Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William Allen Simpson (talk | contribs) at 23:47, 14 May 2009 (→‎Need wider community input: page_is_redirect=0). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)


    Need wider community input

    Related discussion:

    I noticed that Template:R from other capitalisation's TfD was closed without seeking wider community input. For a template that affects so many pages (around 263,120), I believe that an RfC, a post at the Village Pump, or something should be done in order to get more people aware of what is happening. We all know that TfD and CfD have very low traffic to their respective pages. Granted that this discussion had more users involved than the average subject in those discussion pages, I just feel like the more people involved the better. So I'm asking that this discussion be unclosed, or reopened or something. Additionally, at this very moment a bot is running that is removing the template from all the redirect pages and putting Category:Unprintworthy redirects on them. Perhaps this bot could be stopped, at least for a bit? Killiondude (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked Erik9 to pause this task while we mull this over. –xeno talk 03:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is an absolute necessity to remove the category, all 28 templates should simply be modified as redirects to the unprintworthy template instead of editing 260k+ pages. That will still allow bots to still detect the redirect type. This still doesn't solve the issue of editors removing redirects and replacing them with piped links though, which is what this template helps mitigate, see [1] Tothwolf (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For that fact, this type of change [2] isn't what was discussed at all, I assumed the bot was adding {{R unprintworthy}}, not the category directly... Tothwolf (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At very minimum, it is a huge waste of resources to edit every affected page rather than just redirect the template. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (break)

    I have a number of concerns with this issue, none of which have yet been addressed. As I previously pointed out at the TfD, [3] CfD and TfD both do not get enough coverage from the wider community for this issue to be addressed properly in either of those venues.

    The template itself is very much in active use as of this very moment, see Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Redirects from other capitalisations

    I find it troubling Erik9 began an immediate removal of the template with Erik9bot less than an hour after he closed the TfD as a delete. It's clear he did not fully read the entire discussion or research this issue before starting this task. There were lots of 'per nom' and WP:IDL "votes" but still little in the way of discussion of a working alternative to this template and category. Because this is an unusual case and because Erik9bot has only recently been granted approval for TfD work I still can't fault Erik9 too much.

    Many other things should have taken place before even attempting such a deletion, and while the actual discussion leaned more towards redirection, none of these address the issues that this template and category were created to address.

    There are 1000s of editors actively adding this template, by hand, using functionality in AutoWikiBrowser and Friendly, and probably other tools as well.

    There are multiple bots [4] that currently add this template to redirects, and the officially approved bot, BOTijo is still hard at work.

    This template and category are used for at least two tasks...

    1. The template informs editors that this redirect should not be replaced with a piped link [5] and
    2. The template and category are used by projects such as Version 1.0 Editorial Team and the Book tool when generating offline readable content.

    This template (and others) have gone though previous TfD discussions [6] and as pointed out by Michael Z.: "These help clarify the purpose of redirects, and keep editors from mistakenly deleting or changing them. Unfortunately during some MediaWiki upgrade they stopped displaying on the redirect page. Is it possible to make them show up again?"

    I also want to state for the record that while I do not think it was appropriate to send the category used by this template to CfD instead of taking it to the Village pump and seeking wider input via a RFC, I do not have a grudge against MZMcBride for his nomination of the category at CfD. This is something he has accused me of today off-wiki.

    --Tothwolf (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The TfD seemed straightforward enough, and there was little support for keeping the template. (In fact, only one voter used the word 'Keep' in their statement, though other options were proposed). It was hard to understand what function the template actually provides. If that decision stands, then it still does not seem necessary to edit all 262,000 redirects to change or remove the existing template. Causing the template to redirect to something else would be less work. A temporary halt to all bots (both those that add the template and those that remove it) might be logical. I was one of those who suggested that the task of the bot that ADDS the template be de-authorized, and then others proposed a TfD of the template as the right way to handle the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, The TfD certainly doesn't look like a very organized or informed discussion and I don't really see any valid concerns listed in the TfD while calling for deletion either. If I had to guess as to why more of the "comments" weren't "keep" it might be that most people leaving comments recognized that TfD was not the proper place for this discussion and were attempting to discuss actual issues that had been raised instead of playing a game of "delete" vs "keep".
    Clearly many of those calling for delete, the nominator included, did not understand the template's purpose and did not research it before casting their "vote". This is pretty explicit in the comments there so I see no reason to duplicate and quote those here.
    The only potentially valid argument I've seen raised is that the bot auto-adding the template to new redirects may prevent page moves. This argument seems to have been countered by the fact that the approved bot does not immediately add the template to new redirects.
    I've already pointed out some what the template and category are used for above, but here is the text that normally had been shown on the redirect page itself:
    "This is a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation, and can help writing, searching, and international language issues."
    "Pages linking to any of these redirects may be updated to link directly to the target page. However, do not replace these redirected links with a piped link unless the page is updated for another reason."
    "For more information, see Category:Redirects from other capitalisations."
    Now, for some reason this text (and the text on the other {{R from ...}} templates) no longer shows on the redirect pages. Without looking at the MediaWiki code itself, to me this seems to be more of a bug in MediaWiki. This text used to show up when following the redirect=no (Redirected from ...) links. It seems to me it would make more sense to figure out why exactly the text isn't showing up on redirect pages now and deal with that instead of calling for the deletion of templates that clearly serve multiple purposes.
    When there are comments such as "I've always wondered what the hell this was for. I guess it's probably as useless as I thought it was." during a TfD it's pretty obvious those editors don't understand what the template's purpose and function is, yet at the same time they are still calling for deletion, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I too am deeply disappointed that apparently, TfD has become TfV, and that these voted results are then executed without any apparent consideration for the technical concerns that were raised in the discussion. I am still not convinced either way as to delete or keep, because I still have not seen a good and verified presentation of the facts of the usage of this template, both on en.wp as well as by many of it's surrounding tools. And replacing it, instead of redirecting it, is a waste of resources that I just cannot support even if I were convinced this template should be deleted. Replacing {{if}} with {{#if}} is something to throw resources at, but this just seems rather pointless to me. We are told not to worry about performance, but in my opinion, that is only for as far as it affects the encyclopedia we are building. If a redirect can serve the same purpose for these 260000 pages that most users won't ever see, then that is a case where we certainly should take resources into account. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm also concerned about the actual closing. That result was pulled out of his ... (hat). Nobody suggested replacing with the CATEGORY, only a simpler redirect to the TEMPLATE {{R unprintworthy}}. But I'm the keep — and gave a detailed enumerated discussion. Should this be taken to WP:DRV?
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing prevents this from being taken to WP:DRV. But perhaps it would help if someone familiar with the classification of redirects could explain how the classification is supposed to work and what it's currently being used for. A place to hold such a discussion might be Wikipedia talk:Redirect, or even Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) if you want a more conspicuous place. A problem that came up in the TfD was that a category with 262,000 entries to prevent the occasional creation of piped links seems like cracking a walnut with an earthmoving vehicle. If anyone thinks the key to the problem is that {{R from other capitalisation}} no longer causes any special text to show up on the user-visible redirect page, then consider holding the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Leave a link here as to where you want to continue the debate. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably the best place to get an overview of the classification system is the chart on the redirect guideline page. For {{R from other capitalisation}} specifically, see the "Other capitalisations" section. Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages contains a mostly complete chart of all the redirect information templates.
    The information text no longer showing up doesn't just affect {{R from other capitalisation}}, this affects all of the redirect information templates.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I support Tothwolf statements. Emijrp (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Though the number of editors supporting the deletion of the template was certainly important, my closure was not based solely on "vote counting". Editors supporting the deletion of the template argued that
    1. The continued addition of the template to redirects served to obstruct legitimate pagemoves to the redirects edited, since non-administrators cannot move articles over redirects having more than one revision. It was observed that such moves could be accomplished through WP:RM; however, convenience in conducting pagemoves is regarded as a sufficiently important consideration to permit ordinary editors to perform moves in most cases, instead of limiting the move function to administrators. It was argued that a template should not be utilized as a back-door mechanism to restrict pagemoves to WP:RM.
    2. The addition of the template to redirects, and consequent obstruction of pagemoves, provided negligible benefits in terms of navigational value.
    3. Only by actual deletion of the template could its further addition to redirects be prevented. Merely redirecting Template:R from other capitalisation to Template:R unprintworthy would allow the subsequent usage of the former template. To prevent the creation of > 260,000 red-links, the deletion of the template absolutely requires that edits be made to the redirects in which it is transcluded.
    Furthermore, since Template:R unprintworthy's sole function is to add Category:Unprintworthy redirects to redirects, preceded by an explanation of the category's purpose which essentially duplicates the description provided at the category page itself, I concluded that it would be more efficient to add Category:Unprintworthy redirects directly to the redirects, rather than create > 260,000 transclusions of Template:R unprintworthy (which currently appears on less than 3,000 redirects).
    Nonetheless, if it is the belief of the community that Template:R unprintworthy adds significant value to the redirects transcluding it, I can add the template, instead of Category:Unprintworthy redirects, to redirects when replacing Template:R from other capitalisation, if there is a consensus for the bot task to continue.
    If there is a consensus for some disposition of the TFD discussion other than the straight deletion and replacement of the template, I can have my bot revert the 320 edits it has already made to effectuate the TFD closure.
    In view of the large number of redirects to be edited, I have suspended any further bot actions to accomplish the TFD closure until this matter is resolved. Erik9 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Erik's comment sheds some light, but I still don't see the immediate benefit of removing all the old templates from the redirects. (My comment assumes that the obsoleting of the template is upheld after further review). The only valid concern I see is that people who didn't get the message to stop using this template will keep adding it manually, even though it's been redirected. If bots are the main users of this template, can't we just stop the bots from adding this template to new redirects? As new redirects are created without being templated, the percentage that carry the template would drop gradually, without causing any extra work for anyone. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Having had a look at the actual MediaWiki code now, it's clear the view() code in Article.php for the current version of MediaWiki is not rendering text on pages that are considered to be redirects. The markup is parsed but the rendering routines are not called when following the redirect=no (Redirected from ...) links. This doesn't look like a bug, but more of a design oversight or perhaps just a software regression.
    Looking at this code and the edit preview rendering code, it doesn't look like it would be that difficult to restore this functionality, which would allow all of the redirection message templates to function properly again. I think this would be particularly useful for templates such as {{R from merge}} and {{R with possibilities}}.
    Restoring this functionality would also help solve the issue of redirecting talk pages of moved articles where they have project banners for WikiProjects that make use of the redirect class or contain discussion related to the redirected page that editors wish to preserve. There is an ongoing discussion about this issue for ListasBot at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. This would also solve the {{editprotected}} issue raised in the ListasBot discussion.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not opened a new bugzilla report, but I've continued to dig through past reports and found report # 927 which mentions this issue.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just found report # 14323 that covers this exact issue. Happy-melon has even come up with a patch. The edit preview code would also need to be modified though.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd commented on bug 927 some 3 years ago, and have now joined bug 14323
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that. Hard to believe it has been broken all these years. It certainly explains why no one seemed to know what the {{R ...}} templates really did. Hopefully with all the extra attention it will be fixed this time. Tothwolf (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What is troll food?

    Hi. I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this, but I'm not sure where else to go. I tried WP:VP/M, but didn't get much reply there.

