Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} 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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

User:Santi6666

Santi6666 have several times added pictures on Klaas-Jan Huntelaar in Real Madrid ‎to Wikipedia, claiming them as his own creations, however some of them appear on other internet sites, including Fifa. com [1] and on Realmadrid.com [2], some pictures dont appear on this pages but appears to be out of the same picture serie. Santi6666 have been told that he is posting unfree images as hes own, but keeps on creating new ones once the earlier have been deleted. Wonder if their is a way for Wikipedia admin to prevent this? --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 16:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: unsure if this is the right place to post this, but did not find anything on list above that redirected me to another page.

(This seems to need archiving, so... Fram (talk) 08:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Malfunctioning adminbot

AntiAbuseBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just indefinitely blocked my old account IsleofPlan (talk · contribs) [3] for a minor formatting error [4]. Hope this isn't block evasion in posting here. IsleofPlan2 (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Log back in to your now blocked account and request a unblock there on your talk page using {{unblock|your reason here}}. Tiptoety ^talk 04:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

He can't [5]. No warning, no block notice either. DuncanHill (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot operator has been made aware of this - it seems this was a one-time thing that has now been resolved. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what the heck? Am I the only one who thinks that a bot blocking users with "account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page" is highly inappropriate? --Conti|✉ 12:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Conti. Such blocks shouldn't be made by a bot which, as seen here, can malfunction. SoWhy 12:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So then why didn't you raise your concerns on the brfa? It was spammed on an and links were placed in the block summaries. I really hate the way the community just ignores bots until something goes wrong. I'm going to bed now but I'll be happy to talk about it in the morning --Chris 12:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have, if I would've noticed the brfa in time. Maybe there needs to be a list of current admin brfa's somewhere that we could watchlist? That'd hopefully solve that problem, at least. --Conti|✉ 13:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Adminbots --Chris 23:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't made explicit on the BRFA that it would use these settings (sure you could've sussed it out by looking at the sample blocks, but...) –xeno (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the onus is on the bot owner to ensure that the bot is operating smoothly. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot blocks like this because it was designed to primarily deal with Grawp who usually abuses talk page editing privileges and e-mail. (Or at least that's my limited understanding.) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand why the bot blocks with these options on, and that's of course perfectly fine for Grawp socks. The problem is that no bot is perfect, as we can see here, and a mistake means that an innocent user is blocked and unable to do anything at all about the block. There absolutely needs to be some human oversight here. --Conti|✉ 21:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (unindent) I for one agree with SoWhy and Conti very strongly. A bot should never be allowed to use the “cannot edit own talk page” block option — Chris, please change that as soon as possible. — Aitias // discussion 21:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, look what happens when grawp socks are blocked without talkpage editing disabled:

• User talk:The Smell of Semen
• User talk:Twicestory
• User talk:The password is poop
• User talk:It's Solo! And he's shooting first! That's not fair!
• User talk:Tubebuilt

The same thing also happens when account creation isn't blocked, and when email isn't blocked. --Chris 23:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand why a bot might block aggressively under certain circumstances, but I have trouble understanding why one would respond to IsleofPlan's edit with a block at all. Dragons flight (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that block should have never happened. It was a mistake on my behalf that has now been fixed. --Chris 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

block email, that's fine. What is the harm in not blocking talk pages? The person goes crazy on the talk page until what? until a human notices and locks the talk page? There isn't any great damage the project in that case.--Crossmr (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

clearly you've never seen a grawp unblock request then. He uses tables with coloured cells to somehow recreate a massive version of the goatse image, among other things, its several 100,000kb and even covers the tabs at the top, so it takes ages to load and its in the unblock cat so its a common occurrence if you're active there--Jac16888^Talk 15:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

is there no way to delete the page without actually loading it? Even still, if we're accidentally hamstringing legit users, he's already won.--Crossmr (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably, except that the only way to know if its been grawped is to see the page itself, or the history, there is no way to stop these as the minute, at least not until the abuse filter comes online, I seem to remember that this bot is only meant to be a stopgap till then, the filter should pretty much stop every single form of abuse they can come up with.--Jac16888^Talk 17:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure there is. If he's making pages that large just return the history of the talk page. You'll see the page size. If the bot locks down someone for everything but talk page and an unblock post is requested just return the page history. If its several times larger than any reasonable unblock request delete and salt the earth.--Crossmr (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about this more and even if we can't delete a page without viewing it, we can rollback all the edits of a user without viewing each edit. So all you need to do is have the bot watch the page for the unblock request category. At that point have it return the page history and retrieve the page size. If it is above a threshold, rollback the users edit's and delete/lock the page. If its not, do nothing and let a human handle it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Might be a nice function. I think it doesn't come up nearly as often as it used to, in large part because we're now blocking pagemovers with these flags, but it's worth bearing in mind, especially if those flags change. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you use popups then when you put your cursor over the link it won't load the full page but will tell you the size of the page and give you a link to delete it without loading it. Hut 8.5 10:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I do agree this error was pretty bad -- fortunately, it's the only one of its kind I have yet seen, and it was reversed pretty quickly once it was brought up for admin attention. I do feel a need to say, though: if AntiAbuseBot can't block pagemove socks with the flags it currently uses, there is just about no point having it block at all, as every block it makes will need to be tweaked by hand. Given the low error rate and great amount of good this bot has done, I'd rather we didn't shoot ourselves in the foot like that without a pressing reason. Have we had any other unfortunate incidents like this one? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We could otherwise leave the bot as it is, and ask for an admin review of the blocks (for example if the bot adds {{unblock|Please review this automatic block}} to the user's talk page? That way we are 100% sure all blocks are legitimate, while preventing disruption. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Any false positives with this setup are very bad. The extra work would be a minor hassle -- few accounts a day, maybe? -- but if the extra human review helps people feel more comfortable I wouldn't mind pitching in. Anyone else have an opinion on this one? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. In fact, it should be standard for admin-bot-that-block. It could put it in a seperate category, i.e. "bot generated unblock review requests" or something. –xeno (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Enabled. Change User:AntiAbuseBot/unblock.js to whatever you want the bot to post on the talkpage. If you want it to stop just blank that page and the bot won't post anything on blocked users talkpages. --Chris 09:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A better template for the bot to use

I have a sample template at User:Od Mishehu/unblock-bot, based on the current unblock templates. I would like comments about it. I have not yet written a version for {{unblock-bot reviewed}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought: Rather than {{unblock-bot reviewed}}, you could simply use {{blocked_user}} as there's really no reason to tell the user troll why he's been blocked. —Travis^talk 16:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's much better. Protonk (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed. Anything else? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this ok?

Hi, I hope I'm in the right place, I have a sort of question so I didn't think ANI was appropriate. Basically I'm not happy with a comment one user made to another here, but I read CIVIL NPA & BLOCK and couldn't find anything specifically "outlawing" it. Is what Ryūlóng said ok?

Also I should just add that I don't know either of these 2 users and just stumbled upon the AFD in the sorting section, so I may not be away of any relevant history. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering User:Mythdon's last AFD was speedy deleted by Ryulong that does seem a little strange. M♠ssing Ace 12:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It does seem odd given the circumstances pointed out by User:Missing Ace above. Obviously, threatening to block someone or to have someone else block them just because you disagree with them in an AFD discussion is pretty out of line, so no, it's not okay. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC).

As a courtesy, I have advised both Ryulong and Mythdon of this thread. Pedro :  Chat  13:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I read Ryoulong as warning the user against (further) disruption. Which would be acceptable if A)Phrased politely and B)Previous disruption had occured. Looking back, though, I'm not seeing landslide of similar nominations by this user. These two do have a history, per Mythdon's talk, but in the end R isn't saying that he will block him, just that he'll seek to have him blocked. So, all in all probably file under "irked but harmless." - brenneman 14:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I also see from there that this is not the first time Ryulong has threatened to try and get others blocked, he also threatened another user here.

