material, along with the main Aurora article. Attempts at dialog have been met with them pretending to just be fans (despite clear evidence in their editing history showing otherwise), such as the first account saying they were just a fan, until articles were tagged for CSD for copyvio, then they admitted being with Aurora and having written all the stolen summaries. It seems like they are copy/pasting press releases and the like into various articles, as we're finding copyvio plot summaries, statements, etc all over the place. We're cleaning those that are notable, and sending the rest for deletion, but still would be good if we weren't having to first undo their frequent respamming over and over again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the sock drawer. Anyone is free to unblock if they think the risk of further inappropriate promotion is removed, but right now there is no evidence that these people even see that what they are doing is wrong. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Amy Fisher

Could someone at their leisure confirm that User:Amy Fisher is Amy Fisher (to avoid any sort of user name vandalism) and then sort out the editwar/COI problems? Kid gloves on please.--Tznkai (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed at OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Open letter from FT2

See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Open letter from FT2.

Can someone do the necessaries. Thanks :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If by "necessaries" you mean summarizing (no offense, but not everyone wants to read the whole thing!), FT2 has stepped down from ArbCom until a way is found to provide a fair hearing. --NE2 08:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the clerks need to do a whole bunch of stuff (updating the ArbCom list, votes, etc.) I suppose that they'll do it soon enough (has anybody been doing anything else besides watch this case?) --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Rschen's got it -- clerk work. Which I guess has all been done now anyway. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPA

Resolved

 – Before someone digs themselves a deeper hole. --barneca (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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

[2]As you can see, a user called User:Colts1, added an extremely rude message to my talk page and was removed by IMatthew, thing is, when IMatthew removed it, he laughed, in the description of his edits, all he said was haa. I would very appreciate it if you could solve this with a block or something. Kalajan€₣ 15:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The user was warned. No further action appears to be required... D.M.N. (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know he was warned until later. So do people get second chances? People can get away just cause you admins don't care to react! *Siiting there on the sofa reading playboy* Yah, that's all you do, and I bet that if someone did anything to you you'd block'em straight away. He hasn't even edited mainspace yet (being here for a week). Kalajan€₣ 15:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, for a start off I'm not an admin, so I wouldn't be able to do that. If someone vandalised my page, or whatever I'd warn them. If they continued, then I'd take them to WP:AIV. D.M.N. (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this isn't a myspace, which is what Colts seems to think this is, and secondly, I'd like to have an admin's opinion, cause this is called Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I didn't come here to speak to some random user. Kalajan€₣ 15:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, administrators are really no diffent than anybody else. THe only thing is that we have been trusted with some extra tools however our opinions are no different than regular editors. secondly, as an administrator, if an editor stops bad behabior after a warning they are not going to be blocked. If the user makes personal attacks again after a warning they may be blocked. However if they ahve stopped then all is well. SImilarly, your comments above could be viewed as an attack on adminsitrators who, all as volunteers, put in many hours of hard work on this project. Please be careful when making inappropriate stereotype about editors on this project and feel free to read through wikipedias blocking policies (and other policies and guidelines). Hope this helps. If you have any further questions you are welcome to address me directly on my user talk page. Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(E/c)Anyone can contribute to this board. Admins are not special and there are many, many knowledgeable non-admins whose advice you should pay attention to if offered. Seraphim♥ 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you say that if he repeats it, I should report him? okay. And also, here :

SImilarly, your comments above could be viewed as an attack on adminsitrators who, all as volunteers, put in many hours of hard work on this project.

Well I wasn't uncivil. Kalajan€₣ 15:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, non-admins can issue warnings. Just make sure your warnings are given in increments - like level 1, level 2, level 3. If it continues after that, then an admin would be necessary to take further action (such as a temporary block). Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace has a great deal of information and templates. Usually, we don't use templates to warn regular editors (of course, there are exceptions)...but you can paraphrase your own messages from the templates. Kingturtle (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, um.. the user did it again [3], I think he should be blocked. Kalajan€₣ 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan's edits

Kalajan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some of the comments from Kalajan above look uncivil, such as calling a user "random". I've had a bit of interaction with him, and noticed several uncivil edits, as well as edit warring:

• Edit-warred on List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees; blocked 24 hours.[4]
• Called all admins "useless" and questioning a block towards him. [5][6]
• Created a copy page of Talk:List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees with the intention to disrupt by continuing the discussion in his own userspace.
• I don't know whether this is sarcastic but he compares Wikipedia's rules to "Naziland". States in the same edit that a admin has a grudge against him that started last April.
• Edit-warred on Randy Orton.