    What does it mean, to feed a troll? I've noticed that experienced Wikipedians disagree, and we don't seem to have much guidance in the project namespace or at meta:. WP:DFTT is a soft redirect to a page at meta, and if we look there, we're referred to WP:DENY, but that page was about getting rid of our huge shrines to specific vandals. Trolling situations seem to me to be quite different from that.

    Trolls want to provoke a response, and maybe a fight, right? Is giving them the response and the fight they want a good idea? My own approach is to kill them with boredom, which I find to work, but I've been savagely attacked by other established editors for doing it. (This leads to a curious paradox where I say, "see it worked, he went away" and receive the reply, "it didn't work; he just got bored w/ your nonsense and went away".)

    The contrary position seems to hold that anything other than "revert, block, ignore" constitutes feeding. This position seems to assume that we can successfully identify trolls, and I'm a little concerned about false positives.

    Is there an empirical or objective way to decide this question, or is it even a question worth asking? Opinions? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think they just wanna waste people's time for LULZ, which is basically a huge pain. So I think troll food is basically feeding their egos and falling into their traps. They wanna be talked about here so they can brag to their loser troll friends about it. Personally, I think its all just a substitution for the sex none of them are getting but that's just me. :-) Anywai, just ignore them. If you don't they'll figure out some way to harass you. There's some pretty nasty people out there, sociopaths and stuff. :-(Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking for advice for myself, really. I'm quite comfortable handling so-called trolls. However, I think it would be smart for us to somehow document this question, in a way that we do not currently. We pretend to have a policy about this, but we haven't actually got one. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. :-p Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll bite: Are you trying to provoke a response here? Is that not a curious paradox itself? Isn't the objective definition "someone who is satisfied by demonstrations in acknowledgement of their effort to contribute," or just "someone who is looking for attention to their contributions, period"? Either way, isn't that just the same as everyone here? Putting myself at the risk of becoming the proud nail, what about false negatives? Steveozone (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, what's the harm in a false negative? If someone asks a trolling question, and I answer it without becoming upset, what harm is done? The harm from a false positive seems very clear to me; not so much the false negative. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Billy the Kid, goat sockpuppet. Not dangerous to trolls until she gets bigger.

    Funny you should ask. Usually the best way to handle trolls is to ignore them altogether. Occasionally (for the very brave) it's possible to troll them back. Despite the green rubbery exterior, most trolls are exceptionally thin skinned. Ideally one sets them to work trolling each other. Then their energies and anger dissipate harmlessly. This is very good for the rest of the Internet's denizens, and even amusing to watch. Remember: there's a little troll in all of us. Cheers, Hamlet, Prince of Trollmarkbugs and goblins 14:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My preferred response to a question, if I think it might be a troll, is polite and informative. If another editor then posts "OMG WTF DFTT", I don't think it's me that's giving the troll the attention they crave. I realise this is pretty much what GTBacchus said above, but hey. Maybe we need a three wise monkeys approach: see no trolls, hear no trolls... SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See no trolls, hear no trolls, are no trolls. That kinda sounds quacky... Xclamation point 14:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you recommend as better? I certainly don't conclude from "see no trolls, hear no trolls" that there are no trolls. I think the insight there is that identifying them as trolls is actually pointless — harmful even.

    Veiled allusions to a page as pernicious as WP:SPADE aren't really helpful, because I honestly have no idea what you're claiming, and what I'm trying to get out of this thread is clear communication. Can you put your advice into clear, concrete terms? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Or is that three wise ostriches? Better to (when necessary) deflect attention from the troll and correct the trolling. Comment on the edit, not the editor.LeadSongDog come howl 15:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See, this is what I'm asking about. That was cryptic. Why can't we state our advice for dealing with trolls aloud and clearly? What do you mean by "deflect attention from the troll and correct the trolling?" How does one "correct" trolling, and what has that got to do with, "Comment on the edit, not the editor?" I know people for whom those are contradictory statements. That's the kind of ambiguous language that people will interpret in diametrically opposite ways, leading to unnecessary conflict.

    What does "when necessary" mean? What if there's no edit, but rather a question on a talk page, "Why doesn't this article explain about [ethnicity] being dishonest and stupid?" Do you block that person, and call them a racist? Do you answer their question? ("Please see race and intelligence for information on that question. If you have a specific edit that you propose making in this article, what is it?")

    I know what I do, but we don't seem to provide any guidance in the form of guidelines or policies. A consequence of this is that some areas are inevitably dominated by people who are "doing it wrong" - whatever that means - and I think that results in harm to the project. This is all just food for thought, I guess, because I'm not seeing any particular thing to do about it. I'm interested in what others think. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is exactly why I prefer "troublemaker", & try to avoid using the word "troll". If someone is editting/posting in a disruptive or bad faith manner, I guess in that respect she/he is a troll -- but they'd also be a troublemaker. You've established a reputation for having a level head, GT, & you have the experience: you're more than likely to know when a user is just a floundering newbie, & when a user are trying to be disruptive. Just act accordingly. -- llywrch (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Llywrch, I'm not asking for advice. Like you say, I know how to act. I'm asking why we seem reluctant to advise others, who might not be so sure of how to handle "troublemakers". I'm very likely to write an essay, that might grow into a guideline, but it won't be to advise myself.

    This thread is here to sound out whether my ideas are compatible with those of other admins watching here. I know that my ideas are extremely incompatible with those of some editors, but none of them has seen fit to comment here. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Would love to advise and assist, but it seems I am being ignored. Hamlet, Prince of Trollmarkbugs and goblins 21:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I read your comment above, but it wasn't entirely clear to me how that's applicable. Can you point to an example of what you're talking about? Do you think it would be good advice, if we suggest to editors that a good response to trolling is to troll them back? You say the best strategy is to ignore them altogether. What if this isn't possible, because other editors engage them anyway, and won't be dissuaded? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) Sometimes one simply has to wait for others to come to the realization independently that a certain person is a troll. Of course it's also possible that one's own estimate is mistaken, and occasionally one has the pleasant surprise of developing a good working relationship with an individual who had initially seemed like a troll. For the purpose of an essay about dealing with trolls, four good points to hit would be as follows:

    1. Ignore them when possible.
    2. Give a quiet heads up to other people who aren't ignoring a troll.
    3. If the heads up gets disregarded, then back off and wait for events to play themselves out.
    4. If you have to interact with a troll, be polite.

    Climbing the Reischtag to warn people about a troll is a bad idea: it makes you look silly and generates sympathy for the troll. Rather than labeling the person with the t-word, calmly describe the objectionable behaviors. Attempting to troll a troll is high risk behavior, and not really appropriate for essay advice. Hamlet, Prince of Trollmarkbugs and goblins 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There's some sense to that. I especially agree that climbing the Reichstag and making noise about the trolling is a bad idea. However... I have a hard time with any advice that depends on making a determination as to whether someone is trolling. I feel that the best approach is identical whether you think they're trolling or not, and that trying to decide whether they are is therefore a distraction. Since I wouldn't ignore someone asking a sincere question, why should I ignore someone pretending to ask the same sincere question? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not you apply the t-word, pretty much anytime one interacts with a difficult personality the best approach is to be polite and keep the person at arm's length. Don't engage emotionally. The difference will tell: if the individual actually is a troll, they'll either leave out of boredom or become enraged at their failure to provoke an emotional reaction. If the individual isn't actually a troll, normal responses will follow. The best thing about using good manners to separate trolls from non-trolls is that you'll never need to apologize to the latter for having suspected them. Of course you aren't obligated to interact with difficult people either. Walking away politely is just as good (and often better). Hamlet, Prince of Trollmarkbugs and goblins 15:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, all of that I agree with. Courtesy and professionalism do protect against the harm due to false positives. I have yet to see what the harm is of a false negative. I guess I'm seeing all of this in the light of a specific recent episode that really made me think. The best advice, to my mind, is to never ask oneself the question, "is this a troll?" However, I can't realistically expect people to refrain from that. The idea is to have advice that works regardless of whether any determination has been made as to, "is it a troll?" -GTBacchus(talk) 15:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking "is this a troll?" is rarely harmful. Thinking "this is a troll" quite often is. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't get what happened

    Resolved
     – Tags removed by original user. Oren0 (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not really THAT new here, or at least I read a bunch of these policies some nice person left on my talk page a while go. Anyway, so I wrote my fist article and I thought I did a good job, but someone put a speedy delete tag on it. When I tried to ask him on his talk page about it he just did this [7] deleted my message and ignored me. I don't know what I did wrong but tht seems kinda rude, no? If I was gonna try and get some page deleted I'd at least be willing to discuss it with them. The article has three independent sources so I dont even see why it should be deleted anyway. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Anyway Ima goin to bed so I'll come back and see if my articles is gone in the morning. :-/ Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has removed the tags he/she placed on the article, so no harm there. As for the removal of your question, the user has a big disclaimer on the top of his/her talk page that says to discuss such matters on the article's talk page. It's not the most civil thing in the world to remove a question from your user page without explanation, but there's nothing strictly wrong with it either. For future reference, it would help if you'd link to the article in question (here and on a user's talk page) so we all know what you're talking about. Oren0 (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is called "shit and run", and many people do it to any new article that appears in recent changes that doesn't spring fully formed from the forehead of Zeus. It's definitely a violation of WP:CIVIL, and usually also WP:BITE. Jtrainor (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd guess that your statement itself would probably not be what WP:CIVIL is hoping for... – Toon(talk) 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends though. The user doesn't say that they won't discuss the tag at all, only that they'd prefer to discuss it on the article talk page. The discussion is more visible there anyway. I'm not sure what harm there is in replying to the message on your user talk saying "I'll answer you on article talk" but that's a style issue I suppose. I do agree that it's a tad WP:BITEy but I don't believe it's outside accepted norms. Oren0 (talk)
    Toon, do you deny that this happens frequently? Jtrainor (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if this action seemed rude, but the reason I removed the question was to continue the discussion on the talk page. This makes sense as people needing to follow the discussion can see it all in the one place, rather than going to a handful of user talk pages.

    As for your article – a few times a day I have a quick look at new articles, and weed out what appears to be articles without enough notability to remain. At first glance, your article had only a few lines of text without references, and I tagged it for that reason. However, very soon after I saw it had expanded with good references and removed the speedy tag. Can I suggest adding the ‘under construction’ tag for new articles, or making mention that you are adding refs in the edit summary. I now do this, as I myself have had my article tagged or deleted as I was slow putting in references.
    Welcome to WP, and I’m sure we’ll meet again.--Dmol (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A note about CSD A7 and "notability". In order to avoid A7, an article doesn't have to demonstrate "notability" or have sources. It just has to have a credible assertion of "importance or significance". The article when it was tagged said supplied the raw materials for Argo corn starch and Mazola corn oil. This is an assertion of significance, therefore, it shouldn't have been tagged as an A7. If you keep this in mind when doing new page patrol and review WP:CSD, incidents like this can be avoided. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Or create your article in a user subpage where you can get into shape for the mainspace before moving it there. – ukexpat (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unresolved issue archived, presumably accidentally.

    Hi admins,

    I suspect my post was accidentally archived - it had not been commented nor acted upon.