What can I, a lone humble editor, do to get this sort of threat specifically barred, in either CIVIL, NPA or BLOCK? Do you have to request the policy change at ARBCOM? Or is it just as simple as requesting it on the relevant policy's talk page. I'd hate to think anyone takes these sorts of threats seriously and stops making legitimate edits. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. I think there is no chance of getting this kind of "threat" barred in general, because it's so hard to define, and so hard to distinguish from a warning. I am very much puzzled by Ryūlóng's reasoning – I have never heard of this character, not even of this Power Ranger (whatever that is) universe that it seems to come from. On the other hand, Mythdon has a userbox identifying themselves as a Power Ranger fan. But generally speaking, if an admin considers asking for me to be blocked if I do something, I prefer to know about it before it happens. One of the advantages is that I can try to convince the admin it would be a mistake before I have something on my block log. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, is Ryulong an admin or not? I was under the assumption he was an ordinary user who had made a non-admin closure of the earlier mentioned AFD. I have been speaking as though he was not an admin, I have no problem with admins threatening to block users and wouldn't want that to change. Although in regards to my first post (if Ryulong is an admin) I think he may have over-stepped the mark. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I can now see that Ryulong is an admin, I retract all the stuff I said about policy changes. Although this does now bring up the issue that he threatened to block an editor over a content dispute. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No matter the issue here, I think the above diffs and links paint a pretty disturbing picture of an admin threatening to block users over content disputes where he himself is involved in. I'd really like his statement about that but if it is true, we cannot tolerate such behavior. I do hope it's all a big misunderstanding though... SoWhy 15:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I just read that comment and I'm really not comfortable with Ryulong being an administator. I just don't trust him. How was that AfD disruptive? He's the only one who said keep, the rest said delete and redirect to power ranges, so it's obviously not a disruptive nom. I would like to see him apologise to Mythodon.--Patton^t/c 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

First off to answer the original question: No, this is not okay. Administrators should not be threatening blocks to users whom they are having a disagreement with. Second, unfortunately this type of questionable behavior has been going on for a little while now with multiple unsuccessful attempts to get Ryulong to stop, and I am afraid it never will. Not more than a few months ago, I left Ryulong a note about improper user of rollback, to which clearly had no effect 'cause when approached about a similar misuse, he replies with "bugger off", how becoming of a administrator. As for the blocking issues, here is another example of a block (that was later reduced) placed on a editor by Ryulong whom he was involved in a dispute with, and even after he was confronted about it he never admitted he was wrong. Finaly, I am still scratching my head as to why a IP deserves a one month block with talk page editing disabled for not signing their talk page posts, I am really hoping Ryulong can shed some light on that for us. Tiptoety ^talk 18:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong is blocking editors for not signing their posts? Okay, instead of blocking the editor, he could have used the {{unsigned}} template to sign his posts for him. That's what I did on User talk:SSRanger and Ryulong told me that he doesn't have to sign his posts and here is the edit war concerning that [6] [7] [8] [9]. Here is that discussion for my talk page. And about the "bugger off" response, he could have discussed the rollbacks or even just left the warning there. If I found that my rollback was unjust, I would undo it. Why can't Ryulong use rollback properly? I'd really like to know. The rollback policy directly says use to revert vandalism and abuse of it allows any admin to revoke it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, to prevent bias, here is the discussion concerning the AfD. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked the IP address -- Samir 05:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out this concerning the IP address not signing posts. If you take a look at his talk page, my final warning was plenty of warning.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

While I personally prefer all talk page posts to be signed and timestamped and do make use of the {{unsigned}} template when I find unsigned posts, I do not think that not signing is disruptive in a blockable sense. DuncanHill (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary

Just a quick summary for the benefit of any newcomers to this thread: Ryulong has been threatening users he disagrees with with blocks [10] [11], rollbacking good faith edits [12] [13] [14] [15], and telling those who complained about his rollbacks to "bugger off" [16]. He even blocked an ip editor and protected his talk page for forgetting to sign posts [17].--Patton^t/c 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong's reply to the "summary" diffs.

About this: Mythdon has generally been annoying towards myself and several other users since he started editing. In the past couple of months, he has been putting various articles up for AFD in the subject area which have no pressing need to be deleted in any way. I've advised Mythdon to change his editing habits in sending items to AFD on the talk page of the WikiProject I started up to deal with articles in the Power Rangers, etc. subject area. This thread is seen here where I elaborate upon my comments to Mythdon at the AFD. About this: Fractyl has been a user I've had issues with that I've brought up on this board (or ANI) in the past. Generally, he adds unverified information to articles, and after doing so I warned him that if he continued to add unverified information to articles he would get blocked. This is, as far as I know, normal practice. In both of these cases, I did not say I was going to block the user in question, as it was stated above. I simply said that I would seek a block, which in my case would be seeking another administrator to look into the situation and trust in their judgement.

I know I have a history in dealing with Mythdon and Fractyl, and my language towards them has gotten less kind as my patience with the two of them has dropped. I once asked for another administrator to look into an issue that Mythdon became a part of, and he soon lost his patience with the editor as well. I am trying to get Fractyl to abide to policy more and more and Mythdon to take less of a strict reading of various policies, as he seems to be taking guidelines as the final solution to various things that could be solved (in my opinion) outside of AFD.

Now onto other things brought up: Mythdon was repeatedly adding fact tags to things which, not being a BLP, do not need to be verified to where every sentence/paragraph needs a citation. This is a long term problem on this page/style issues with that template. Removing trivia. Also done here.

Now about that IP address, This user did not forget to sign his comments. He purposefully added "Intentionally unsigned" at the end of them, wherever he went. This is a disruptive practice, and I warned him for it (being uninvolved with the IP to begin with) and then he replied with the same commentary. To prevent further disruption, he was blocked and not allowed to edit his talk page. There was a posting on this board (or ANI, I cannot remember) that alerted me to the situation and I acted accordingly, as he had been previously "warned" by the bot messages on his page. I gave him a final warning, and he went against the warning.

I hope that this answers everyone's questions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, for that AFD that was mentioned above as one Mythdon started and I speedy deleted the article, if you read the comments at the AFD (and if administrators look at the deleted article) what I did was perfectly fine within policy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia is no excuse for abuse of rollback. If you think that rollback is just like any other "undo". Wrong, it is a circumstantial feature that shall be used to extreme caution. Your rollback rationals do not indicate reason or excuse to rollback. Doing so is abuse of privileges and I brought this up to you twice now. Now is the point where there is enough evidence to question your status as an administartor, given the evidence provided by other users who cited what you have been doing that is abuse. By the way, use the tools more justified and less abusive. Okay?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My use of rollback (something all administrators and even some users have) is not an issue of great merit here. Although I will attempt to use "Undo" more often (rollback tends to be easier when I see one user has made mutliple nonconstructive edits).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on the other issues at the moment, but re: the AFD I linked above. At what point exactly did anyone say you did not delete it in line with policy? No doubt you will provide me with a diff. I cited it because it did not marry (on first inspection) with your comments at the susbsequent AFD, from where this complaint has stemed from i.e. the last AFD you had interacted on you both agreed. Your overly defensive attitude in your last remark is concerning to say the least. M♠ssing Ace 20:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It just seems that it was brought up in the rest of the discussion as some sort of action I may have taken against Mythdon and I wanted to clarify what I did. And the previous AFDs are brought up in more detail in my discussion with Mythdon (somewhat in private) throughout WT:TOKU.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you have no doubt seen, it wasn't :) It was a genuine edit to note that on the surface it seemed odd when you had been in prior "agreement". No big deal, I just wanted to clarify that I was not using that as some kind of argument of mis-action or whatever. M♠ssing Ace 20:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Er...last I heard WP:V didn't apply only to BLP articles. He's pefectly entitled to place a tag after an nreferenced sentence. Also thoat article is going to be deleted.--Patton^t/c 22:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The tagging itself was done disruptively after a certain point which is spelled out clearly at User talk:Mythdon#.7B.7Bfact.7D.7D tagging.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Having had a look at the diffs you provided, none of those tags are disruptive or unnecessary. They are uncited sentences that are not so blatantly obvious that they do not require a cite. That aside, you do realise that it's completely inappropriate to say something like "If you add anything like that again to the article before Saturday evening, you will be blocked", in response to good faith edits, no matter how poor you think they are, don't you? And blocking an IP editor and stopping them posting on their own talk page for not signing their posts was just completely beyond the pale. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC).