I think there's some other uncivil comments as well in there, I know he used to vandalise with edits like these. I'm not sure whether a warning for the edits like above are necessary, but I feel the editor at times fails to AGF. D.M.N. (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'd like to explain myself here:

• I did edit war on WWE Roster, that's right, and I'm sorry.
• I didn't mean calling admins stupid and useless, they wouldn't be admins if they were! And I know one or two and they are very nice, just like other users.
• I didn't know creating copy page of Talk:List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees wasn't allowed, I was just trying to sort out the page and do the discussion somewhere else, because of the amount of edits coming into that particular section.
• I didn't say a user had a grudge against me I said that I've had issues with him.
• Naziland was just an exageration and was sarcastic, meaning Wikipedia had a large ammount of rules.
• I edit warred on Randy Orton because, as you see: I had been on wikipedia for about 2 Months (possibly less), and because my computer lagged, it took some time to return to the page when I added the edit on Randy Orton. When I reached there it wasn't there (someone had reomved it) but I thought it was because someone had blocked the page or something, so I did it again twice (not knowing I was doing wrong), until I was warned, but I still didn't know why it happened. As a matter of fact, I didn't even know why it happened until about a month ago. Kalajan€₣ 17:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you saying your edits lagged for one month? If you could, please rephrase the last point you made there.  Hazardous Matt  17:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring on Randy Orton was at the start of this month, not several months ago as you seem to say. [7][8][9][10]. D.M.N. (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh that edit warring, sorry, I was in the problem I described above another time on Orton. And no, I meant that my computer is very slow and old. Kalajan€₣ 17:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So you've been in two edit-wars on Randy Orton and one on List of World Wrestling Entertainment Employees?  Hazardous Matt  17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the Orton ones were mistakes. Kalajan€₣ 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Second violation of WP:NPA in 1 day

User:Colts1 Attacked me the second time in one day, see a few sections up. [11] The first time he was warned, now he should be blocked. Kalajan€₣ 20:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Calm down. You jump to blocking as a solution far too quickly. You tried to get stricter block movements on Talk:List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees, you've been asking other users to help you report User:Colts1, you even asked User:NiciVampireHeart why an anon IP hadn't been banned but I didn't even see any communication you had with that IP.  Hazardous Matt  20:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that, at this juncture, it would be wise to stop following a particular user's edits and to distance yourself from that article. You are digging yourself a larger hole to wallow in, and your commentary and edits are bordering on disruptive. Add to that, you have engaged in edit warring in the past, and have labeled other user's edits as incorrect; of course, to you, it would be to the wrong version. Back off and let the administrators do their work, and distance yourself from this particular user. seicer | talk | contribs 20:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No I haven't said anything to Colts because of sheer afraidness of him doing something else. But no Matt, I just find blocking a good solution to these types of editors. Kalajan€₣ 20:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Need help to move a page

As detailed in talk:Split (city), the page was renamed from Split → Split (city). This was done to enable Split (disambiguation) to be renamed Split, as there is no primary topic for Split. I renamed Split but was unable to rename the dab as Split because it already exists. Would an admin kindly delete Split and then rename Split (disambiguation) → Split? Thanks! Lambtron (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just edit Split (disambiguation) to be a redirect to Split? DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That would also require Split (disambiguation) to be manually copied over the contents of Split, thus resulting in a loss of history of the dab. Lambtron (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair point! DuncanHill (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. Doing it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)::Are you suggesting a copy and paste move? We need the page histories associated with the actual article if at all possible. A simple admin move would do the trick. That said, WP:RM is two doors down, and they have a section for non-controversial moves (I also believe there is a {{db}} template for such deletes as well.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done I moved the history, no worries ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd image

The image at File:Split.jpg does not appear to be the image referred to in the description. What has happened and how to fix it please? DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone uploaded a new image over the old one, I've reverted it to the correct version. MBisanz ^talk 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah three people "fixed" it at the same time. This messed me up majorly while trying to revert to the good version. I then realized it is an exact duplicate of a Commons file, so it is deleted and the Commons version is now showing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can Haz Copyvio Help, Plz?