    Thanks,

    Hunterd is back! 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, next time don't place your report in a collapsed box - it's a great way to have it ignored and archived without comment ;> –xeno talk 20:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, figured as much. lol. Thanks for your help, mate. :) Hunterd is back! 14:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ListasBot 3

    As another editor has expressed concern over ListasBot 3's approved functions (in short, whether or not talk pages of redirects should be replaced with a redirect to the new talk page), I've set up a discussion on how to proceed with this bot. Input would be appreciated. The discussion is at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3.

    Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's kinda hard not to see leading questions like this, spammed onto over a hundred WikiProject talk pages, as ballot-stuffing. Hesperian 02:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I probably could have phrased that better...but since the objecting editor indicated that WikiProjects were the ones that were primarily using the talk pages in question, I felt that I should give them some sort of notice. Matt (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you spam over a hundred talk pages? Just because a few people don't like your bot? WTF were you thinking?! Hesperian 02:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well let's see here...I posted a notice at WP:VPP when the bot was going through the approvals process, and no one responded to it. So let's say I'm sick of asking for consensus on something and having no one answer me. Matt (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly don't consider it ballot-stuffing. It did have the intended effect of finally catching the attention of those involved with these WikiProjects. Tothwolf (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Wikiprojects are the ones who might be impacted, notifying them is entirely appropriate. There is no central "Wikiprojects" noticeboard to use as an alternative. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pyraechmes

    Hello. I have recently had some trouble with User:Pyraechmes who has gone on a "free for all" in regards to article which he believes that he is right in[8]. However, it seems to me that he has undertaken significant WP:OR in the form of newly created categories and the invention of terms such as "Vlach-Slavic dialect" and "Northern Macedonians" [9]. It appears that he has edited from an anonymous IP, in order to not break the WP:3RR [10], even continuing the conversation through the edit summary. The major disturbance has been at Polykastro where Pyraechmes has continued similar reverting Enough with that joke. Do not delete parts of the article, You don't have the right to delete parts of history of a place just because you don't like it, stop deleting facts, PMK1's vandalism. Deletes parts of article and changes names without sources etc. without giving reasonable explanation or the possibility of compromise and consensus. What can be done about this users who has shown no resolve to act reasonably or to act within the key Wikipedia principles? Thank you. PMK1 (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The same is the situation with Pyraechmes on the article Grecomans. Disruptive edits without reliable explaination and similar. Jingby (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Does any admin intend to adress this issue of disruptive editing and spamming takl pages? PMK1 (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me like a content dispute; both sides are edit warring.I've protected the page, please go and start a discussion on the talk page. Also, be more careful when labelling edits as "vandalism", there's a big difference between content you disagree with and bad-faith edits. Both of you are trying to improve the article, you just disagree about what that constitutes. – Toon(talk) 12:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to administrators reviewing expired PRODs

    Please check the history of the article before deletion to make sure that the article has in fact been prodded for 7 days. This article was prodded on the 7th of May with the date spoofed to make it look as if it had been tagged since the 30th. (diff) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also a good idea to check if there's a previous contested prod (making it ineligible for a new prod). Quite a few prodders don't check first.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you find a previous contested prod? Is it possible without loading every diff? —— nixeagleemail me 14:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend not to check for precisely this reason--if it's been deleted by prod before, that shows up in the deletion log. If it hasn't, then it's impossible to ascertain whether or not it's been prodded before without a detailed examination of the article history. Sounds like a good job for a bot to do... Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No detailed examination is necessary, providing the page hasn't been massively edited. Just click "older 500" a few times, and search each page for "prod". Anyone prodding should be mentioning it in the edit summary. You can also check the talk page for {{Oldprodfull}}. 86.44.43.182 (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, someone might use "proposed deletion", or "tagged for deletion", or "pord"[sic]... It's probably best for the noobs to spell out what you're doing anyway. --NE2 06:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't a bot be set up to automatically add "oldprodfull" to the talk page of contested prods? That way in the future, prods will be documented. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ion Antonescu and a Zionist conspiracy?

    This page has come up previously regarding anti-semetic comments, but it seems that once again some rather troubling assertions are being made on it. Even if one ignores the attempts to argue an extreme structuralist view point for the Romanian aspect of the Holocaust (and indeed outright denial), in this section we have: What astounds me is the political blindness (temporary, I hope) of one of the world's most intelligent community, the Jewish one. Bullying contributors to the "talk" page ? Colapsing contributions when they are expressing contradictory views ? What on earth are you hoping to achieve by this ? After you stood yourself so much suffering and injustice you choose to be ignorant of the value of the factual truth ? That's your solution, replacing a german brand of nazism with a jewish one ? Leave the hatchet aside and talk by HMycroft. Perhaps more concerning than this is that this slightly bizzare rant received the full support of a milhist co-ordinator, who has in the past made some somewhat dubious statements of Jewish sources not being trusted on the subject.

    Regardless, an admin may want to examine this and speak to those involved. Allegations that other users are engaged in a zionist conspiracy to mass insult a whole country are hardly productive at best. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    His name is also slightly disturbing, considering what he's posting. HMY Croft? Sound suspiciously like HimeyCroft (Himey being an offensive term for Jews). An SPA perhaps ?

    — Kosh Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 12:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Might be a bit of a stretch there, I read it as Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock's brother. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that this issue is actually a much more broader ongoing debate in Romania, it is improbable that we would manage to conclude it here on wikipedia. What is most unacceptable for me is the fact that an article on such a controversial topic was completely written by a single person (see 1, 2 and 3), who strictly controls the article and automatically reverts any single addition of sources even on issues completely unrelated to the Holocaust (there are many examples of this throughout article's history). Even if its view at the subject would be corect, he shouldn't be allowed to practically own the article and censor any impugnment of the sources/opinions existent in the current form of the article. In my opinion most of the facts presented by User:HYM Croft could be valid and if supported by sources should be added to the article within a controversy section. Categorizing any sources which contest the facts presented at the moment in the article as revisionist/negativist seems just a good reason to promote your POV and censore other additions. Considering all this, I thought to be appropiate placing a neutrality tag at the top of the page for the period of talk page disputes, but it was quickly removed by the ones who control the article. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Feedback / sanity check sought

    This editor has been posting links to musicians' official fanclub websites on the relevant musicians' articles. To me, this seems like a violation of a couple of WP:ELNO points - the sites can't be viewed without a membership, and membership costs a fee. Myself and another editor have removed the links and warned the editor, but since we didn't get any sort of response, and some of our removals were reverted, I blocked this editor as being used only for commercial promotion. Now they're asking for an unblock (see link above), on the assumption that it's okay for them to post these links since they've got the rights to create and promote these fanclubs. Rather than just correct that formatting error, and wait for one admin to offer an opinion, I thought I'd ask for broader feedback here. There are two issues that may merit discussion, but that ought not to be confused:-

    1. Whether this account is blockable as being used only for promotion (per Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption-only)
    2. Whether these links should be allowed (specifically, whether WP:ELNO #4, #6, #11 apply).

    Thanks in advance for any feedback. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Yes- "we are providing the means for those individuals interested to become involved in the intimate fan community which we offer"- for a fee. This is clearly promotional in my view.
    2. No- we often link to sites requiring a login, and flag them with "registration required"; since it is a paid subscription here, they would appear to be promotional and breach WP:ELNO, as you say. Rodhullandemu 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection of WP:NOT

    I recently protected WP:NOT to prevent portions of the WP:PLOT provision from being added, removed, or warred over. In doing this I noted on the talk page that the intent was to force compromise on this core policy. I also noted that I am inclined to extend the protection of that page should it appear that an edit war is likely to just reignite in 2 weeks.

    Hobit asked me to review my decision on the basis that full protecting PLOT will prevent a compromise from being reached and that protection itself was overkill. I didn't want to reverse the protection based on his concerns but he asked me to bring my decision here for review and I have. I should be online for most of the evening (CST) so please do me the favor of posting a note on my talk page if you plan to reverse the protection. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll simply note that we had one user make a good-faith change, another user change it back (and remove a bit in addition), and the first user write a fairly aggressive edit summary in response (but without actually changing anything). I think that's too little to call an edit war and doesn't demand long-term page protection in my opinion. Further, I think we were making pretty good progress (if slow) on this and I believe an open environment is the best thing to have here. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "(but without actually changing anything)"? He did a full revert back to the version he had changed it to without discussion. That's exactly an attempt to edit war to get one's way. And that was more than "aggressive" edit summary, it was a personal attack. 18:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    But an accurate one, given you had just removed a tag that had consensus to stay, while attacking me for going against some imaginary consensus wording when the poll came out with a majority against, in an attempt to find some common ground. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense again. DreamGuy (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree the protecting NOT will harm work towards compromise, the talk page is still there and there's enough admins involved that if there is true compromise, things can be fixed. Given the protection in the last several weeks, premature edit warring is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I love that last sentence, Masem. ;) Protonk (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Er, yeah :) I think I forgot the word "protection" in the second part there... --MASEM (t) 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks like you swapped "protection" and "edit warring" to some unintended humorous effect. :) Protonk (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The only ways to prevent edit warring there seems to be protecting the page or blocking Shoemaker's Holiday from editing (as he/she has for months now made changes without gaining consensus first when he/she knows, or should know from experience by now, that such an action would be reverted). One or the other, I don't care which. In the meantime, consensus can e hammered out where it SHOULD be: on the talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Any chance of an uninvolved admin looking over the situation? Hobit (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Shoemaker's holiday seems to be in a minority, and edit-warring on policy is not the way to go. DreamGuy could have been less combative with his/her edit summary. The {{dubious}} tag is meant for articles, not policies, to alert readers that the validity of a sentence or point is under discussion. Anyone viewing a policy page can check the talk page about that. Protecting the page is necessary to prevent further edit warring. Go discuss it, ffs. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A minority? There was a straw poll. 66 opposed any discussion at all of plot summaries in WP:NOT, 63 came out in support of some form of discussion. TRY MAJORITY. Furthermore, you are clearly not an uninvolved administrator: You've participated in the discussipon for weeeks Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that SH needs to be restricted from closing discussions. This problem is annoying to say the least. Sceptre (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd point out it was placed by Masem (above) as the preferred method over the standard way of tagging policy/guidelines that are in dispute. It wasn't the best solution, but it was the one that was reached. Hobit (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd guessed a while ago we'd end up with this version protected. [11] I like to think I'm not cynical, I've just learned how things work around here. Hobit (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the recent changes to the page, Protonk made a reasonable judgment call and I don't like second guessing admins if they did something for a good reason.
      As for User:Shoemaker's Holiday, I wouldn't feel comfortable restricting him or punishing him, because I think he's acting in good faith. But a quick survey of the policy's history shows a habit of making bold changes, getting reverted, and then reverting back to his bold changes. A neutral admin may want to advise him about the WP:BRD cycle, which isn't a guideline, but it's a supplement to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BOLD that he should be aware of.
      More troubling is User:DreamGuy. See this response to SH by DreamGuy that slams him kind of roughly. I know he has reason to be a little frustrated with SH, and it hasn't been a pattern of behavior by DreamGuy. But again, a neutral admin may want to remind him to assume good faith and use a more civil tone.
      Basically, issue a very gentle warning to both sides. If they're good editors, they won't have any trouble staying on track. Randomran (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More troubling? Someone reverting back to the consensus version and pointing out that the same editor continuously edit wars without consensus is supposedly more troubling than a person who wants to gut policy and continuously edits a section without getting approval from a broad consensus when he knows it's not going to fly? Give me a break. And it's not like SH hasn't been told a zillion times about the BRD cycle, he just is ignoring it, and has for months. Anyone who has looked at the page history or participated in the discussion would see multiple examples of SH doing that by now. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hell, SH got in a personal attack in the edit comment while reverting back to the version he changed to without discussion first. If the edit warring against consensus weren't bad enough, that should have gotten him blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Man, Hobit, if you want to tell me that I picked sides in protecting this policy, just say so. I can't prove to you that I just saw the back and forth and pushed the protect button without checking what tag is on PLOT or whether or not it was removed. Hell, I can't prove to you that I haven't navigated far enough down the page to check the status of PLOT. But you have my word that I didn't. I have enough integrity to refuse to use the tools to establish my preferred revision (and I'm not even sure what revision I prefer anymore) Protonk (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, I just think if you'd protected WP:NOT when it had Shoemaker's original proposal, you'd have been hounded like the last person who did so until you undid the protection. Reflip until the "right" version is protected. I predicted we'd end up with a protected version just like that. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not exactly being kissed square on the lips for protecting this revision, am i? Protonk (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Shame. We have no excuse for trouting you then :p --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    When policy pages are protected they should be protected on the longstanding consensus version. This is common sense. I don't buy the logic that a policy should be locked completely at random so policy gets stuck at whatever the last edit warrior thought to say. That's twice now the locked version has been a version pushed onto the policy without any consensus. That may be fine for mere articles (and even there those should be locked at the longstanding versions, just like no consensus results on AFDs default to Keep), but certainly not for a policy page. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I am very upset at not being linked to an attack piece on me. This discussion grossly misrepresents the issues.