Support for the notion that {fact} tags are useful and necessary in all types of articles, not just BLP! Some of the other WP languages don't much bother with references. That gets to be a bad habit. I'm glad that en: enforces a strict policy on sourcing. - Hordaland (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A final warning that if a user continued to add unsourced information to articles is wrong considering how you are saying that my statement that the addition of {{fact}} tags got a bit disruptive was wrong?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well it seems I've stumbled upon an already on-going case. If Ryulong gets taken to RFCU or ARBCOM or anything like that would someone mind notifying me please, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the user Mythdon has only started 9 AFDs in the past two months, 6 of which were deleted. In my opinion I do not believe this is excessive. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the block for not signing was uncalled for. DuncanHill (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The block was not for not signing. The block for was intentionally not signing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Intentionally not signing is not blockable, in my opinion. DuncanHill (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaving comments signed as "Intentionally unsigned" would be, particularly with the six threads on the IP's talk page, and his general disdain (it seems) on his former account (which he used to sign as) as well as apparently disrupting the talk discussions in general.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So intentionally not signing but not saying that it was intentional isn't? And "general disdain"? When we start blocking people for "general disdain" then we really have gone to the dogs. DuncanHill (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The user's activities beyond purposefully saying that he intentionally unsigned the comments was disruptive. That is what I am trying to explain.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So you didn't block him for intentionally not signing but for other disruption? A very good contributor to the refdesks intentionally doesn't sign, and I'm worried that some over-zealous admin is going to block him if we accept the rationale you used here. And if "general disdain" is grounds for blocking you may as well indef me now. DuncanHill (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just forget I used that phrasing then, seeing as you feel like picking apart things I say for the sole reason of trying to make something that I did wrong when it had consensus at the time that I did it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to understand why you did what you did. I didn't find the block log convincing, and I don't find your attempts at explanation here convincing either. This may be because of some sort of linguistic or cultural misunderstanding. Still, this seems unproductive so I'm done with it. DuncanHill (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I warned the IP to stop and he replied by effectively saying "bring it on" and still using the "Intentionally unsigned" thing. Signing messages is part of the talk page guidelines, which are rarely given exceptions. I gave the user fair warning and his first edit upon returning to editing was to violate that warning. Seeing as I had never been involved with the user in the past and he had plenty of previous warnings (bot messages) I believe I acted accordingly. I am not going to block anyone for a similar action unless I actually find them doing it or it is brought up here (or ANI) as being done disruptively, as the IP clearly acted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And does this user you speak of sign his comments as "Intentionally unsigned" as the IP address did? Or does he simply never type ~~~~ after he posts? If either have been told to stop, and they continue to do so, it'd be disruptive and pointy as Crossmr states below.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

He signs as "Anonymous" and uses the !nosign! feature that all editors are allowed to use. There is nothing disruptive about his edits, and if you or anyone else goes and seeks him out to block him, then I would regard that as deliberately disruptive and pointy behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what this "!nosign!" feature is. And why would he bother signing as "Anonymous" if he has an account?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said he had an account? If you don't add ~~~~ and do put !nosign! in the edit summary, sinebot won't come along and sign for you. I take it you've heard of sinebot?

I know what Sinebot is. I just was not aware of it actually picking something like that up in the edit summary to not sign the comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with this point. If an IP (or any user) is specifically signing their posts "intentionally unsigned" it is pointy and disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But does it justify a month long block with talk page editing disabled? Tiptoety ^talk 20:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I find a month block for not signing your posts in a way that someone wants to be taking things completely out of proportion. WP:SIGN says that the purpose of signatures on Wikipedia are to identify you as a user, if a user is always ending their posts with Intentionally Unsigned then it is a signature, as it uniquely identifies that user (even if it is a bit WP:POINTY). I also suggest, firmly and adamantly, that talk page editing is turned back on, and at the very least, the block should be shortened to a week. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 06:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

mmmmmm Intentionally unsigned

Remove Ruylong as a admin

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

---

1. support He is abusive 32.174.199.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC).

   Premature. If these rather questionable administrative actions continue, an RFC or RFAr can be the next step though with a view to removing the admin flag from Ryulong's account. I hope it doesn't come to that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC).

2. Comment Try. Requests. For. Arbitration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A call to remove Ryulong as admin is exactly the kind of impetuous behavior he is being accused of. Ryulong should be advised to use blocking and the threat of blocking only as a last resort for users who engage in unambiguously bad-faith behavior for which the community has already established that blocking is an appropriate response. Likewise, his accusers should be advised to ask him about his rationales before jumping to conclusions, and follow normal process in having his case examined. This is the best way to seek an ideal outcome where Ryulong remains an effective admin while improving his relations to other editors. Dcoetzee 03:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Premature: I agree with Lankiveil and LessHeard, if you feel he should be desysopped, then take it to RFCu or RFAr. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Second chance If action is taken it should be here and not by ArbCom. The community needs an independent desyssoping process. I do not trust Ryulong as an administrator, however I think we should give him a second chance. If he does anything like this again I think it warrants his dessysoping.--Patton^t/c 13:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a question: why are we treating the suggestion of this IP address with only one edit being this very suggestion with any merit?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the suggestion has merit. If you're being overly aggressive in blocking people, you probably shouldn't be an admin. --Carnildo (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly it does not because of the established users who disagree.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, because instead of allowing this subsection to become a hanging party or worse a flame war between the pro's and cons a couple of editors suggested that this was an inappropriate venue - but it was done with all due respect (not that I checked, but an ip's edit history is meaningless in many cases since it may well be someone with a history who happened upon this addy - for whatever reason) so there could be no accusation of having a concern buried by "der Kaburl". LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) As an established user who is completely opposed to the above voting: That's mostly because such out-of-process lynching attempts detract from the real issue, which I find somewhat alarming --Hans Adler (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Broadly - unless an admin fucks Jimbo's dog on his lawn and then throws it threw his window attached to a bag of steaming turds - they are untouchable - so let's close this as a waste of time it will just remain people of how unaccountable our admins are and this will depress them and make them less likely to edit - thus harming the project. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad Cameron! No pet for you! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo's got a dog? Ryan4314 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Pssst: "...throws it threw through..." —Travis^talk 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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

mmmmmm Intentionally unsigned

Worse comment in that discussion

A far more disturbing edit to that AfD is arguing to delete under the claim that "Anyone who thinks Power Rangers is notable needs to get a life" and when an admin cautioned this new user, the new user replied by mocking the admin's spelling. Telling editors to "get a life" and then dismissing an admin's caution also needs to be considered if anyone is taking issue with Ryulong's comment. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess the editor violated WP:CIVIL. But regardless, threatening to get an editor blocked for a simple AfD is far more disruptive and is a worse offense. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Ryulong seriously believes that the nomination was not constructive. Most of the "votes" for deletion are of the WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT vein or as in the example above outright insult editors. As far as I can tell, there is not a compelling case per WP:PRESERVE as to why this content must be deleted as it does not appear to be a hoax, concerns a character from a notable franchise that obviously some editors believe worthwhile to come here for, and appears to be merge or at least redirectable, but these are for talk page discussions and not AfD. With that said, I have seen you make reasonable arguments elsewhere, notably in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesogog and so I'm not sure if there's a pattern as Ryulong suggested, because again in these two examples, I thought your arguments were sound. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