Resolved

 – Another editor has removed the copyvio text from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't need an administrator, per se, just someone who's skilled at being non-BITE-y (I wasn't sure where such a request should go)). User:Ccumcac recently edited Cass Avenue Methodist Episcopal Church, dropping in a massive copyvio of this page. I assume from the username that this person is directly involved with the church, and the edits are good faith, so a good explanation of policy would be best, and I wasn't quite sure how to go about that. (As an aside, I'm not keen on rewriting the material, because I think a lot of it is unnecessary, and if I rewrote it, I'd just delete stuff until it turns into the article I origianlly wrote, and now it looks like I'm owning the article.) Anyone? Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilian

User Donadio created an edit-warring in the article White Brazilian. He removed several informations from that article, before making any discussion in the talk page. He also included several unsourced informations there. He flooded the talk page of this article with unnecessary comments. He seems to be using his personal opinions to make changes in the article. I told him that to remove informations and include unsourced posts are not allowed in Wikipedia, but he ignored me.

Can some administrator do something about it. Thanks. Opinoso (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Something Important for one of the pages

I have never posted anything here. Don't understand "level 2 - level 2" or how to get a link "hot" in what I am trying to contribute...anyway, here it is if someone who knows your SOP's can get it on the appropriate page: McClatchy news today has a story, "Economists: Banks that survive need tougher rules", @ mcclatchydc.com/251/v-print/story/59763.html. I came here to look up "Group of 30" referenced in the piece. They have come out with an important new report, and your entry for them does not reflect it. The article has a link to the 90-some page PDF report called: "Financial Reform: A Framework for Financial Stability"

I hope the above is clear, kudos to all who are able to add current data to the site. I felt this was important in our current 'climate.' Jonz33

Violation of WP:NPA by an ADMINISTRATOR!

Resolved

 – This thread has run its course. Further disruption, canvassing or edit warring will result in a block. seicer | talk | contribs 20:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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

[12] There, User:Elkman, and admin, warn him please but I think he knew what he was doing and the consecuences. Kalajan€₣ 20:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it a few seconds later. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh screw it. I'm just going for the block. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Calm please. Pedro :  Chat  20:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Kalajan, let's let some people independent of the issue evaluate what's going on before anything is decided, okay?  Hazardous Matt  20:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Elkman - please give time for review - that edit was not becoming, whatever the provocation - don't use the tools in this situation without other input - please. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

While Elkman needs a stern waring, and to be honest I am beginning to question his ability as a administrator I have undo the block he placed upon himself. Tiptoety ^talk 20:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies - I assumed Elkman was talking about blocking another editor. Nevertheless blocking himself was a silly idea and Tiptoey was right to remove the block. Again, I ask for calm. Pedro :  Chat  20:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note Kalajan is canvassing this discussion: [13] --Smashville^talk 20:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out this diff where the editor raising the claim against Elkman states that they have had "issues" in the past.  Hazardous Matt  20:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This unacceptable. And this is what I hate about some admins. They think that since they are admins, they can do anything. They are not civil. They violate every rule in the book. I'm not even shocked at him violating WP:NPA. Maybe he is angry. Then go and curse yourself out on Notepad. No need to do it on the wiki. There are only a few good admins, like tiptoety, who knows who to act like a civil human being. I also question his ability as an admin. ₰imon^KSK 20:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I also think Elkman's comment was over the line, but I'm not familiar enough with his past behavior to add anything else.  Hazardous Matt  20:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I would have to agree this behaviour is unacceptable. From both partiesBigDunc^Talk 20:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

He blocked himself? Where's the point in that, that's mental!? Nothing rude in my last comment by the way. But I don't know what canvassing is, could someone explain it to me? Kalajan€₣ 20:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And don't even get me started on Kalajan. Again, violating every rule in the book. Canvassing, personal attacks, edit warring, and uncivilty. And then the most ironic part: He tells us to respect WPP:CIVIL on the top on his talk page. And while I have nothing against him. This is getting out of hand. ₰imon^KSK 20:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

He immediatley reverted himself and said it was not a good idea. He did not abuse the tools or anything like that. If he had blocked you as or even threaened to block you that would have been much worse. While not a good idea, i dont see any reason to come running to AN.Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[14] There I have my answer Simon. Kalajan€₣ 20:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so that means I can go to someone's talk page and say ****** and get away with it. Specially being an admin! Kalajan€₣ 20:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your account is dangerous tilting to becoming disruptive. Not only are you canvassing, but you are or have engaged in edit warring. As I suggested earlier, back off and stop replying, or you'll be the next in line for a block. This thread is being archived. seicer | talk | contribs 20:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Yes sir, I'm very sorry sir, I'll stay out yes, just please don't do anything to me. Kalajan€₣ 21:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I have requested a removal of my admin privileges for this incident and many others. Clearly, I no longer have the temperament necessary to be an admin. I may not even have the temperament necessary to be a Wikipedia editor, for that matter. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Go take a break Elkman. It's bloody 20 below zero where you live, you aren't thinking rationally. Keeper | 76 03:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

When...