    First off, I:

    • Did not close any discussions
    • Have a poll with a majority in support of not discussing plot summaries in WP:NOT at all.
    • The dubious tag was discussed, and a majority came out in support of tagging it.

    This thread is nothing more than a hit piece depending on tl;dr to blacken me. Evidently, if there is clearly no consensus for a policy, DreamGuy thinks that you should edit war to prevent any changes whatsoever attempting to work towards a consensus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC) 18:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ridiculous. You have not in any way demonstrated that there is a consensus to remove the PLOT setion, you just keep insisting you have and then use the claim that nobody is satisfied with it to mean that you can make whatever changes you want, when you know that most people do not agree with what you want to do. The rule is simple, and has been explained to you over and over: if you want to change a policy page, you need consensus on what that change should be, not just edit warring to change it. Every time you make an edit without consensus, many different editors undo it depending upon which editor sees it first, so it's ridiculous for you to try to point the finger of blame at me. And it's not this thread that's blackening you, it's your actions. DreamGuy (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most people do agree, see poll. If anything, my latest change was far too minor, since the poll had a majority in favour of removing it completely. I tred to find a compromise, you reverted to hard-line wording that has no consensus whatsoever, and removed the tag meant to inform people of the problems. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protexction of WP:NOT (break 1)

    Above here, there's a thread, in which Stifle, who's highly active on the WT:NOT discussion, steps in as an "uninvolved administrator" and posts blatant lies about me.

    Furthermore, I was not informed of any such discussion, letting various lies stand to blacken my name for several days, hence me commenting here, in a new section.

    I would ask that people here review the actual discussion at WT:NOT, beginning with the straw poll at the top, which had a majority against any discussion of plot summaries on WP:NOT whatsoever'. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone interested can read and see that SH has a long history of misrepresenting what other people say. The so called majority was only in response to a highly misleading vote for/against, with many people not knowing what the question even was asking. He's just opposed to people discussing the issue unless he can control the options presented and can declare himself the winner despite having no consensus to do anything. No consensus means do nothing until consensus can be created, not do what the person who clearly does not have consensus wants to do because he's wikilawyering nonstop. DreamGuy (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lovely. So, if a majority votes against something, there's clear consensus to keep the original wording, without even any changes. Your I didn't hear that powers are strong. This whole thread is basically an attempt to try and get ayone who disagrees with you blocked from editing the policy, so that Wikipedia can continue to claim that policy you like with a majority aggainst it is still a "widely-accepted standard". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when did vote counts resolve anything on Wikipedia? Here I thought consensus was the way things went around here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since when is "consensus" defined as "Most people oppose"? I am attempting to work towards consensus, but DreamGuy is causing massive disruption to any discussion, by simply repeatedly insisting that no change hould be made, no matter how many people dislike what's there currently. See Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Moving_forward. Dreamguy has consistently attempted to stifle all discussion, told anyone on the opposingside they should shut up, and launched accusations of extreme bad faith:


    I trust my point is sufficient. Pretty much every single statement by DreamGuy on the talk page for WP:NOT is just a loud attack on anyone who disagrees with him, and the statements from weeks apart are completely interchangable to each other. People actually trying to compromise don't bang the same drum permanently, with never the slightest change to their tune. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is NOT a democracy (break 2)

    I've been having to pull the fish out way too much this week

    We're not, and never have been, a strict democracy. Anyone who believes so and edit wars on a policy page on that basis is out on a very very thin limb.

    There are obviously deeply felt opinions on both sides in this. Please take those back to the talk page and work harder on consensus. If the situation right now, due to the edit war, is to inflamed to WP:AGF then please take a few days holiday and come back and readdress the issue later.

    Blowing up here at AN is not an acceptable response to this, either. You're mostly admins - stop poking each other. You know better than this. Treat each other with respect. This is not optional. Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DreamGuy has been making the same exact comments and attacks in every post he's made to WT:NOT in at least the last two weeks. It's impossible to work with someone who refuse to even listen to the slightest call for compromise. Can we sttop encouraging him to continue his attacks on every attempt at compromise or actually doing something about it? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugh

    The reason I protected the page rather than block or warn or take specific action towards editors is that I didn't want the discussion to devolve into what people think about SH or what people think about DG. That is unrelated to the issue at hand: that there are serious concerns over consensus for PLOT and that some compromise needs to be hatched in order to resolve those concerns. The page was protected so that discussion could be focused on the the content rather than acrimony over who reverted whom last. If anyone thinks that the behavior of editors at PLOT is a particular problem, please seek dispute resolution or open a thread at AN/I. Don't continue disputes over editor conduct in this thread, please. Protonk (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wikipedia doesn't operate by polling, so whether someone has a poll in his favour or not is irrelevant. On the few occasions that polls have been used to determine anything, it's taken at least two-thirds in favour of a change to put it through. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an ongoing policy issue, one that's been discussed to death at WP:FICT and WP:NOT, plus the "episode guide" arbitration. The fundamental problem is that, about two years ago, Wikipedia started getting serious about sourcing. Slowly, the screws have been tightened on un-sourced material. Today, one writes a Wikipedia article like you'd write for a refereed journal, with citations on everything. The people who just want to write casually about their favorite books, TV shows, movies, and comic books are being driven nuts by this. Hence the conflict. It's only incidentally a user behavior problem. There are fundamental disagreements about what should be in Wikipedia. We need a clear policy in the fiction area, discussed in one place. How should that be done? --John Nagle (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, most arguments against WP:NOT stem from completely different reasons. I, for instance, generally work to get fiction to FA. However, including plot summaries in WP:NOT gives a strong impression they are not appropriate or strongly discouraged, when they are, in fact, basic information about a work. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick deletion review

    I've deleted Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a copyright violation--the article consisted of a letter, in its entirety, that would be under copyright. I'm bringing it here for the sake of transparency, because, though I'm quite certain my interpretation is correct, I can imagine some controversy coming from this. I'd welcome comments on my action. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Seems like a good call. Regardless of copyright status it would seem to be outside the project scope anyways. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem in article The Ugly Duckling

    There is a sentence which reads: "The Ugly Duckling" tells the story of a cygnet ostracized by his fellow barnyard fowl because of his perceived homeliness. (emphasis added in bold)

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homely

    The definition of 'homely' in Wiktionary gives multiple meanings, but I presume it is #3 that is being used here.

    This is confusing for non-US readers, as it is hard to imagine why something would be ostracised for being 'homely' which probably has more positive connotations then negative.

    I would like this to be corrected. Thanks.--Pipelinefine (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't an administrative issue. You could make the change yourself, if you like. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A few calm eyes needed on a small blowup or two

    Resolved
     – Article unprotected by RegentsPark   Will Beback  talk  16:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've become a bit concerned over the past 2-3 days about a closely related pair of developing BLP/BIO-ish issues, and really think some fresh eyes could do a bit of good here.

    The one that is borderline alarming is the unprotection request for the Bristol Palin article, which is currently sysop-only protected as a redirect. The page was protected by Gwen Gale, an admin I have deep respect for and I'm confident that she feels confident that she's doing the right thing here. The problem is that a number of "legacy issues" seem to be playing a part here, and to my eyes it might be better to start fresh on this issue. The brief history:

    1. The page was first protected on 2 September, 2008 after some minor efforts to create the article. This was a sensible preemptive move at the time, since she hadn't done anything notable but be the daughter of a notable person. However, there was not a lot of process involved (speedy/prod/afd/etc.), so there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus to rely upon.
    2. Yesterday, a request for unprotection was submitted, citing "her current escapades". I've only looked into that a little bit, but it seems she's become something of a pundit and/or activist in the oft-resurrected "sex ed" debate in the US. The discussion then moved to [User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Bristol_Palin_unprotect_request_.28again.29 Gwen's talk], and the response has been along the lines of "well, she wouldn't have that notability outside of her mother's notability", which is true to some extent, but her (presumably/possibly) independent seems (to me) to at least push the issue into the gray area. Notability often stems from a single event, after all, and we do have an article about Joe the plumber, whose notability is similarly tenuous.
    3. Gwen really feels that this would just be a spin-off article from Sarah Palin, and so has decided to rely upon "consensus to create" at the talk page of that article. I have two three misgivings about that:
      1. If it's only a spin-off article from Sarah Palin, then she's obviously not notable. If she is in fact notable in her own right, the discussion of whether an article about her should exist belongs on AfD, not on the Sarah Palin talk page.
      2. I've spent quite a few hours of screen time helping out with article probation, talk page peacemaking, etc. on the Sarah Palin article, and I can quite confidently say that the likelihood of any clear consensus on that talk page is rather a slim possibility. The dedicated editors there are quite entrenched, and are more than wiling to extend a debate for months on end.
      3. Just as a matter of principle, I don't think we should seek consensus to create an article. Imagine if we had to get consensus to create an article for every plant or insect!
    4. This issue is now convoluted with a deletion discussion regarding the article about Bristol Palin's ex-boyfriend, which itself has become a heated debate, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Johnston (and below... that's the second issue). I really see that as an appeal to "well, if you do that, you should do this too!" kinda thing (and I know there's some clever WP:THISORTHAT acronym for that, but can't think of it at the moment).

    So wow, this may be the longest post I've ever made on Wikipedia (and not done yet!). Can I share with you that a bird actually perched on my monitor a minute ago while I was thinking of how to word some of that? I'm on my porch just below the birdfeeder, so I guess it had to happen sometime!

    The second issue is the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Johnston debate. I'm not completely sure, but I strongly suspect that the BLP policy isn't really being used as intended, since it's purpose is primarily to avoid libel and/or embarrassing living human beings. I'm just really not sure on that one, but it seems to me that there's a bit of confusion between BLP, BIO, and notability going on there.