My argument on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction was not a good argument, but I thought it was then. I now think different about that article and am now neutral. If you check here, you'll see which AfD's I've made and you'll see whether it's just Ryulong or if they are not constructive. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your argument was and still is good in that discussion, which is why it wasn't deleted at the time. I don't find the reasons for wanting to delete those various Power Rangers lists compelling; however, I am not sure they are such that would justify a block (the number of nominations you have is nowhere near the number that others have that I do find disruptive). They shouldn't be deleted and should as in the case of Sky Tate be either improved or merged or redirected with edit history intact, but not on par with some instances of spree nominations that perhaps are blockable. I do urge consideration for merges or for seeing lists as compromises, i.e. if you do not think we should have separate articles, perhaps consider at least boldly redirecting or merging to lists akin to the argument you made in Mesogg AfD. Best in any event, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The articles that I nominated for deletion needed to be deleted. Hopefully you've read every AfD. Lack of notability and/or verifiability are very valid reasons for deletion, but other reasons can be more valid. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not find notability a valid reason for deletion, because it is subjective, but verifiability is compelling; however, some of those are verifiable, which is why not all were deleted and nor should they have been. Pretty much nothing "needs" to be deleted that isn't a hoax or personal attack or copyright violation. Everything beyond that just comes down to personal taste or vision of what Wikipedia should be. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not the place for non-notable things. WP:NOTABLE is a reason for deletion, despite the fact that it is disputed as a reason. That is why we don't have articles on things made up one day.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the paperless encyclopedia that anybody can edit. What is and is not notable is debateable. In my opinion, as well as those who created, edit, and come here for those articles, characters from Power Rangers are notable, because they can be verified in sources and because they are from a mainstream franchise familiar to millions of people around the world that includes a variety of media. The user whom I quote above claiming that Powers Rangers is not notable is making an absurd statement, because even if you do not think we should cover all of its characters to suggest that even the show itself is not notable is just not accurate, but the fact that someone would use a notability argument to say that even the show itself is not notable reveals how problematic and subjective notability is as a concept. If we want to have some kind of inclusion criteria, okay, but we should call it that rather than come up with something called notability, which can and is interepreted subjectively by many, many editors, because in this one example, we run the gambit from someone arguing that the characters are so notable that nominating them for deletion is block worthy to someone arguing at least that the charcters aren't notable to even someone blanketing everything related to Power Rangers not being notable. Who knows which of these three stances is correct, if there is such a thing as even being "correct" when it comes to opinion and interpretation, but I would much rather err on the side of covering knowledge that is relevant to at least some people and that I am at least reasonably confident is not total nonsense than diminishing our overall usefulness to our readership and appeal to volunteers who are willing to work on this sort of material. Finally, I unquestionably don't think we should have articles on "things made up one day," which is why I have argued to delete over fifty articles; however, the article we're discussing was not "made up one day." The article contains some out of universe information (who played the character), indication of importance of the character (Power Rangers leader 2005 (2025)) and is verifiable as seen here from Google News. Per WP:BEFORE, I don't see why a merge and redirect would not have been attempted first or per WP:PRESERVE as an alternative to deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying notability is a controversial issue? WP:NOTABLE is a powerful guideline and it is one of the more firm guidelines. In fact, it excludes sources affiliated with the subject, and per WP:RS, articles should rely on reliable secondary sources and not rely on primary sources. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is controversial, because it goes against encyclopedic tradition (look at the early Enlightenment encyclopedias or yearly update volumes of Britannica and you'll find many articles based on primary sources) and as argued by many editors, such as at User:Thanos6, Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Arguments_against_deleting_articles_for_non-notability, User:Ziggurat/Notability, for example, and by looking at the lack of agreement at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline, the community has yet to agree what is and is not notable concerning fictional elements such as characters with some, including myself, thinking that "notability" is anti-wikipedic/elitist and that Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_27#Rename_proposal makes more sense. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

←Mythdon, I would suggest that this discussion will be fruitless and not lead to any sort of satisfactory resolution. Most editors think that notability is an important and necessary guideline, a small but very vocal minority including User:A Nobody do not and take every opportunity to inform everybody of this fact. You're not the first person to have this debate with him, and I doubt you'll be the last. Getting back on topic, yes, the edit by that user was not constructive, and I have warned them on their talk page. I can't see any further action that needs to be taken. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)>

Most editors do not think notability is an important and necessary guideline as far more editors create, work on, and read articles that some deem non-notable that participate in AfD and guideline talk page (when a half dozen editors vote to delete in a five-day AfD for an article with hundreds of edits by unique editors and tens of thousands of page views, it's apparent who the vocal minority is). Only a vocal minority try to push these guidelines through, although they do not reflect the reality of article creation and readership, but in any event, I am glad you warned the user and agree that this thread is about the incivility in that AfD and not the larger issue of notability. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this, it's obvious that the "get a life" guy is nothing to do with the rest of the delete !voters, no one supported him and I personally quite agree with what DGG said. Just because one person "doesn't like it" doesn't mean the rest of us think that, in fact I believe Mythdon regularly edits Power Ranger related articles. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the rest of the editors necessarily believe what User:K;;m5m k;;m5m wrote, which is why I am not convinced Mythdon should be blocked and why I noted above that I have agreed with some of his arguments in AfDs elsewhere (I said that statement to show that I have not identified a pattern of frivolous nominations that justify a block); however, at the same time, I just wanted to be sure that in the uproar over Ryulong's comment, the other editor's incivility wouldn't be lost, especially as the AfD does have that other comment about editors needing to "get a life", not to mention some textbook WP:JNN/WP:ITSCRUFT and even a delete "vote" that focuses on an editor rather than the article. By the way, you ask what makes the subject nominated so special, if you look at the bottom of the article, you will see the character was the leader of the group, which makes him more notable than one off characters. Moreover, doing a quick search, I found that there are reviews that discussed the character. Surely, at least that kind of out of universe information can be merged and redirected at worst per WP:PRESERVE. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about Ryulong at this point?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody, if you want to start a discussion on the perceived evils of deletionism, might I suggest that you start a discussion of your own, rather than hijacking this one and taking it way, way off topic? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

In response to A Nobody, I know there were a couple of silly !votes from both sides in that AFD, but they'll just be ignored by the closing admin. Unfortunately I must agree you are taking this thread a bit off topic (when compared to the first post), I think you should discuss the article in question on the AFD itself and you should discuss the notability policy at WP:N etc. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they do not seem to have been adequately discounted. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with my closure, please take it to DRV instead of making gratuitous comments here. I have disregarded all incivility and uncalled for comments from both sides, just like I have discounted the "referencing" of "out-of-universe" information you had done (i.e., ultimatedisney.com gave the name of the author that played the character in a cast list...) as insignificant. There were plenty of neutral, article-based and policy-based comments to base a decision on. Fram (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is probably best to do the DRV after this thread is archived. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion about deletionism, but about incivility in a particular AfD and is relevant to the larger thread by demonstrating that Ryulong's threat of blocking was not the only cause for concern in that AfD. Moreover, the final "delete" in the AfD is to threaten to "mock" Ryulong, which I'm not sure helps things either. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? In general? Or in regards to this specific discussion? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody, are you telling me you would've closed that discussion differently? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Was it a keep? No, but a no consensus or merge and redirect, yes. If it was okay to be redirected as happened at the time of the close, then there's no reason not to keep the edit history as well for purposes of a merge or for any other future editing of this content. Edit histories should only be deleted for hoax or libelous purposes. The AfD was tainted by incivility and hostility. The claim that the "leader" of the group was not notable is not really accurate and there was a clear merge/redirect location. AfDs are not votes and so even if ten people say "not notable", but it really is notable by some stretch of the imagination, then I have to discount that. We gain nothing from deleting the edit history; we arguable gain something by keeping it. I do not see any persuasive reasoning for the edit history to be removed. A case could be made for a merge and redirect, but when we know it is not a hoax, something somebody made up that day, not an obvious copy vio, not libel, etc., deleting the edit history of potentially mergeable and maybe even improveable content concerning a prominent character from a major franchise is counterproductive, but as I said above, I'll hold off on the DRV until after these threads are closed. Take care! --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Closing an AfD where no one suggested a "merge and redirect" as "merge and redirect" would be rather bizarre... If people feel that there is nothing worthwhile in the editing history (nothing which should be merged, resurrected, ...), then there is no point in keeping the edit history. A plot summary with one trivial fansite reference is not the kind of editing we want to encourage. The content was not "potentially mergable or maybe even improvable". The target of the redirect already is a very poor, purely in-universe list, and merging more plot summary into it would make this even worse. However, as a courtesy to our readers, a simple redirect is perfectly acceptable. As for the tainting of the AfD: again, there were plenty of neutral comments to base the close on, and the hostility was started by those wanting to keep the article. To keep an article based on that premisse would set a very bad precedent. You are obviously free to take this to DRV, but I think that it will be a waste of time. Fram (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I reckon those who argued to keep and who created/worked on the article believe there is worthwhile content in the edit history. Articles that can be redirected can be redirected without having to also take the step to delete the edit history barring there is some kind of copy vio or libel that needs to be deleted. And this way, if/when new sources are found that can improve the content, editors do not have to start over or request undeletion, but rather have a basis to build from. By the way, for better or wrose I have seen at least one instance where sixteen editors bolded to keep versus five bolding to delete and zero bolding to merge or redirect actually closed as "merge" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms of endearment (3rd nomination)), but anyway, I do not think a DRV is a good idea while this discussion is underway and I believe others above wish for the discussion to focus on the particular editors in the discussion. Thus, we should probably hold off further here until/if I decided for a DRV. Have a nice night! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The only aspect of this discussion that is in anyway ongoing is your commentary and everyone else's replies to you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That was a bit uncalled for, and harsh. Ouch Luna Rain^HowL_Cry 04:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