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

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

---

...did unilaterally archiving a thread become acceptable practice as a method of forceably shutting down any further opinions/responses? Not that I really care, but it's becoming more common. Tan | 39 21:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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

That is evil...--Smashville^talk 21:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you steal a man's signature, there's consequences. My bad. Keeper | 76 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you gotta bury the horse to stop people from continuing to beat it, especially with threads that are short (and could be construed as frivolous). In other words, too many people care about the color of the Bike shed (Parkinson's Law of Triviality) and that really bogs constructive work on this project down. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that (see 2 sections above) archiving threads is should not be done until the consensus is reached. Kalajan€₣ 21:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a straw poll, Kalajan. Despite my thread here, I agree with Seicer that you need to go do something else. Tan | 39 21:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the two threads were blocked to keep you from digging yourself further into a hole. --Smashville^talk 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing the median age of the users involved in the content dispute here is around 12. Maturity-wise, anyway. In a way, I'm sort of impressed with how long Elkman was able to restrain himself. Keeper | 76 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. iMatthew // talk // 21:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess Kalajan has yet to read the sign about feeding the bears...--Smashville^talk 21:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay anyway, carry on with your discussion that isn't about me, bye, tally ho. Kalajan€₣ 21:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Glider edit abuse and 3rr avoidance

The Glider article has been held at essentially the same version by two or more editors (User:Rlandmann and User:Jmcc150) conspiring[15][16] to edit war to hold an article and prevent it from progressing, while avoiding the 3 revert limit. They have been repeatedly doing this over a long period.

They even went to the degree of creating what is self-evidently a content fork at unpowered aircraft.

They also keep saying that any and essentially all changes I make to the article are 'non consensus' and require more discussion on the talk page. That's fair- to a point, but they've been saying this for about a month now and the article has changed negligibly. They've also removed citation tags quite a bit.

Trouble is 'glider' is a standard term which is specified by the FAA among others, and it doesn't mean what they say it does (so they are not following NPOV, as that involves including all notable points of view in an article, the use they try to impose is a common one, but there are many common counter-examples) They are going out of their way to systematically remove other points of view from the article, and ganging up on me to do that.

I consider this to be disruptive and abusive editing. Both editors are highly experienced and know that the wikipedia works with respect to NPOV. I've even pointed it out, gave chapter and verse on the policy and shown the relevant definitions, but they haven't stopped.

Um? Help?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Before I comment, I'd like to see their response to your post above - presumably you left them {{ANI-notice}} notifications? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. First, I steadfastly deny "conspiring" to do anything, let alone edit war. The fact that Jmcc150 and I happen to agree that Wolfkeeper's suggested changes to the article are ill-considered and detrimental is hardly evidence of a "conspiracy". Wolfkeeper's views on the scope of this article have failed to gain consensus, and although she or he has continued to voice them (increasingly more forcefully), exactly nobody has been won over so far.

My involvement on Glider so far consists of one reversion of Wolfkepeer's anti-consensus additions to the article yesterday.

Furthermore, I reject Wolfkeeper's characterisation of this as a POV issue (for reasons that I've explained elsewhere and that she or he is aware of). To give myself a "reality check" on this, I recently posted a question on WT:NPOV as a prelude to taking it to WP:NPOVN if the response there indicated that I wasn't too far off-base in my thinking.

That there has been negligible change to the article despite a month of discussion seems to illustrate to me nothing more or less than the changes that Wolfkeeper has suggested have failed to find support, and that the various people involved have been happy with the scope of the article as it was. People aren't going to radically change an article simply because Wolfkeeper would like them to or says that they "should".

As I read it, the current consensus seems to be that the scope of the article should be a narrow one, covering the aircraft that people commonly refer to as "gliders" (ie, one of these) That's a far more narrow definition than I would like to see, and vastly more narrow again than what Wolfkeeper would like. However, there simply isn't any consensus to implement my preference, much less Wolfkeeper's. I can live with that, and I certainly don't think that there's any "cabal" operating to keep the definition narrower than what I would want.