    Again, I might be completely wrong-headed and misunderstanding a number of things, but I really do think a few more eyes are needed here, because the Bristol Palin thing in particular seems to be bending processes that perhaps shouldn't be bent. Thanks. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the protection of Bristol Palin as a redirect amounts to the deletion of the article and protection against recreation, the action is ripe for review at deletion review if it is believed that an appropriate, WP:BLP-compliant article can now be written. Deletion review has the advantage of providing a more definitive resolution of the issue than a discussion on an article talk page. Erik9 (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's an interesting approach, but seems to be bending one rule in response to bending another. It's really the whole de facto aspect of things going on here that is causing me to wonder about it in the first place. --SB_Johnny | talk 01:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See the thread at RPP. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I don't know where the "blowup or two" exists. Discussion is already continuing in several places. There has been no "blowup" and darn little incivility, so far as I've seen. Everyone seems quite calm. I see no un-calm participants. There is certainly discussion, but it is proceeding nicely. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for the delay... had a busy day. KC, tensions are building around this, including tensions between you, Gwen Gale, and Will Beback (which is a bit of a blowup). My request for more eyes was to prevent a drama eruption, rather than an attempt to create/feed one. Discussion is indeed going on in a few places, and is amazingly civil (for the most part) considering the at-loggerheads-ish-ness of the situation. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The situation between myself and Will has nothing to do with Bristol Palin, Johnny. You seem very confused about what the issues are. I am happy to say Will's decided to drop the issue, though, so that's all settled. But it had nothing to do with Bristol Palin in any way. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Issues like this one can surely be handled at WP:Deletion review. Since Gwen Gale indicates that she will respect any evidence that a new consensus has formed, it seems that all that's needed is a place to hold the discussion. SB_Johnny seems to be saying that Gwen is exceeding her mandate, but a decision at DRV (whether the voters decide to allow recreation or forbid it) would take Gwen out of the decision-making loop. This would surely eliminate whatever problem Johnny sees with the current situation. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As SB_Johnny has said, there's little chance that a consensus will form at Talk:Sarah Palin because the editors there are polarized. So Gwen Gale's position effectively gives a veto over article creation to a handful of editors. That is contrary to Wikipedia principles, as is longterm protection of an article about a public figure. The right approach to page protection is to protect in response to actual problems, not over worries about potential problems. There is clearly no consensus to retain page protection, and there is no recent history of vandalism or BLP violations that warrants indefinite protection. So I don't think that EdJohnston is assessing the situation correctly.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm concerned about. This is a unilateral action that's changing the playing field, and preventing normal processes from running their natural course. DRV and AFD have different rules, and outcomes can be affected by unwise decisions and/or gamesmanship. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't taken any action on this at all, other than to say I'm watching for consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you've been arguing hard against it, which amounts to upholding the protection. If you're not particularly attached to it, just say so, that way another admin can unprotect without unduly worrying about squished toes ;-).
    Like I said before, looking for consensus on Talk:Sarah Palin to create a spin-off relies on the assumption that it's only a spin-off, while the arguments elsewhere seem to imply that she's notable in her own right. This isn't the same as Early political career of Sarah Palin, Governorship of Sarah Palin, etc. which are more properly spinoffs, since this is a BLP of someone else. The protection was clearly appropriate in September '08, but it's gone well into the gray area now and so shouldn't be unilaterally protected as a maintenance issue without getting consensus first (via AfD, not via the SP talk page). --SB_Johnny | talk 09:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I never argued against unprotection. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Templates for Deletion backlogged

    Any nice administrator out there with nothing to do is invited to help out with Templates for deletion closings. There are currently open discussions stretching back to April 24, several of which simply need someone to pull the deletion trigger. Thanks in advance for your time. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IP user fails to respond to numerous warnings about the same issues.

    74.173.190.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This IP editor is persistently making the same changes to articles, even after being reverted and warned. He/she changes numbers in the prose from the written to numeric form, despite what Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words says.

    Even worse, and usually as part of the same edits, the editor also adds and re-adds the same uncited information: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Numerous warnings on the editor's talk page have been ignored, as has every edit summary. The editor's only response is to once again do what he's been asked not to. It's reached the point where I really feel justified in rolling back his edits without any summary but I think this editor needs a much firmer message than I can give him.

    A quick look at pages I don't normally watch reveals that quite a lot of this editor's "contributions" are reverted because they're unproductive.[26][27][28][29][30] --AussieLegend (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect this user is rather young. I agree that the behavior is disruptive. I've left him or her a note asking for collaboration and talking about how to do that. If the user persists after that, I think a block is probably unavoidable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The response to your message seems promising,[31] well, almost.[32][33] Baby steps. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left him a note about that, too. It would help if people would explain what's wrong with what he's doing to that article as well. Unfortunately the only comment has been in edit summary, which is often not even read by unfamiliar contributors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Stewart Island/Rakiura

    Aervanath (talk · contribs) has twice moved Stewart Island/Rakiura to Stewart Island after a requested move which reached no consensus on the talk page. His rationale appears to be that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) dictates the move, but ignores even after it was pointed out that those conventions explicitly say the common name is to be used "except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication". In this case, the New Zealand naming conventions suggest the current name. Aervanath suggests the matter be brought here rather than attempting to find a consensus elsewhere.-gadfium 06:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This looks like a content dispute, but I'll bite. Whatever the end name should be, Stewart Island/Rakiura is not something I hope our naming conventions would suggest. The name of the island is "Stewart Island" or "Rakiura". I have a strong suspicion that neither its official nor its common name is Stewart Island/Rakiura. Protonk (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The official name is indeed "Stewart Island/Rakiura". See the official database of place names. It may be a content dispute, but Aervanath has used admin tools to move the article and attempted to protect it to prevent it being moved back.
      Just re-read the ref, sorry. Protonk (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moved the article back to the correct name according to the policy, which is Stewart Island/Rakiura - the official name of the island (neither "Stewart island" nor "Rakiura" is by itself the official name). The New Zealand naming conventions clearly indicate that this should be the name for the article - and similar names are used for the likes of Aoraki/Mount Cook. I don't want to get involved in a wheel war over this, but Aervanath appears to be picking and choosing individual phrases from policy while ignoring the rest of the sentences within the same policy, as noted above. He should also be aware that protecting an article while you're involved in a dispute on it is a no-no. Grutness...wha? 07:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you sure that move was done properly. I'm seeing the article redirecting to itself here. I don't think I'm drunk. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah - my fault. Fixed now. Got fooled by the server lag and double-clicked something I shouldn't have. Grutness...wha? 07:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fasach Nua continual unexplained image removals

    Okay, User:Fasach Nua, contribs, seems to spend a lot of their time deleting images from articles. Okay, I ask, maybe there's a reason. However Fasach Nua never leaves an edit summary despite being asked to on many occassions. They have been warned on many occassions, even before he blanked his talk page, about such editing patterns yet they persist in it. It may be that they have a reason for deleting images and editing the way they do, but never enter into dialogue about it even when prompted by other editors. When other editors revert his deletions, he simply responds to them with edits such as this one, where they tell the reverting editor that they have added images and given no indication as to why. And then after such responses continues with talk as [such]. They refuse to enter into dialogue and continue to ignore warnings and polite requests. Can someone else take a look and let me know what they think. I've given them several warnings up to a blocking point for future edits, but want to run it past others first. Canterbury Tail talk 11:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Without looking at these particular images, if they're fair use images without a valid fair use rationale, FN is entirely correct in removing them. – iridescent 11:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Canterbury Tail, my advice in these situations is to prompt the other editor to open a discussion at files for deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the images they remove seem to be fair use, but that's not an area I'm an expert in. The main area I'm having issue with is the complete lack of communication on the issue with other editors that seems to be leading to edit wars as a result. I'll leave another talk on their page about taking the images to Files for deletion rather than just removing them straight from articles with no comment. Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that just prompting this editor to discuss is going to be fruitful. In this "discussion" all User:Fasach Nua seems interested in doing is quoting policy in response to anything said. Discussion with this editor seems to be very one sided and sometime the side is very small.[34] --AussieLegend (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is my concern. They may be operating within the policies of NFCC, but their edits are leading to disruptive editing due to lack of communication and explanation. Becomes a difficult one, the editor is technically correct, but is going about it in the wrong manner. Canterbury Tail talk 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, while a handful of the images that FN is removing from articles do not completely meet the non-free image policy (they lack rationales), FN is stripping fully-rationaled images as well, strictly on the weight of WP:NFCC#8. (See for example Sliders and The Simpsons) FN also is very critical of any such images for television related Featured Articles and pretty much just simply restates "NFCC #8" as a reason to fail. This is not helpful advice nor helps work towards a compromise or a chance of improvement for these articles, particularly due to the nuances of the "significance" criteria. --MASEM (t) 12:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So what would be the best way to deal with this? I'm trying to open a conversation with the user, but they are not forthcoming. I feel their edits are very disruptive. Canterbury Tail talk 12:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Canterbury: Is there any history of conflict between you and this editor? That might explain his unwillingness to respond to your queries.
    On a general note, I'd observe that a failure to communicate with one's fellow editors is quite a serious issue, and our community has made it quite clear that, particularly in the case of administrator actions, sysops should take care to explain their actions in full. (Compare, desysopping of CSCWEM; Betacommand arbitration case, #Communication principle; and Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct.)
    AGK 13:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I've had no contact with this user prior to these incidents. I don't honestly believe that blocks are required, just some dialogue. Canterbury Tail talk 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I haven't had the pleasure of interacting with Fasach Nua personally, I have witnessed his/her behavior (specifically at WP:FA), and it generally has nothing to do with prior interactions. Fasach Nua is simply the newest editor to 'fight the cause!' and attempt to eliminate all fair use images. As these editors tend to be non-responsive (see Durin, Betacommand), they generally cause more trouble than they eliminate. The only thing new in this situation is the editor playing the role. --auburnpilot talk 14:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well to be fair to betacommand he did not attempt to remove all fair use, but yeah. Unless the editor is willing to improve his communications and at least use edit summaries when doing those edits we might need to look into a short block to get the point across to him/her that we are a community of editors. —— nixeagleemail me 14:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have encountered Fasach's edit-warring before, and I find his lack of communication (very similar to that of Betacommand) frustrating, and it is always possible that this is deliberate. The statement here from Arb needs to be pointed out to Fasach, and if he declines to go along with it, then he needs to be blocked for a short time. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The real issue here - as mentioned earlier - lies not in the images themselves, but in Fasach's conduct. It is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to get FN to discuss the actions. Images are deleted with cryptic comments, or (more recently) no explanation whatsoever. Attempts to get explanations are ignored, or returned with attempts to put the blame on the other party. Simply put, this is an experienced editor who is acting in a manner that we would never tolerate in general editing; why we should allow this disruptive behaviour just because it involves images is beyond me. --Ckatzchatspy 16:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just FYI, this user has been the subject of 2 RFC's. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fasach_Nua and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fasach_Nua_2. I haven't read through them all, but looks like one was on image deletion and on a different allegation of edit warring.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done