mmmmmm Intentionally unsigned

Congrats

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		In appreciation of all you outstanding Administrators. Keep up the great work. Waterjuice (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why thankyou :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Should article moves be prohibited during AfD?

I have twice recently encountered a situation where during an AfD the article was moved to a new title (for good-faith reasons like capitalisation) so that when the debate ended "delete" only the redirect left by the move was deleted, and the article under its new title lingered on, still displaying the AfD template. I suggest that the AfD template should be expanded to read "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked or moved to a new title... " JohnCD (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I support this idea, but I believe that this isn't the place for such a discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I did think of Template_talk:Afd but it's not very active - last post 4 months ago. JohnCD (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I support this idea. Article improvement should always go on (except for incidents that necessitate article protection). Renaming the article can be an improvement, for the article's sake, and for the encyclopedia's sake. Sometimes an article survives because of improvements made during the AfD. If the community decides such an article should be deleted, that deletion should apply to the content that was moved, not just the original name of the article. Kingturtle (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This situation (where renaming the page could make the difference) could be dealt with by voting "rename" in stead of "keep". Other improvements can't reasonably be summarized in the AfD discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I'm not sure I support either, for the same reasons as Kingturtle. Isn't this really just a problem when using the closing script? If we just get in the habit of bouncing over to the article after a close, or double-checking for a move prior to closing its no big deal right? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, but will note:

• I have been involved in some AfDs where this has happened, and it can cause confusion among participants, not just closing admins.
• It has often been the case that participants have agreed on a more appropriate article name, should the article be kept. I've not seen a case where the change had to be made during the deletion process, nor can I think of circumstances that would be so pressing.

Anyway, that's it for me. IMHO this isn't a dreadfully inappropriate place for this discussion, but I think it would perhaps be better if moved to Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy (which is pretty active), with an "advert" left here and at the template talk. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see many worries with re-naming articles in AfD. As with lots of stuff here, reading skills and heed may be called for. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• • (ec)I've done a few moves during AfD, e.g. for caps but tried to leave a note at the AfD. It can be both beneficial and confusing but I would be against such a rule. Nevertheless, I remember that there was a word of caution regarding moves but cna't find it now. I also think that the redirect only indicates that they might not have looked at what they delete. Otherwise they would simply be redirected two hat they're supposed to delete. In that sense the outcome of the discussion applies to an article and not to particular spelling.

    Actually I think an obviously wrong title should be corrected before AfD. If something is worth a five day community discussion, it surely is worth a correct title. Moreover, in case of articles that might be reposted having the discussion and deletion at a wrong title makes the identification of reposts more difficult. Most of this should be followed-up at WT:AfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

    • I think we're all probably agreed that it'd be best if something obvious were fixed first! --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Sure we do!--Tikiwont (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
        • You might want to learn Geogre's Law. Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you move an article during AfD, you should also update the links and note that on the AfD itself. But an admin who closes an AFD as "delete" and only deletes the redirect isn't doing his job properly (you should always check the page history before deleting). Article improvement (like fixing the title, something that should be encouraged) should not be prohibited to make life easier for lazy admins. Kusma (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to prohibit moves during AfD. I have seen confusion caused by moved, but I have also seen articles kept because of moves. As for correcting them prior to the AfD, we often find that a subject matter expert comes by during AfD and suggests a better title. Agree generally w/ Gwen above. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Moves used to be, some years ago, discouraged during AFD discussion. (It was not an absolute prohibition. It simply required that the person performing the move know what xe was doing and fix the links that such a move broke — which was not the case for many novice editors coming to AFD. I and others who knew what we were doing renamed articles during discussions in those days. We simply made all of the requisite manual fixes to not break the process when we did so, as well.) We have long since fixed the technical problem with the AFD notice that required that prohibition, and removed the prohibition both from the notice and from the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. If moves cause problems with some script that some closing administrators are using, then the problem is a technical problem with that script, and it's the script that requires fixing, not anything else.

Not only are editing and renaming the article whilst the discussion is ongoing, to fix problems with the article, allowed, they are encouraged. AFD is not an election. It doesn't force an article to be frozen whilst it is discussed. If any editor can improve an article that is listed at AFD, they are welcome and encouraged to do so. Making the encyclopaedia better remains the goal. The only concerns during an AFD discussion are merger (which has GFDL implications) and blanking (of which redirection is effectively a subset), both of which obscure the notice linking to the on-going discussion. Blanking is thus the one issue addressed on Template:afd1, for that very reason. Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

there have been times where the article title was so inappropriate as to prejudice the discussion, and a better title made an immedaite difference. Those of us who use scripts etc. need to check what they do. DGG (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a case like this was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothetical astronomical object (non-scientific), where I moved the article to resolve the major reason for deletion. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with doing almost anything that stands a realistic chance of fixing the problem, during any deletion debate. It might help if a clueful admin were to suspend the debate until the changes are done and then restart it, in some cases, but often it's a sign of Heyman standard improvement. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I, for one, achieved that with Off-line (AfD discussion), which I renamed to on-line and off-line during the AFD discussion, and I expect to achieve it with Heterography (AfD discussion) too. Uncle G (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

One does, however, run into cases in which article moves are made (usually, but not always, by the articles' creators) in an attempt to obfuscate the AfD process. A recent example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Merkin ASCII art, where the article was moved twice by its creator during the AfD discussion. This AfD was closed as "delete" more than two hours ago, and the actual "article" at its final destination, along with the intermediate redirect, were not deleted—only the redirect at the original title was. (As soon as I finish typing this, I'll tag them for speedy deletion.) Another example I was involved with, some time ago, was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonnetology, and I've seen other similar cases as well. Their existence perhaps doesn't warrant a prohibition on article moves during AfDs, but I think such moves should be discouraged in most instances. No one is going to take seriously a recommendation that an article be deleted simply because its title contains an error in capitalization, and most such moves—along with other, more substantial ones—can wait for AfD closure. Deor (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• No. That doesn't obfuscate the AFD discussion at all. The discussion hyperlinked to the article, with the double redirect already fixed by a 'bot. It was quite clear both during and at the close of the discussion what article was under discussion. Had the closing administrator followed that hyperlink xe would have been taken directly to the correct thing to delete.