I believe that Wolfkeeper is acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia as she or he sees them; but that this view is predicated on an idiosyncratic and narrow interpretation of policy that others do not share. Her or his treatment of other editors has been consistently sarcastic, rude, and even abusive, and this pattern seems to be intensifying as she or he becomes increasingly frustrated that other editors have not "bought into" the ideas being put forward.

What else can I say? --Rlandmann (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this is a deceptive description of his actions here; as he is one of two people that are actively defining the 'consensus'. His actions in the article include using administrative powers to move the entire glider article and all its history to unpowered aircraft [17] as a way to create a dumping ground for any kind of 'inconvenient' glider that they don't wish to describe as such, but which are described as such by third parties.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am grateful to User:RegentsPark for bringing this posting to my attention. The long established scope of the article has been recently the subject of many discussions with one energetic user. I will not attempt to summarise the basis of the disagreement here but I have attempted to accommodate his views in the text of the article. Discussions were still in progress when Wolfkeeper took unilateral action, which I reversed once. Wolfkeeper also proposed a merger with unpowered aircraft and within hours began implementing it. I accept any sanction administrators may wish to impose for having a rational debate on a talk page before taking action. JMcC (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Note also that, perhaps significantly, Jmcc150 describes himself at User:Jmcc150 as a gliding instructor (by which I'm sure he means sailplane as defined by the FAA) on his user page. In other words, there is a conflict of interest in his editing here and you could at least imagine that he would not wish, for example, hang gliders to be described as gliders in the wikipedia because he could even lose business, even though the FAA and FAI definitions do seem to consider them to be gliders... and the name hang glider is a bit of a clue. Or perhaps he just likes to call sailplanes hang gliders, that's not uncommon in the UK, but I just note that it looks fishy to me, and it gives me more cause for concern the more persistently he tries to avoid an article that follows the NPOV policy and the FAA/FAI/NASA definition and attempts to narrow the scope of the article in this way. I personally have absolutely no problem at all with experts editing the wikipedia, even if they have a theoretical conflict of interest, but when their edits appear to be following that potential interest, then I get concerned.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of the 97 instructors at Lasham, three are paid, and I am not one of them. I do it for fun. I get concerned when good faith is questioned. JMcC (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You also claim to have written a book though. You can see how this can be misconstrued, and in any case because of your interest nearly anyone will tend to overvalue the particular aircraft they fly. That wouldn't be conducive to neutrality and weight. Among other things if I've understood your position, you don't seem to actually believe that (for example) hang gliders are correctly considered gliders and IRC have acted to remove mention of them from glider.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this the place to continue the same arguments about common names? I plead guilty to being an expert, and I recognise that it does not give me or anyone ownership of any article. JMcC (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The other thing that needs fixing is the history on unpowered aircraft. When Rlandmann content forked glider he did it by renaming it to unpowered aircraft. I mean his intention that this was to be a content fork couldn't be clearer, a good faith article would have been created from scratch, but that aside this means that the glider article suddenly pops into existence (essentially) in December, this has actually confused quite a lot of people into thinking that unpowered aircraft wasn't something they just invented. The reality is the other way around, the glider article is much older. This needs to be fixed. That requires admin priviledges.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As an editor and admin who frequently edits aircraft articles, but as yet not this one, let me comment here as a somewhat outsider (to this debate, at least). A review of the long-term discussion shows that Wolfkeeper is a voceriferous proponent of his own views on the article and how it should be structured and its scope, but it also shows that he is essentially alone in that viewpoint, and that a number of other editors have opposed his viewpoint. I'm sure his actions are in good faith, if a bit, um, enthusiastic. However, I would caution that no matter how passionate an editor is towards their viewpoint, at some point one has to back off and realize that consensus doesn't agree. I've been on the conceding side myself more than once, and it's not easy to do, but I'd suggest that Wolfkeeper back off a bit. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If the wikipedia simply becomes about ganging up on editors that are pushing for due weight and unbiased sources then the game of building an encyclopedia is lost. Right now, in my opinion that's what's happening, and your comments seem to more or less support doing that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Before anybody goes "fixing" anything, they'll need to take a careful read of the edit histories. They will discover that Wolfkeeper is factually wrong on two important points: I didn't have anything to do with the creation of "unpowered aircraft", and I certainly didn't move/merge "Glider" anywhere. All these pages have been shuffled around a lot, to the point where on 19 December two significant problems existed: "Unpowered aircraft" had been created by someone pasting content from the original "glider" article without noting that for licencing purposes, and (more importantly) the actual parent page for all of this stuff with an edit history stretching back to 2005 (that had existed at "Glider" up to early December) was now buried under a redirect at "Glider (aircraft)". I killed two birds with one stone by merging the page history of "Glider (aircraft)" with that of "Unpowered aircraft", which resolved both problems. A review of the page history of "Unpowered aircraft" confirms the first point, the link provided by Wolfkeeper herself/himself above confirms the second. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You might well be right, and if I was inaccurate in any way, I apologise, but the current situation is that the history of the glider article is in the unpowered aircraft article, disconnected from the text in glider. The text in unpowered aircraft shares little if anything in common with that history. Without checking very carefully, nobody necessarily did anything wrong per se, but it hasn't turned out at all well in that respect.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology; it's genuinely appreciated. I have no particular preference that the edit history of the original Glider article stays where it is now, just that it needs to be preserved somewhere and preferably that the "somewhere" isn't buried under a redirect. I chose "Unpowered aircraft" to merge it into since at that time, that article was the closest in content to the penultimate version of "Glider (aircraft)" before it got redirected, because it didn't yet have a long edit history of its own (and because, as I said earlier, it solved a licencing problem). --Rlandmann (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 steps down from ArbCom