    I've went ahead and gave a nice message to them on their talk page. See User_talk:Fasach_Nua#Responses. I explained to them how the behavior they are doing is just as disruptive as failing to explain a revert in an editwar. Hopefully that gets the message across. If this continues feel free to bring it up on WP:ANI, but give the guy a chance. The next step is to warn that continued disruption will lead to a block and if that does not work, follow it up with a short (24 hour) block. Of course blocking and warning of a potential block should not be needed, but it is my advice to other admins should they run into similar situations with similar editors. —— nixeagleemail me 16:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for leaving (yet another) note for FN. Thing is, FN has already had many chances to adjust the behaviour. (I left a similar note a week ago, which was ignored. Other admins have left numerous warnings as well.) The RfCs reveal a pattern of disruptive and non-communicative behaviour that mirrors what we are seeing here. Good faith only goes so far before it becomes apparent that there is no interest in working to address the community's concerns. --Ckatzchatspy 16:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, if this does not cut it, block warnings and short blocks are in order. But do give him a chance :). —— nixeagleemail me 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I, personally, have found User:Fasach Nua to be extremely polite and helpful in matters relating to photographic copyright etc. She has helped me towards gaining two FA bronze stars with her expertise in this area and, on reading this thread, I feel that she is being treated pretty harshly.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 17:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any chance you could try to convince FN to change the behaviour that is causing the problem? --Ckatzchatspy 17:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FN has not been helpful or responsive on images in my experience. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nancy Drew/archive1 for FN's comment on image use in the now-FA Nancy Drew; FN's statements were untrue regarding my non-existent "admissions" and inaccurate regarding both the article and the FURs. A request for further clarification on User talk:Fasach Nua was deleted without response. Ricardiana (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I might add that a quick look at FN's talk page history shows a pattern of deleting requests for clarification without other response. Ricardiana (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Still no response

    Fasach_Nua has been on and talked briefly with other users since the posts to their page, but no reponses made. In fact they even added a good faith template to the current Street newspaper FA stating there were too many copyrighted images in the article, at which point there where two, one of which had proper permissions, and the other was reasonably being used to illustrate the professional nature of The Big Issue, details which would have been gone over by the FAC anyway. I know they're acting in good faith, and one edit to the FA isn't a deal at all, but they're still not responding which is what concerns me. Canterbury Tail talk 11:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As above, FN simply ignores or deletes requests for discussion or clarification. This is a widespread pattern of behavior. Ricardiana (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Palace

    Resolved

    Could anyone please remove Le_Palace? I created that before I saw that Le Palace (Paris) already existed. thanks Lerichard (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. In the future, you can place a {{db-self}} on the article page to place it in the CSD queue. Syrthiss (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I recreated Le Palace as a redirect to Le Palace (Paris) as it is a likely search term. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We could probably just move Le Palace (Paris) to Le Palace, unless there is some more common term that for some reason didn't have a page associated with it. Protonk (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved it over the redirect. Protonk (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blacklisted subject - attempt to put in a redirect to a proper article in the French Wpedia.

    I have created the French Wikipedia article: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ing%C3%A9nierie_Simultan%C3%A9e_Pr%C3%A9sent%C3%A9e_Aux_JEunes_du_Secondaire

    with a Redirect link in the French Wikipedia from this page: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISPAJES to the French Wiki article.

    And now I want to add a Redirect from the English Wikipedia to the French.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISPAJES&action=submit

    However, on the English Wikipedia, the accronym: "ISPAJES" has been blacklisted.

    I request that it be not blacklisted so that the re-direct to the article in the French Wikipedia may be established.

    Regards, Alan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbrowne (talk • contribs) 15:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no provision for a cross-wiki redirect. If you create an article at that title, an interwiki link can be created, but cross-language links are not possible for redirects. Horologium (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, however, my main problem is getting the subject ISPAJES taken off blacklist status. I can then re-direct by using a hyperlink instead of a topic name. - Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbrowne (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What we're saying is that there's no way to redirect to another language wiki. An article consisting of only an interwiki link (or external link) would be deleted anyways, so there would be no point in taking that acronym/phrase off of the blacklist. Killiondude (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe some explanation is due about why the word ISPAJES was blacklisted in the first place? 95.34.55.36 (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It shows a normal edit screen, and there are no recent changes to the title blacklist. The only things I can think of are either that you were logged out when trying to create the page, or that it contained an external link that was on the spam blacklist (if that happened it shows a message, and you should be able to use the back button in your browser, remove the link and try saving again). —Snigbrook 01:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how a redirect could be blacklisted, although if created it would probably have been speedily deleted soon after. —Snigbrook 01:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RFPP backlog

    There's a little bit of a backlog over at RFPP, just giving a heads up. --Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 16:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That is much better then backlogs I have seen in the past. I'd not fret too much about it :) —— nixeagleemail me 16:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion on hiding the "create a book" sidebar

    Following concerns raised in the Usability Study, and the proliferation of books of questionable utility, there's an ongoing discussion at VPR about temporarily hiding the "create a book" interface from the sidebar, until the system can be redesigned to be more user- and site-friendly. All welcome to the discussion and straw poll. Happy‑melon 17:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes on this, please

    The article on Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome has been nominated for deletion, and a new user who suffers from the condition has begun to post at the AfD. In view of the nature of the condition I think there's considerable potential for inadvertent biting if anyone makes an ill-judged comment, so it might be nice if there were some administrative eyes on the discussion.

    I'm very conscious of WP:CANVASS but that's not my intention, and I hope you'll consider I haven't behaved inappropriately by linking this discussion here!—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unilateral move

    Resolved
     – Redirect fixed, editor blocked. MastCell Talk 18:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The article Levi Johnston, currently amidst a rather spirted AFD discussion [35], has been unilaterally moved to Impregnation of Sarah Palin's daugher. There was no discussion of this move on the talk page. I would like it reverted so this proposed move can be discussed and some sort of consensus reached. But when i try to do so it says i can't (perhaps because i'm doing something wrong, but i got a message saying only admin could return it to its former location). Any assistance appreciated.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked User:Grundle2600 for 24 hours for the grossly inappropriate move; if another admin feels the need to increase the block length, feel free to do so. It appears that the mess created by the move is being untangled by other editors, so I'll leave them to it. Horologium (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, wow. Is there some history here? I was just really looking for help in moving the thing back. I think the move was wrong and pointy, but wouldn't have thought he should be blocked for this on its own.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (After E/C below)It was grossly inappropriate, and the user in question has a history of disruptive edits to articles on other political figures. He figures prominently in the Barack Obama arbitration, and was added recently after some of his more disruptive edits. Horologium (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We were trying to move the page back, but it says that Admin assistance is needed to move the page. Both myself and bali ran into the same problem and are unable to move the page back. It says "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." TharsHammar Bits andPieces 17:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved it back. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks!Bali ultimate (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    chilling effect?

    Resolved
     – Editor unblocked, urged to review procedures at WP:RM for moves that may be controversial. –xeno talk 20:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I must say I'm a little concerned at the block, and also the stated block reason ("Vandalism"). There is no rule that stipulates bold moves must be discussed and the editor gave a common reason for the move (BLP1E) - a similar rename was suggested at AFD [36]. However, the editor's history wrt to political articles is noted. –xeno talk 18:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I used the most appropriate block template available (there's no block template for pointy page moves), and I *did* add a specific reason, although it didn't display in the template for some reason. Horologium (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be more of a question for arbitration, but what if we assume the editor to be operating in good faith and trying to be helpful and follow the rules, but is just having some trouble mastering the art of judging what is encyclopedic and appropriate. Most of their edits, even the disruptive ones, are consistent with that. If that's the case, wouldn't some guidance and a courteous warning be more effective than a block? Or in addition to a block? Wikidemon (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking about the block log. –xeno talk 19:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree with xeno and Wikidemon, though I confess to not knowing anything about the blockee. To move a page once may be bold; to persistently move pages against consensus may be blockworthy. But with a better explanation than 'vandalism'. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a very bad block. He's been blocked once for edit warring on Obama articles, and he has allegedly been inserting poor information on Barack Obama, and that somehow justifies a 24 hour block simply for performing a bold move on a 'politics' article, once, to a title which is advised by the BLP1E policy to cover the event not the person. Doesn't add up for me. And even though the blocking admin is fully aware that 'vandalism' is not an appropriate explanation for the block, he still hasn't added a decent explanation, or rectified his block log. MickMacNee (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've unblocked. While the editor does have a history in this area, the bold page move was in deference to BLP1E and the block was without warning. Also "Vandalism" was a mischaracterization. –xeno talk 20:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to comment on a "resolved" thread but to make a request / observation here, Grundle2600 seems to listen to calm, steady advice from neutral uninvolved parties. Blocks are to avoid disruption, so next time a "please don't do that again" would probably do the trick. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for the lack of response; I actually had something else which took precedence. As to some of the specifics, there is no way to amend a block log entry short of adding *another* entry, which I dislike doing because it only serves to make the block log longer—not something I like to do. I agree that I should have used a custom message for the block log. The justification for the move is a bit flimsy; one person sarcastically suggested the target (much as I sarcastically suggested changing the blocking policy to specifically ever blocking a user whose blocks are never upheld; anyone who had actually changed the policy as per my suggestion would have been pilloried for such a pointy action), and the BLP1E justification from this particular editor is a bit hard to buy considering 1)his desire to retain the article on Johnston [37] and 2) his statement about Johnston and his article at the RFD on the Johnston redirect in March (first comment second comment). Saying that he basically wanted to keep something in Wikipedia on Johnston for the lulz doesn't seem to me to be an appropriate attitude to take when dealing with a BLP of someone who (at that time) was not a willing participant in the hoopla surrounding his ex-girlfriend's mother-in-law. Horologium (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And xeno has unblocked, apparently without discussion with Horologium. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you call the above? –xeno talk 02:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A hit and run comment. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing while logged out