  The problem there is that the closing administrator did not follow the hyperlink from the discussion to the article. The problem there is almost certainly the shortcut "delete" link in the discussion, which the closing administrator almost certainly used in place of just going directly to the article. That's a problem with Template:afd2 that should be fixed, just like the problem several years ago was a problem with Template:afd1 that can be, and was, fixed. It's not a reason to prohibit or discourage moves. It's a reason to fix a problem with the template. There is no good reason to defer moves until AFD closure, and there's no good reason to reinstate the non-trivial procedural burden on editors and AFD discussions that we used to have years ago. If a template or a script is causing administrators to delete the wrong things, then it's the template or the script that needs fixing. The editor community at large should not be arbitrarily restrained in fixing articles during AFD discussions, and have to "vote" for renames, because some purported labour-saving device for closing administrators doesn't work correctly.

  Your second example isn't even an example of this. The closing administrator actually deleted the renamed article, Sonnet studies, first, and then deleted the redirect at the original title Sonnetology. Your second example provides no grounds for your argument at all. In fact, it undermines it. The article was renamed during discussion; nobody was confused by this; and the closing administrator deleted both the article and the redirect left behind by the renaming, in an order that suggests that xe wasn't at all confused as to where the article under discussion actually was, either. You are addressing a non-problem. Uncle G (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the main point I was making, which was about moves intended to confuse or otherwise short-circuit deletion discussions. That these sometimes have the effect that closers don't delete everything that needs deleting is a side issue for me (though it was perhaps the main point made by the initiator of this thread). Deor (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion

Another User:Everyme block evasion with 78.34.148.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Grsz¹¹_Review 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not done anything disruptive; I don't see any reason to block the IP. – iridescent 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Usually I'd say block, but unless more contributions come from the IP I'd say leave it to avoid any collateral damage. — neuro^(talk) 00:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say edit summaries like this is pretty unconstructive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 12:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've never respected the block anyway. And in all modesty, I think I've done some good -albeit minor- stuff, like giving the intial suggestion to form WP:OBAMA and such. 78.34.148.222 (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, diff given by A Nobody above hidden by deletion: completely unacceptable. Fram (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I've never done rangeblocks and don't plan on starting now, but perhaps a rangeblock of 78.34.148.XXX is useful here? Fram (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

He has used at least all of the following since his most recent main account was blocked in December 2008:

• 78.34.128.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.128.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.129.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.133.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.134.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.134.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.135.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.144.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.145.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.148.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.148.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.148.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.149.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.151.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.151.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.168.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 12:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Open unblock request

Resolved

 – Request declined by VirtualSteve.  Sandstein  19:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Could another administrator take a look at User talk:Males? It seems like a relatively straightforward block and unblock request, but I don't know enough about all of the related messes to make a decision. I'm not bringing this here to "review" the conduct of the blocking admin, I'm totally neutral on that. Just trying to get an answer on the unblock request before the block duration elapses. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

ADM a Single-purpose account; Hate Speech.

Please take note of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AADM&diff=268189636&oldid=268072415. Note recent ANI of this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive511#User:ADM_a_Single-purpose_account.3F. --Elvey (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. Odd behaviour, failure to acknowledge legitimate concerns, and weird choices of subject and content. I have blocked the user for now, let's see what they have to say for themselves. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed policy addition at WP:ADMIN

I've proposed that the following sentence by added to the WP:ADMIN policy:

Any admin who uses block or other log messages containing defamatory, insulting, profane, or other such impolite language may be summarily desysopped.

Someone suggested in the ensuing discussion that this be advertised elsewhere to generate more input. The discussion is here. Cla68 (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight election policy amended

In light of the concerns expressed by numerous members of the community regarding the voting method selected for the CheckUser and Oversight elections, the Committee has amended the election policy to allow votes both for and against a candidate, and to specify appointments based on percentage of support rather than raw support.

The measure authorizing this amendment was passed 10/0:

• Supporting: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
• Opposing: None
• Abstaining: None
• Not voting: FayssalF, Jayvdb, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Stephen Bain, Vassyana

It should additionally be noted that this matter was dealt with on a quite urgent basis, and a number of arbitrators have not yet had the opportunity to enter formal votes on the measure; we expect that the tally above will be updated once this has occurred.

For the Committee, Kirill ^[pf] 04:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cross posted by Tznkai (talk)on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Replaced by a fullurl for those on the normal server :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit/move war over Wikipedia:Editing policy

A handful of users are edit/move warring over Wikipedia:Editing policy to "demote" it to a guideline on the strength of a limited-participation discussion (with no clear sign of consensus). Please comment on the situation at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy. It's my feeling that move protection would also be warranted until such time as a consensus is formed for the change -- though not edit protection: changes to the text are being negotiated.--Father Goose (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In hopes that calmer heads prevail, I say we hold off on protection; we can always block the users who chose to be disruptive. Also, I have warned User:Father Goose. Tiptoety ^talk 07:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good heavens. While I am one of five users who has been involved in this pagemove dispute (two on one side, three on the other, so far), do you understand why I have brought it to your attention?

I came here for help in trying to get the situation resolved through discussion instead of getting snared in a multi-party edit war. I do not wish to be a participant in an edit war; it's clear at this point that the issue is far from having consensus and needs further discussion, and I wish to compel the parties who are trying to force the issue through warring to come to the table instead.

So, given that, can I ask for anyone's help in resolving the dispute?--Father Goose (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear why you needed to "warn" Father Goose Tiptoety. S/he has not broken 3RR and has used informative edit summaries. I don't see an edit war here. Pedro :  Chat  08:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm very concnerned by this approach on the part of Tiptoety: Two revert with full edits sumaries asking for discussion before coming to ANI is not edit warring. Anyway, I've placed a general warning on the talk page, and will watch developments. - brenneman 13:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, okay. Maybe I made a mistake here, and explaining myself will most likely not change anyone's mind but I will do so anyways.

My attention to this issue was not brought upon by this AN thread, matter of fact at the time I had Father Goose's contribs open and was deciding what to do. He had not yet started a AN thread, and so far was the only one to make two page moves. To me pagemove warring is the most disruptive form of edit warring (which mind you, does not have to violate 3RR to constitute edit warring). Anyways, had it been me, I would have came directly here or took a step in dispute resolution after my first page move had been reverted instead of reverting. Because he was already on his second revert I thought it best to issue him a warning, in hopes that he would stop and no administrative action (blocks, page protection) would need to be taken. My ultimate goal was to stop the edit war from continuing, not blocking someone. Sorry if I cam across harsh, Tiptoety ^talk 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that pagemove warring is the most disruptive form of edit warring, which is why I raised the issue here. I chose to revert the pagemove (a second time) before raising the issue here because those who were not joining the discussion would have no motivation to join it if the page were protected on their preferred version. (Page protection is extremely gameable in this respect.) Should a consensus actually emerge for the "demotion" and the pagemove, I would accept it even if I disagreed with it.

I think this case illustrates the wisdom of don't template the regulars. If you questioned my judgment in the matter, you should have contacted me on my talk page (or at WT:Editing policy) to communicate your concerns and to better ascertain my motives. Just chucking a warning (a threat, really) at me would have inflamed the situation even if my motives had not been honorable.

Nonetheless, I take your comments above as an apology, and I appreciate it. I hope you can take to heart my advice about communicating; templating and other snap judgments tend to hinder dispute resolution, which I assume is the opposite of your intention.--Father Goose (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety did it to me, too. Someone reported me on WP:AN3. Admin William M. Connolley – not known for being a softie – closed it as "no vio. obviously, there are only three reverts". Tiptoety overrode this and issued a block threat against me. When I objected on his Talk page, he dismissed my objection, with a snide "nice try" in the edit summary. Like blocks, block threats can have a chilling effect on editors, and should be used with caution and judgment, not by application of WP:IAR.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to User_talk:Goodmorningworld/Archive_1#Bethmanns_and_Rothschilds from November 2008? From what I can tell, WMC said there was no 3RR and Tiptoety warned you for edit warring. Those are two different things, so I'm not certain he overrode anything here. Maybe WMC or Tiptoety could clarify. MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember that vaguely. If I recall, WMC declined as no vio simply because three reverts were not made withing 24 hours. Either way, the edits were counterproductive and constituted a waring (not a threat). Anyways, no administrative action was taken, and the warning issued was done so with the utmost care and respect. WP:AGF :-) Tiptoety ^talk 17:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So one admin declined to block and another admin decided to issue a warning. It seems to me that there's no conflict between those two decisions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety, as far as I'm concerned you've forfeited your right to AGF, due to your extremely arrogant and callous attitude. And don't tell me how to read the English language. A threat ("will be blocked if they continue") is a threat is a threat. "Utmost care and respect?" LOL.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics

Background reading: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs

After a long discussion last year into the appropriateness of fight songs, there was a consensus (not that one was needed) that lyrics should be removed from articles about fight songs, and that many such articles should be merged and/or redirected into the article about the sports team or the school. After User:NJGW and I tried to apply that consensus (see some of my contribs) a vast array of other editors have come back and restored the lyrics (which in many cases are copyvios) and/or unredirected articles which contained very little text and whose subjects were already discussed elsewhere.