ArbCom has issued a statement on FT2's departure, which may be found here.

For the Committee, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Failed to parse... math output directory"

The error:

Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory)

appears on this page: Chaum_mixes

When I logged in, the message was replaced with the proper math notation, but the error reappeared when logging back out. It may be an intermittent problem in MediaWiki that you need to be logged out to see, for some strange reason.

Shouran (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I told the server to take a hike and it did just that. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen this intermittent problem a few times recently. Only seems to happen when you are not logged in, only at certain times, and then only on certain pages. Was happening on Stable module category earlier today, but seems to be fixed for now. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

When you are not logged in, you don't always see the current version but a cached version (sometimes a few hours old). If there was a problem when the page was cached, it might stick around until the page is purged. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In the "my preferences" link at the top of the page there's a tab for changing how math displays. Likely, it's related to the difference between the default configuration (which you'd have as an IP) and whichever you use when logged in. I don't know off the top of my head what the default is, but I'll bet that whatever it is isn't compatible with your browser. I'd ask over at WP:VPT, where someone oughta' know. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How long for an oversight response?

How long does it typically take for someone to respond to an e-mail sent to Oversight? --Glp888 (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, it's always been dealt with within 24 hours. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? I usually get a response within an hour or two--Jac16888^Talk 02:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, same here, but I didn't want to guarantee that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we dock the oversighters' pay if they do not respond within the documented SLA times. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

First point is more valid than the second. If anything should be treated as if it has deadlines it probably is oversight. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that. And sometimes you can find an oversighter on (shock horror) #wikipedia-en-admins. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Cali567

 Not doneSee ANI. No need for multiple discussions.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I previously requested the protection of Demographics of Argentina nonetheless it was declined and the administrator claimed that this user should be report to block. Cali567 created an edit-warring in Argentina, Demographics of Argentina, White Argentine and Argentine American. Even though a consensus was previously reached user cali567 continues to make disruptive edits. This user was warned several times always for the same reason.

--Fercho85 (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

New feature: expiry for temporary passwords

Just as a general FYI, r45503 has been ok'd and will most likely be included in the next scap. This fixes , adding expiry times to temporary passwords, default set to one week. Since the question has already come up elsewhere, if a temporary password expires, you just have to request a new temporary password. ^demon (talk)

Does this include temporary passwords sent via email through the account creation process? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a school block?

I have already posted a request for intervention regarding this, but it's been two months and yet, nothing's happened.

This IP address is the new IP address for the East Richland school district, formerly this IP address. When this changeover was done, the former IP had a six-month edit block.