    Resolved
     – Removal of IP address permitted by Wikipedia:Oversight policy. –xeno talk 20:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since when is "I accidentally logged out" an acceptable reason for using oversight to censor information in page histories? Gurch (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear...  GARDEN  19:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears to be WP:RevDel rather than oversight. –xeno talk 19:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, first, that link (double) redirects to Wikipedia talk:Oversight. Second, how does that make it OK? Gurch (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the double redirect now. I don't believe it okay, for the record.  GARDEN  19:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User notified.  GARDEN  19:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) To be honest, it looks like it was just use of Oversight for FT2's personal benefit. Yes, he'd revealed his IP; but people do that all the time. I've done it at least 10 times, and while I don't make my details public, if anyone's sufficiently interested, they can find them.
    If I requested Oversight to remove all references of my IP, I'd be refused (I've been refused on having my first name revealed by other users, before) - but Oversighters obviously operate by different rules... sigh.
    That said, I'm fairly confident that nothing productive will come of this. The action won't be undone, and a big drama-fest will ensue, so I recommend not making too much of it. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I understand it, RevDel is simply a "lite version" of selective deletion. –xeno talk 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but only people with oversight can use it, making it an oversight issue.  GARDEN  19:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's only in the test phase though (AFAIK). –xeno talk 19:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean you're going to let administrators do this stuff as well? Oh effing great... Gurch (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been standard practice for some years now that accidentally editing while logged out is a valid reason for using HideRevision (Oversight).
    To explain RevisionDelete (the new tool) -- it can be set to be either the equivalent of selective deletion (i.e. visible to admins only) or to the equivalent of oversight (i.e. visible to users with the Oversight permission only). When RevisionDelete is turned on for all users, revisions hidden with the visible-to-admins setting will be visible to admins; as yet, they are not.
    I would suggest that it would have been better to ask someone else to remove the revisions, but I don't think there is anything substantively wrong with the actions taken beyond that. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 19:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh... as TreasuryTag has already explained, while it may well have been standard practise for years for oversighters to hide their own edits for whatever reasons (and conveniently without a log or any way of normal users knowing what they'd done), such a privilege is not extended to us mere mortals. Gurch (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not merely users with the oversight permission whose IPs are hidden. Absolutely not! I believe I personally have removed dozens of edits for precisely that reason, none of which were mine. There is a log, visible only to users with the oversight permission, for fairly obvious reasons. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 20:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Okay, but how come mortal users get declined when they ask to get their logged-out IP removed? Or was this before RevDel?  GARDEN  19:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what the practice was for "years", but Thatcher wrote it into the policy in December [38]. Dragons flight (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I think Thatcher's edit was to reflect how that clause had generally been interpreted for quite some time. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 20:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why TreasuryTag's request was refused. If I had seen it, I would have done it. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 20:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "I'd prefer not to have my Christian name accessible... thanks!" and received a response of "That's not really covered," on January 24th (I doubt I'm allowed to say which Oversighter it was from). ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps if you had just said "real name", they would've acquiesced? –xeno talk 21:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why wouldn't you be allowed to name the Oversighter? Mike R (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:EMAIL > "You should not post e-mail itself on the wiki without permission." It doesn't really matter to the community which Oversighter it was, anyway, and people with access to the mailing-list can go and check the history using the date I provided if they're interested. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was told there was an encyclopedia around here somewhere. Was I mistaken? Synergy 22:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    I've just caught up on this.

    Removal of IPs for users who accidentally edited logged out is historically, and still today, uncontroversial. Requests to this effect turn up routinely from all kinds of editors on the oversight mailing list:

    • one today responded to by Risker
    • one on April 29 responded to by Dominic (Dmcdevit),
    • one on April 22 where Kenneth Kua comments a logged out users IP was oversighted,
    • one on April 15 responded to by Daniel Case,
    • and so on, and so on.

    Each of these is treated under oversight policy as "removal of non-public personal information". There is not one case ever, that I am aware of, where a user who posted accidentally logged-out, signed over it, and asked for oversight of the IP edit, was treated as anything except routine and straightforward.

    To underscore the point, in Thatcher's proposed redraft for RevDeleted this very month, the matter is made explicit: "This includes hiding revisions made by editors who were accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses". (As well as being noted in the local oversight policy last year [39]). Lest anyone hold that this is new, novel, or unusual, the oversight log starts on May 28 2006; the first uses of oversight explicitly in relation to a user who edited logged out by mistake were July of that same year, about 300 log entries from the start.

    Gurch - you should be aware this is a norm, and has been for a long, long time. You're also well aware that when a matter is blatent and non-controversial to the point "any reasonable user would agree it was a reasonable appropriate handling of a non-controversial matter", then the need to ask someone else is routinely considered bureaucratic. You can also imagine that privacy issues may be time sensitive - in fact that is a major factor in the staffing of the oversight list and team. Further, although you can't see it, I can confirm that editing logged out is extremely rare for me and highly non-habitual, and you can verify from the history log that although there is no requirement to do so, I have ensured that total disclosure [40] is there for other editors, and have redacted the privacy breaching data only and not any other part of the edits.

    If you have any further complaint, the audit subcommittee is thataway /points/ and deals exactly with alleged misuse of checkuser and oversight. Rather than have any doubt as to whether this was a proper action, please place the matter in their hands.

    FT2 (Talk | email) 22:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Sounds to me like the definitions of "personal information" used by checkuser and oversight got mixed up at some point. Gurch (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. The root principle is, non-public personal information is not to be disclosed on the wiki, and where practical to remove, may be removed. Checkuser states "do not publicly disclose non-public data obtained from the server logs, where reasonable avoidable, except in very narrow limits". Oversight states "where non-public information of an individual has been posted on the wiki, it may be removed from both public and admin view". There is no blurring or mix up at all. Each tool has an application of the same root principle, as applicable to that tool. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On Commons, requests to remove IPs, first names, etc. happen fairly frequently, and are routinely granted, at least if I am the one asked. ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have deleted IPs for people who have accidentally edited while logged out. While not oversight, it is the same idea. It is pretty non-controversial. Prodego talk 03:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Appeal against topic ban

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

    Appeal against topic ban

    This is the wrong venue. ArbCom has endorsed the topic ban. Appeals need to go to ArbCom. DurovaCharge! 15:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, the community-agreed topic ban, which was endorsed by the Arbitration Committee, is correctly appealed at this noticeboard. Only the additional provisions should be appealed to ArbCom. It does appear, however, that this discussion had run its course. Risker (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is so, then it appears to be a departure from past practice. Is there a precedent or statement in policy for that? DurovaCharge! 21:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The departure is in the fact that the community was able to resolve much of this dispute on its own; the Arbitration Committee simply endorsed (as in concurred with) the decision of the community. It is, I believe, a sign of the growth and increasing maturity of the community. Risker (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And whose job is it to explain or justify it to me? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive536#Vintagekits, Kittybrewster, and BrownHairedGirl
    Arbcom motion: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Alternative (2)
    • Why am I topic banned (baronets and knights)?
    • I posted notification of an ongoing problem to AN/I [41]
    • Then I stepped well back.
    • Obviously I appeal.
    • I am baffled.
    • I simply don't understand what I should have done differently.
    • Kittybrewster ☎ 23:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As the last ANx discussion related to this (I linked above) ran over five days and grew to over 230k, I'd venture to say we should hand this off to the gentle guidance of ArbCom. That being said, is there anything you would do differently to help mitigate baronet-related content disputes from making their way over to ANI? –xeno talk 23:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Per others and especially AGK at 11:41, 14 May 2009 I've been convinced that the general editing ban needs to be discussed here, since it was the community that enacted it. The remedies made over-and-above by ArbCom, though, need to be appealed to ArbCom in the usual way, as pointed out by AGK. –xeno talk 14:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think one suggestion would be to not list articles by those you oppose for AFD. Although the page is unclear, I have to agree to let it go to Arbcom. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strike that. It's inappropriate and largely irrelevant given the comments at the end of the section. Arbcom is probably the best bet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure this is truly an ArbCom matter. The motion simply stated:

    The community enacted topic ban on Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) and Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) is recognized and confirmed.

    While the motion recognized the topic ban and endorsed its validity, the ban was still issued by the community and as such is a community action. Tiptoety talk 23:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Tiptoety. The topic ban is a community sanction. For it to be overturned there would have to be a consensus from the community. Thus this post. KnightLago (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be an ArbCom issue, but my main concern is that ArbCom seems to have "recognized and confirmed" the general topic ban, but also enacted additional constraints on top of them (unless I missed something in the 232kb). So we should be clear exactly which topic ban we are removing. Is it just the general editing ban, but the additional arbcom remedies remain? –xeno talk 00:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This appeal is strictly in regards to the community enacted topic ban. Anything beyond that would need to go to the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kittybrewster and Vintagekits are unable to work together, and the ban was agreed for a very good reason. Kittybrewster is unable to work in the areas of Arbuthnots and baronets because of an overwhelming and obvious conflict of interest. This has been discussed to death with God knows how much space here and on the RFArb page devoted to it. It has been community agreed, Kittybrewster is just going to have to abide by it, as is VK. Giano (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That statement requires evidence. I was editing knights and baronets quite producively so long as vk was topic banned. What COi diff led to the topic ban? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the above read "I was doing whatever I wanted and treating wikipedia as an extension of my personal website for ages until someone actually took an interest and made a few queries! I dont like queries!"--Vintagekits (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Vintagekits: best you stay out of this. Cease making comments like that, or this is just going to degenerate into a shouting match rather than an actual discussion. Ironholds (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please forgive me but with your record of analysis I am not going to take much that you say seriously. You say "stay out of this" - however, KB brings my name up in a post and you expect me to step back without making a defense? You backed the worng horse mate!--Vintagekits (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll rephrase my comment, then. Every time I see you on one of these threads you're taking some kind of childish delight in making biting, troll-worthy comments at everyone you disagree with. Argue, but argue civilly. If you can't argue civilly, stay out of it. I'm not backing any horse - my intial post (ec'd) was to point out Kittybrewster's POINTy AfD nom as a possibly reason why restricting him from contact with you should continue. Ironholds (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously do you think I would ever take advice from someone like you? If KB keeps my name out of his mouth then I am only more than happy to avoid the guy like the plague. But if he continues to misrepresent my actions to serve his own ends then dont expect me to sit back and take it with my arms by my side! P.S. I would advise you about not making personal attacks such as referring to my posts as "childish" or "troll-worty" or you will find yourself with a starring role at ANI. P.P.S. Everyone knew from your first every post in this whole affair, illinformed I might add, what your POV is.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a POV. I've never interacted with Kittybrewster or you before this. My first involvement was when I tried to contact you on your talkpage and you treated me exactly as you are at the moment - like you're a petty, vindictive child. Bring me up at ANI, fine - hopefully it'll be the last thing you do before ArbCom finish the case and ban your sorry arse. Grow up, stop acting like a baby and come back when your balls drop. Ironholds (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How very civil! --Vintagekits (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you understand the civility policy now? From how vindictive and spiteful your comments have been to all parties I assumed you treated it as something to be broken for fun. Bugger this for a game of soldiers, I've got more important stuff to do. Do your ANI thing if you want, I'm off for something to eat. Ironholds (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I mistook you for a sensitive soul because you took such offense to me saying "it this the level I have to deal with", but now it seems that you consider "Grow up, stop acting like a baby and come back when your balls drop" a civil comment - my mistake obviously! Enjoy your food my frined.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kittybrewster, you are like a child told it can't have an ice-cream, you think if you keep whining and complaining, kicking and screaming you will get what you want. The community discussed this here ad nauseum , thousands and thousands of words - the answer was No! It remains NO! Now go and find something productive to do. I hope some Admin or Arb will now come along archive this section, and let the rest of us have some peace.Giano (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair someone is allowed to appeal per the rules.  rdunnPLIB  09:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    (as an aside) I find it cruely ironic that someone who is perfect for baronet based articles has been blocked for another person's continuation of events that got them blocked before....  rdunnPLIB  09:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    HHmmmm, twenty posts in a week. One is this, another is where you pop up directly behind me in a ANI discussion and another was to support KB's nomination for a AFD that was speedy kept of a of a world champion boxer whom you said "didnt achieve much". If wasnt just being paranoid then would start to have my doubts about your identity.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Start a new thread, Vintage, if you want, but otherwise drop it. You sure don't want to make it easy to deal with you, do you? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I think you will find me one of the most pleasant guys you could ever meet. I go out of my way for friends and family and I am always prepared to help anyone in need. All you have to do it lok at this guys list of contributions to smell and rat/fish (delete as applicable), but I take your point and I will leave it there.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are suggesting that I can be in both Scotland and Portsmouth at the same time you would be wrong (mebbe you could request a check user on both of us if you no beleive me.)  rdunnPLIB  09:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why who is in Scotland and who is in Portsmouth?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    History appears to be repeating itself, is anyone going to call a halt to this charade, or shall I archive it? Giano (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic ban was passed by the community, and endorsed by the Committee; any appeal would therefore be heard by the community. Whilst the Committee motion endorsed the topic ban—and thereby made it enforceable at AE—it is primarily a community action, and any appeal would have to be directed to this noticeboard.
    The Arbitrators' motion also passed additional restrictions; if Kittybrewster was looking to appeal those restrictions, then appeal would be heard the normal way—e-mail arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org, or the appeals subcommittee.
    The comment KB opened this thread with seems to seek appeal only against the topic ban from the Baronets and Knights subject area; this appeal should therefore be heard by the administrator noticeboards. (Although I would note that any immediate appeals are unlikely to succeed as a matter of course, and that KB would be better served by taking steps to improve his conduct: from a preliminary review of the situation, I'd say that this topic ban is not flawed, and any appeal is thus probably going to fall on deaf ears.)
    AGK 11:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps it would help me to "improve my conduct" if I understood in what way it has been defective by reference to a diff. And if I were told what I should have done differently. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Kittybrewster, there must have been a billion words written on this noticeboard about this matter earlier in the week. If you still don't understand, then go and re-read them; no one else has the time or energy. The Arbcom has endorsed the matter. It is closed. Can someone now please archive this discussion? I won't do it myself, as KB will say I am involved. Giano (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP block expired