Since there's already a consensus on this, I'd rather not reopen a centralized discussion or try to create a notability guideline for such a small category of articles, but I am at a loss as to how to continue. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The consensus in the link you provided was to remove the lyrics from and to merge/redirect non-notable articles about college fight songs. Standard notablility guidelines apply, as do standard consensus-seeking procedures. The issue I had was that dozens of such articles were merged/redirected with no discussion or consideration of each article's notablity. Some of them should be merged, some should not. There's no reason to rush through and get rid of all of them without going through the usual procedures: tag, discuss, arrive at consensus.

Also, a vital part of the "merge" process is to add the info from the removed article to the parent article. NJGW only deleted/redirected, so that the removed info disappeared from wikipedia. Zeng8r (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that NJGW has not deleted any articles. He just redirected them; others may have unredirected, but that's part of WP:BRD. As you say, there was no blanket consensus that fight songs should not have their own articles.

"Consensus-seeking procedures" don't seem to apply to removing lyrics, though. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the wording and conclusion of the "consensus" obtained on the lyrics. I also disagree on the interpretation seemingly applied by WP:NOT#LYRICS and WP:LYRICS which does not forbid the use of full public domain lyrics as long as it is not the sole component of an article (to avoid it becoming a "primary source" as stated in WP:Lyrics). It also contradicts an established consensus on lyric inclusion (see below). However, concluding the general discussion with such narrow interpretation of both that discussion (where 5 out of 12 editors, not including myself, stated that lyrics were justified in some conditions) and the no lyrics policy is unfortunate because article quality suffers in several cases. For example, in the article Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech, which has passed WP:GA with the lyrics included, the lyrics are wikilinked to provide additional information to their meaning and are essential for the subsequent discussion of the alternative lyrics and the historic development of the song. These sections become meaningless in this article without inclusion of the lyrics and, in my opinion, their inclusion does not violate a wikipedia policy in word nor spirt (see WP:LYRICS). Therefore, I see this as "consensus" decision as an unfortunate example of unnecessary rule creep. The purpose of wikipedia policy to not write articles solely consisting of lyrics is to avoid creating a primary source and prevent copyright violations. This is obviously not a problem with articles such as Rambling Wreck, Give My Regards to Davy, War Eagle, and others and the "consensus" policy trying to be enforced is unnecessarily and unfortunately hurting article quality in a well established category of articles.

The issue of public domain lyrics is also spoken to by the Song Wikiproject according to Wikipedia:SONG#LYRICS which very clearly does not prohibit the inclusion of full public domain lyrics in articles. This speaks to lyrics in hundreds of well established articles and categories such as The Star-Spangled Banner, Amhrán na bhFiann, God Save the Queen, America the Beautiful, O Holy Night, Deck the Halls, 99 Bottles of Beer, My Old Kentucky Home, Rock-a-bye Baby, Hush, Little Baby, Three Blind Mice, etc., etc. in well established categories as Category:Christian hymns, Category:National anthems, Category: American folk songs, Category:Nursery rhymes, etc., etc. This includes Featured Articles such as Old Dan Tucker and Dixie. A blanket ban on lyrics regardless of context, such as was the conclusion that was reached in the discussion for fight songs, seems to be treading close to violating WP:CON: " 'Consensus' among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". The "consensus" on the fight song lyrics reached by the limited number of editors (7) contradicts established lyric inclusion "consensus" (as well as FA reviewed articles) and therefore appears to be faulty and should at least be reexamined per WP:CCC (with better promotion of the discussion than had previously occurred to editors with interest in song related articles). I also believe any discussion on lyric inclusion should take place at the level of the Song Wikiproject as opposed to the limited subcategorization of fight songs. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleting and redirecting/merging are pretty much the same thing if no text is actually moved over to the main article. Poof! - it's gone. However, I agree that the cited discussion above is enough justification for removing lyrics without rediscussing it on every individual article, especially since that's general wikipolicy anyway. Zeng8r (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, not the same thing. The content is still in the history of the redirect and can be reviewed and added to the target if anyone cares to do so. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The casual user/editor has no idea how to do that. All they know is, they search for "Dear Old Nebraska U" (for example) and end up on the main article for the University of Nebraska, which doesn't mention the fight song at all. Zeng8r (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, the articles in question should go through AfD with a "Merge and Delete" request unless they meet the criteria for a speedy delete. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I merged information which was not already at the target. In the cases where there were only a line or two ("X's fight song is Y. It was written by Z") the information was usually already at the target page. For notable fight songs (ie Anchors Away) I only removed the lyrics. Zeng8r has not looked at my edits closely. NJGW (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Anchors Aweigh should not have lyrics removed because, although it is used by the US Naval Academy as a fight song, it is the anthem of the United States Navy and does not necessarily fall under the auspices of the discussion about college fight songs. See WP:SONG#LYRICS.

As a further note, many of these articles would fail wp:NOTE and wp:V, making them AFD candidates (the short ones probably Speedy candidates). In my mind I was saving them from this fate by putting the information in a safe place. NJGW (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is fine to make an AfD (or a speedy for that matter) a merge and delete which would have preserved the information just as efficiently. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge and delete is not a viable outcome for GFDL reasons. Merge and redirect, or just delete. If any content is being kept, then the history needs to be kept. J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if something is voted on as a "Merge and Delete", it generally commonly understood to mean that it is just changed to a redirect and the information is moved to the article. (in essence what NJGW was doing, just with a vote) Perhaps I should have just said "Merge", as most AfD voters commonly take "Merge and Delete" to mean just "Merge" unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. (See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for further clarification) You could obviously be more clear in the wording if you wish, but we are talking about the same thing. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am pasting here my recent addition to the centralized discussion:
After a decision was reached here, I attempted to apply it to several articles and was met with strong opposition in several instances. Schools with only a few supporters on Wikipedia saw the fight song lyrics removed and not added back in. Other fight song articles had the lyrics added back in immediately and repeatedly. Editors felt that this centralized discussion carried little or no weight. Until all articles on this subject are treated alike, I think trying to enforce the removal of lyrics is unfair.