I've spoken with the technical coordinator for the district, and we would like to have this IP blocked indefinitely due to the abusive edits made by students. We feel that, if they wish to edit Wikipedia, they can and should create their own accounts that allow for accountability of their actions. - Malykyn (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We do not usually block institutional IPs on request (it's their job to enforce their internet usage policies, not ours), nor do we block IPs indefinitely. See WP:BP. 209.174.247.164 (talk · contribs) is indeed the originator of schoolboy-type vandalism, but not to a degree, I think, that a lengthy {{schoolblock}} would be required at this point.  Sandstein  18:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I learned via a discussion on unblock-en-l that we do occasionally issue these blocks, however the proper method would be to email unblock-enwiki@wikimedia.org with the request. –xeno (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Six month schoolblock issued. Don't see the need for a bureaucratic run-around, unblock if you disagree. Vsmith (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Insult

Can you please make sure that whoever constantly writes this:

και για να παραφράσω τον Καραϊσκάκη τωρα που έμπλεξες με δ'αυτους κλάσε μου τον μπούτσο —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.53.62 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

on my user talk is going to stop? This is a heavy insult in Greek, its translation is:

and to paraphrase Karaiskakis now that you messed up with them fart my p**is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.53.62 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't speak Greek at all, so I won't comment much here, but the free translator I ran this through gave me something about "ice cold" and didn't translate most of it besides that. Could be different dialects or something, or the translator sucking, but that doesn't line up with the above quite. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its because it's slang, removing it google gives this. And these are the untranslated:

• [18]
• [19]

I don't want such words written on my talk page.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Armorpiercer

Can someone have a look at this user's page? I'm not sure if it's within the spirit of the userpage policy. Stifle (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's writing a new article, and it's reasonably high quality. Perhaps the best thing to do is not to invoke policy, but to suggest to him that it should be made into an encyclopedia article. Perhaps he's waiting until it's "perfect" to do that--which is a common mistake. Tb (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Have I been a jerk?

Hi. I recently came into some conflict with an Admin (and Member of the Mediation Committee), User:Tariqabjotu, over the inclusion of a picture of a 5 month old very badly burned dead Palestinian girl on 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Tariq said that the photo was sensationalist and should have been removed for that reason. [20] [21] I pressed him on the issue on his talk page asking for a specific policy.[22] His response that that "mere words were incomprehensible to [me]" took me somewhat by surprise. [23] I believe his comment was in reference to an argument I had made before that the photo should be kept. In that argument I used three capitalized words followed by exclamation marks: "TANTAMOUNT TO CENSORSHIP!!!!" [24] Tariqabjotu responded that I was being a "jerk". [25]. He then accused me of "making up your own comment and then responding to that". [26] He also made a comment that I found somewhat insulting to User:Sean.hoyland who had agreed with me on the matter.[27] I asked for an apology but so far have not received one. [28] (1) Am I being a jerk? (Possibly by making a big thing out of this by bringing it to Admin noticeboard?) (2) Was my comment defending the photo out of line? (3) Has Tariqabjotu crossed the line? Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To me, your "TANTAMOUNT TO CENSORSHIP!!!!" was definitly being a jerk, but I wouldn't be ashamed of your other actions. Even if the picture doesn't belong on the page you clearly acted in good-faith all along and don't seem to be trolling. I'm not sure what help an admin in particular can do in this case, though. Themfromspace (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's my take:

• Whether the image should be on the page is a question for community consensus, as with any other content dispute.
• Your message here [29] suggests that you are thinking that everything is ok provided there is no specific policy. This is incorrect: the policies constrain consensus (editors can't ignore WP:NPOV or WP:BLP even if there is a consensus to do so), but the consensus is free to be more restrictive.
• The reference to WP:UNDUE does seem appropriate to me. Children have been injured and killed on both sides of this conflict; it gives undue weight to post an emotionally inflammatory photograph of a dead Palestinian child, as if there have not also been dead Israeli children.
• Your words, "TANTAMOUNT TO CENSORSHIP!!!!" [30] are over the top. It is not censorship for the consensus of editors to agree on what an article should say, and remove text or images that you think should be there. But the all caps and exclamation points suggest that it's time for a cup of tea. Edit something else.
• Yes, you were being a jerk.
• Yes, the other guy was also over the line. Tb (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And I'll only add that written communication is not a natural way for humans to communicate, given that we rely so much on non-verbal cues. If someone appears to take what you've written the wrong way, don't escalate the intensity. It won't help, and they don't have a way to back down. (I'll avoid the obvious comparison to the conflict discussed in the article.) People can have bad days, or something just hits them wrong, or they were reading (or typing) too fast and leave out a key word that changes the meaning entirely. In which case, as Tb said, WP:TEA is the guideline that applies. (The guideline I give my employees for dealing with the public is that if someone comes off at you, remember their wife probably just had a fight with them, the dog bit them, their boss yelled at them, the tax agent called to set up an audit, and you were just the first person they saw after that. Be nice to them and don't take it personally.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