    Resolved

    The one-year block of 210.18.232.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just expired, and is already making vandal edits (and oddly reverting some of them). Please someone keep an eye out (I'm off). — Edokter • Talk • 01:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked, yet again. Nakon 02:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    myself user:76.66.202.139

    Can someone resolve my current level? see user talk:76.66.202.139.

    I tried to archive a talk page, and got a vandal-2 for my efforts. Then I got a vandal-3 for beautifying.

    Am I really sitting at level-3?

    76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no "current level". Admins don't issue blocks based on prior warnings without looking at when any why any prior warnings were issued. In the case of regular established editors, regular templated warnings would not be looked at in isolation anyway unless they were accompanied by a sudden dramatic change of editing behavior. If someone issued you a templated warning that they have admitted was unecessary given your good faith intentions (as seems to have happened) then just accept the apology they offered, delete the warning and forget about it, there is no permanent warning level status that you are now on. Mfield (Oi!) 06:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there's a "current level" as far as Huggle is concerned. Now that he has 3 warnings, every edit he makes makes his edits jump to the top of every Huggler's recent changes feed. Lots of false positives happen that way. Now any edit he makes (until he removes the warnings) runs the risk of being reverted (by Hugglers who may not know its not vandalism, but see the little colored square next to the edit). Anon: You could remove those warning (which you are allowed to do per WP:UP#CMT) if you'd like. What's disturbing is that he tried to communicate, on his talk page, to a Huggler and another user that his actions were in good faith, and neither of the users removed the warning they were discussing. Killiondude (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a major flaw in the use of Huggle that I wasn't aware of, having never used it. I'll have to read up on it, but it effectively means that Huggle users are incapable of assuming good faith, how long does it take before it ignores old warnings on an IP and resets its current level. Mfield (Oi!) 18:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Its only a major flaw when people give improper warnings and don't properly review edits. If people act correctly, its an effective way to triage a large amount of edits so that the ones most likely to be vandalism are checked first. Its not a problem with the software, but a problem with the users. Mr.Z-man 18:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I didn't revert him because of his "level" but because I saw an IP formatting others users edits and then adding text in an AfD discussion, at first glance I thought it was routine vandalism. He contacted me and I apologize for the mistake. It seems that the IP is making good faith edits, some of them are maintenance edits, like archiving talk pages (its appears as blanking to ClueBot) so my suggestion is to Anon is to open an account. For my part, I will remove my warning, again I apologize for any inconvenience. --Jmundo 19:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Files for deletion

    Before I proceed to WP:DISPUTE or WP:RFC (I'm not sure which one this should go to, to be honest), I wanted to get some input. I'm raising this because of the outcome of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 7#LawrenceFobesKing.jpg. Keeping your opinions to yourself about whether or not the image being in several articles is against Fair Use/Nonfree policy, I'd like you to give your thoughts on the actual Files For Deletion process itself. Is it simply to gain a consensus for deleting or keeping a file, nothing more, nothing less? Or is it also, along with coming to a consensus for deleting or keeping a file, the place where restrictions can also be put on file useage? After addressing the issue with the closing admin, and him not agreeing with my assessment but instead directing me to WP:DRV, I'm exploring alternatives. DRV, aka Deletion Review, is not the appropriate venue since the file wasn't deleted. Similarly, I feel Ffd is not the appropriate venue to decide where and when a file can be used. IMHO, Ffd is simply for either keeping or deleting a file per consensus. If I haven't explained this simple enough, please let me know because I don't want anyone being confused by what I'm trying to say here. Your opinions/thoughts/ideas would be appreciated - snarks and sarcasm will be met with a trout. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 07:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since keeping or deleting a file uploaded with a FU claim will depend on how and why it is used, I can't see how a ffd debate can avoid the issue of usage. Having another process to do this would be unworkable and excessive.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You may find WP:NFR useful for this. But be aware that DRV is a valid venue to challenge, on procedural grounds, the outcome of any deletion discussion, whatever that outcome might have been. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IP prodding and then blanking/replacing a page citing legal concerns...

    86.43.67.178 prodded Stuart Pearson (businessman) for deletion. Then 3 days later, 86.43.185.208, which happens to be in the same /16 range as the previous IP, blanked the article twice, then replaced the page twice, the second time citing legal concerns. Any administrator willing to look this over and see what's going on? Thanks. Until It Sleeps 12:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted with prod in place and tagged as being unrferenced. Should it happen again, semi-protection until the prod expires would be a good idea. — Edokter • Talk • 12:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TAeiluj and multiple IEEE articles?

    I noticed that over the past few days (since May 11) TAeiluj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has created multiple articles about IEEE member councils. What I'm concerned about is all of these articles (at least of the ones I've checked) only list official IEEE website links as their sources. In general, we wouldn't allow a self-referenced article to exist but on the other hand the IEEE is a notable organization. Am I concerned over nothing? I didn't bring this up with the editor yet. Syrthiss (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright concerns, assistance requested

    This contributor seems to have basically misunderstood our copyright policy, and I am sorely in need of assistance checking to see if there are other infringing articles in his contributions. I have a good bit more to do with copyright problems at the moment than I can handle. :) I've got several hours left of working on History of the Jews in Poland, and I'm not even finished with today's listings at WP:CP (soon!)

    Backstory: Today's CP closures brought my attention to Clientelism, which this contributor seems to have pasted here in January 2008, from [42]. Unfortunately, when he was advised of the issue by CorenSearchBot at that time, he removed the tag with a revision that was by no means sufficient to escape infringement. As per usual, I took a quick glance at another article he started, Water supply and sanitation in Belgium (on May 3, 2009), to see if there was reason to believe this problem has continued. It has major chunks of text copied from [43]. Most of this is cited, but there's no formatting per WP:NFC and the pasting is substantial enough that it would violate copyright even if there were. I've blanked with {{copyvio}} the sections where I found problems from that source, as they were too extensive for me to quickly address. Additionally, I found several other sentences pasted from other sources—some cited, some not—which I have taken care of either by stripping them or clumsily attributing & quoting them (see [44]). I don't know if I found everything; I relied primarily on my favorite plagiarism checker, which is (unfortunately) not as precise as I'd like.

    We need to do a thorough contribution check to see if there is other material that needs to be properly formatted or revised. I'll bring it up at WP:COPYCLEAN, but we are seriously shy of manpower and the more active contributors among what we have are still busy working on User:GrahamBould.

    While I haven't looked deeply into this contributor's history yet, I see no initial reason to doubt from what I have seen that this is based on a good faith misunderstanding of copyright law and our copyright policy. I'm not asking for sanctions. I just desperately need help looking into this. Please? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If anybody comes across it, it looks like these people have actually nicked the content from Haitian Revolution (without attribution, I may add), by the dates and the article's evolution, so this particular addition isn't an issue. – Toon(talk) 16:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All those "state corporation commission" articles seem to be OK. They're all very short and factual. ("The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) is a three-member board appointed by the Governor of Washington and confirmed by the Washington State Senate to six year terms.") Even if that's copied from somewhere, it's just a statement of facts and thus fair use. --John Nagle (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Water supply and sanitation... articles could be problematic. The Water supply and sanitation in Ecuador article was originally heavily copied, I'm finding infringements throughout. – Toon(talk) 17:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review

    Hi there, I've warned Milomedes (talk · contribs) for what is looking like disruptive and tendentious editing at Broda Otto Barnes. (diff). Since I have made a few edits to the article myself (although I've not been involved in the recent reversion of his edits), I thought in the interests of transparency I'd mention this here. If people think this warning is unwarranted and that I'm in a personal conflict with this editor, please feel free to revert this action. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Second Attempted Outing

    I have reported User:Yonteng 4 times since last week for multiple 3RRs, attempted outing, and incivility.

    This user is currently requesting an unblock (which was just approved), and in the process just attempted a second outing of me on their talk page. Emptymountains (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    First, diffs please. I'm not in the mood to hunt through his edits to figure out what you're talking about. Second, he wasn't unblocked. He had a 48-hour block from which the IP-block got stuck and he was released. Third, I suggest speaking to User:William M. Connolley as nothing in his block log nor talk page indicate outing concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs were oversighted. I'm trying to contact an oversighter to review this request as of now. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, damn, the oversighter should have blocked him then. I hate it when this happens. It's a mess to work with. A weird catch-22 situation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I talked to FT2 and he can't seem to find any oversighted edits. It may have just been a glitch with wikipedia or my computer. I'm sending a message to the functionaries to address Emptymountains concerns of privacy (listed below). Icestorm815 • Talk 21:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Empty Mountains outs himself on his talk page, giving his 'real name there. i did not out him See New Kadampa Discussion page PLEASEYonteng (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My physical location has never been listed on my talk page.
    1st attempted outing: [45]
    2nd attempted outing: [46]
    3rd attempted outing: [47]
    User unblocked: [48]
    Thank you for your time. Emptymountains (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, only the name of your organisation and the town are given to prove you are non-NPOV and there is CoI-you are 'gaming the system' with this report. In the end, truth is the most important thing here-When people see this you are afraid they will see your CoI so you report me-dodgy!Yonteng (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yonteng also posted a link that lists a phone number. Emptymountains (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough of this. Yonteng, I've warned you on your user page. One more game of conspiracy theory and you're done here. I really don't care for this anymore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How to make my userpage colorful

    Resolved
     – done Gurch (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi! Does someone know hot to make my userpage colorful? Thanks. Dark Rahn (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Try Wikipedia:Help desk instead. This isn't the place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    New very useful template feature: Anyone able to make a script to make this more practical to implement?

    {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} can now accept a parameter giving the year the work moves into copyright-free status in its home country, and will then put up a template asking for it to be moved to commons.

    Can someone help me work out a script or bot-assisted tool to let us make all such images include this year? It'll make maintenance of such images far easier. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You might find a more knowledgeable crowd at Wikipedia:Bot requests. --auburnpilot talk 23:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=289989572"