I am happy to announce that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is now live and fully operational. For those who have not been following the merger closely, a community discussion took place in early April of last year where consensus determined a need for the merge of both Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Myself along wit the help of FT2 (talk · contribs), Lucasbfr (talk · contribs), Nixeagle (talk · contribs), Sam Korn (talk · contribs), X! (talk · contribs), and Thehelpfulone (talk · contribs) (whom my dearest thanks go out to) worked for many months on a process that would be beneficial to the community, and reduce the level of needless bureaucracy. A few notable changes have been made:

• All cases are formatted in the same way, regardless of whether the request deals with CheckUser or not;
• WP:SPI is now assisted by a Clerk bot (created and maintained by Nixeagle (talk · contribs)) which means that there will be no need to transclude any request to the main page. Simply sit back and let the bot do the work;
• Cases that have a CheckUser request attached may be endorsed or declined for CheckUser attention by any clerk with the understanding that any CheckUser may overrule their decision;
• CheckUsers will monitor both cases that involve request for CheckUser and simple investigations, this will allow for a CheckUsers to intervene where necessary;
• Users who were regulars at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets are welcome to continue to do their great (and much needed) work at SPI;

While we have been working on this for over a year 9 months (fixed - FT2), there are still changes that will need to be made, as such I encourage any feedback the community may have on the talk page. Tiptoety ^talk 23:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I admit to fallowing this topic, and offer my thanks to all those who have worked upon it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yay! The paint is still a little wet, so be nice with the bot and the overall process for the first days. We believe this will make things easier for people willing to help on sock cases by making it more straightforward. By the way, there's already a backlog, so chop chop! -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats to all involved. Synergy 00:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser letter codes revamp

As part of SPI, the letter codes used at RFCU might be updated for SPI. This is one of the outstanding SPI matters. A summary of the proposed new letters is here - any users familiar with CheckUser or suspected sock cases are welcome to comment.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino

The "G.-M. Cupertino" arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is available at the link above.

G.-M. Cupertino is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Should he return to editing following his ban, he is limited indefinitely to using one account to edit. He is to inform the Committee of the account he has selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Mailer Diablo 23:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments requested on an article I speedy-deleted and which an editor wishes to restore after further work

I speedy deleted the article Advanced Programs, Inc (API) yesterday on the grounds that it both read like an advertisement and made no claim of notability. The article's creator, User:JAKS1975, protested this decision on my talk page, and I restored the article to their user space at User:JAKS1975/API to allow them to work on it. JAKS1975 is now requesting that it be restored to Wikipedia-space. I personally don't think that the references provided are sufficient to meet WP:ORG as they are limited to entries in lists and databases of suppliers, a short paragraph which appears to be a summary of one of the company's press releases and two stories about the company which this firm later split from to become and independent business. I am aware, however, that this is only my opinion. Could other admins please review the article at User:JAKS1975/API and comment on whether it should be restored? Nick-D (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposing a community ban on Ecoleetage

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

---

Resolved

 – He's banned as in no admin will unblock him for this. Let's leave SDJ his privacy per his request on ANI SirFozzie (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Trust can take years to gain, yet just seconds to lose. This is what happened to one of our editors, Ecoleetage.

Eco has recently engaged in real-life stalking of User who's signature is SDJ, who happens to be a teacher. Earlier today, Dean's employer received a complaint from Eco that Dean was abusing his job by playing computer games when he should be teaching. Not only that, but Eco was doing this because Dean opposed his recent RfA. Adds up to Eco threatening Dean's livelihood just because he opposed him. And now Eco uses a sockpuppet, Eco2 (talk · contribs · block log), to complain about Dean's post at ANI. Unbelievable.

This is the worst breach of trust I have ever seen from such a respectful editor, and there has been emerging support for a community ban on Eco. We just banned Betacommand for less than this; it's time to throw the ball over to Eco's court. --Dylan620 (Contribs) 03:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Dylan, speedily archiving this, Ecoleetage is as banned as anyone could be, as no admin will unblock him after this thread. Let's leave the person he harassed out of this, we don't need anything else pointing at him, per his request. SirFozzie (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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