Here's one example of the kind of response I received when attempting to follow what was decided: "Fight On" →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Some users are going to have very strong opinions on this matter, what with the emotional attachments many have to their alma maters. With all the potential 3RR warnings and mediations and bannings that are sure to result over this, is it a fight worth fighting, really? Zeng8r (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. That is why I reversed myself on all articles where I removed lyrics. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion of the "consensus" was seems faulty in light of WP:SONG#LYRICS and at best over interprets wikipedia policy. As noted above, there are whole categories of songs (e.g. Category:National anthems, Category:Anthems, Category:Christian hymns, Category:American folk songs, Category:Nursery rhymes, and on and on) where articles on songs with full pd lyrics have maintained WP:SILENCE for a long time and have been favorably reviewed (even FA). Certainly there are articles that are better than others as far as have content that relies to heavily on the song lyrics, but clearly no ban on public domain lyrics within an article, and at best it is WP:CREEP, at worst it seems to violate WP:CON: " 'Consensus' among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". CrazyPaco (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If there are lyrics in those other articles, they should be removed as well. In any case, the lyrics in the fight song articles are mostly copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. Only lyrics that are not in the public domain should be removed. Articles that consist only of lyrics should be nominated for WP:AFD for lack of context according to WP:LYRICS. The vast majority of articles about songs in the public domain include their lyrics, including those that have passed WP:FA. Your interpretation goes against the prevailing consensus established at WP:SONG#LYRICS, WP:LYRICS, and by WP:FA review of articles like Dixie. Again, no ban exists on public domain lyrics in those articles as long as those articles do not solely consisting of those lyrics thus risking WP:Primary sources. If you want to change that consensus on policy, it seems that you would need to work to change the wording at WP:NOT#LYRICS and WP:LYRICS and WP:SONG#LYRICS to explicitly state your current opinion. Again, "Consensus' among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Af far as fight songs violating copyright, that may or may not be true as many fight songs were written in the late 19th or early 20th century. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I know you all mean well, but I disagree with the original logic/solution of the, frankly, so-called "consensus" that didn't do a good job of informing those of us who've edited multiple articles on fight songs. With that said, it would behoove anyone acting on that policy position to be more careful: if you're going to impose an 11-person "consensus", you better be willing to do the work and not only do half (i.e. deleting only, and not transcribing something that's very clearly PD). Simply going in and deleting lyrics without making at least an attempt to move them (if they can be) isn't the right way to do things. --Bobak (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on this discussion here I think it should be obvious to anyone that there is clearly no "consensus" on removing public domain lyrics from articles. To those of you still trying to maintain that farce, please stop removing lyrics from articles on those grounds. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The consensus exists as policy at wp:NOT#LYRICS, not the centralized discussion. It reads "The lyrics of traditional songs may be in the public domain, but even in this case the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc. Source texts generally belong on WikiSource. Excerpts of lyrics may be used within an article for the purpose of direct commentary about them." The centralized discussion merely agreed with the policy. WP is not a lyrics database for fight songs, or any songs. NJGW (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand if you have a long song with dozens of lines it might make sense to link to WikiSource, but when you have a fight song with 4 lines it makes no sense to do that. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No such consensus exists at WP:NOT#LYRICS for the removal of PD lyrics from articles if it is not the sole content of that article. Please stop inferring what is not there. This policy is further clarified at WP:Lyrics and backed by the consensus consensus drawn at WP:SONG#LYRICS and by song articles that include PD lyrics which have passed WP:FA. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

From wp:Lyrics: "A Wikipedia article on lyrics or poetry should have an analytical framework that describes the song and its cultural impact." Which of these articles "have an analytical framework" or discuss the "cultural impact"? wp:WikiProject Songs#Lyrics and music videos states: "It may be acceptable to use small portions of a song's lyrics or music video in the main body to illustrate a point." Just like you originally ignored my actual edits, you are now ignoring what you are quoting. NJGW (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is what WP:LYRICS states, you continually seem to miss this part or read something into it that is not there: "In addition to the main point of not violating copyright, do not write an article that consists only of lyrics. This would be considered a primary source. It may if it is GFDL-compatible free content, be transwikied to Wikisource, but it could also be speedy deleted by an admin for lack of context." Many of articles in which you have removed the lyrics provide plenty of commentary on the lyrics and cultural impact. Those include articles such as Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech that has passed WP:GA review and never should have had the lyrics removed. Some of the articles you have rightfully questioned like Dear Old Nebraska U. There is no criteria for how well or thorough these descriptions must be, but the later clearly fails to provide sufficient context and with that I agree with you. Remember an article does not have to be FA (like Dixie) to exist or contain public domain lyrics. All that is stated is that if the article consists solely of lyrics and doesn't provide context it may be nominated for AFD, it actually says nothing of wholesale removal of all lyrics regardless of how they are presented in the article, unless they are not in the public domain. You cannot inject policy where none exists that ignores previously existing consensus at WP:SONG#LYRICS that is demonstrated in FA and GA peer reviews as noted above. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the issue is that you are misunderstanding the terms "commentary on" and "cultural impact". Dixie (song) has both. Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech has neither. NJGW (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fight Songs and College Football my opinion, based on prior discussions at WP:CFB--Linking a "fight song" to the college "football" team is inappropriate. The fight songs typically apply to not only all sports but to the student body of the school in question. While the fight songs are typically a part of the "pagentry" of college football, the football team does not play the song--the band does. But also college choirs sing the songs regularly. Therefore, I see no real reason to have any special reference or exclusivity to college football and school fight songs. So from there, it goes outside the realm of my enthusiasm in Wikipedia and becomes an issue of songs, lyrics, etc. That's not to say that a fight song couldn't be notable or even worthwhile to have the lyrics in the encyclopedia, but I would take the stance that not all college fight songs are notable (especially when one consideres that many smaller college have "taken" the fight song of a larger school and simply changed a few of the lyrics).--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Boubaker polynomials

Greetings,

The above-captioned article was created and, most importantly, deleted on a number of wikis (including this one) some time last year. It has been the subject of massive sockpuppetry and spamming on various wikis, particularly on :fr (see Wikipédia:Vandalisme_de_longue_durée/Mmbmmmbm and our own AN for a detailed list and background story in French).

The article has been re-created by Luoguozhang, who pretended to be editing from China. Well, not really.

This person uses the presence of the article on :en to pressure other wikis to restore their own version of the article. I'm not too familiar with your local practices, but do we have to restart an AfD request, or can you just wipe and protect the page?

Thx & Regards, Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 14:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the edge of speedying it as recreation of deleted material. Anyone disagrees? -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There are other editors involved in the article. I don't want to prolong this if it is a blatant recreation, but I feel that some input should be requested on the subject from those who understand it. ^LeaveSleaves 14:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree. The current version at least has references (though I haven't checked them yet; I merely note that they exist) and it isn't the crawling horror that the original misformatted article was, so it does address concerns from the original AfD. I'd send it to AfD again, with a mention of the questionable notability and history of problems. Unless there's evidence this term is widely used, it will likely get deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Like Popo, I am an admin on :fr and was a protagonist of previous deletions and struggles against an obsessive and disruptive editor. Nonetheless, I have noticed that this last recreation was discussed on this wiki's Mathematics Project, with some participants supporting the existence of the article. Hence, it seems obviously outside speedy deletion scope, as sad as it may be for any person who has previous experience of its main author. French Tourist (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics pointing to this discussion. As French Tourist notes, this is not speediable, and I'm not convinced it would even be deleted in a full AfD. Some attention to the sockpuppetry seems warranted but other than that I don't see that there's any particular administrative action to be taken at this point. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The article is indeed a bit better than the stub it used to be, despite being referenced too. Not a mathematic expert myself, it would be interesting to see whether the problems raised in the first AfD are now moot. (At least there's no hint Scolas is around this time). I'd say WP:AFD it, then, Popo. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a French contributor, and as I took part of the several deletion procedures on wp:fr, I can ensure that these polynomials are strickly unknown... There is no serious references, the displayed publications have not been made in recognized proceedings... Moreover, the pseudo of the author of the current article has appeared on wp:fr, asking for restauration ... And check users show that these contributions come from Tunisia... far from China as claimed... Ico83

Just to confirm that indeed, there was discussion about whether or not to allow recreation at the WikiProject back in autumn. I was the admin who did the latest AfD closure ("delete with strong prejudice against recreation"), and I would have felt comfortable speedying it again, but people at the WikiProject seemed to think it might be worth giving it a chance once more. We were aware at the time that the alleged Chinese newbie contributor was another sock, but there didn't seem to be a formal ban in force against him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unitary executive theory

Could somebody look at this page and clarify whether tagging it for OR and claiming it is unreferenced is in good faith when there are scores of refs (nearly each sentence) to the article? That is: this version[18] since a slow edit war, removing legal experts as source, is brewing. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Am I misreading policy if I think this edit I corrected[19] seriously skirts policy prohibiting removal of sourced content? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute over a LaRouchian fringe theory being handled in detail on the talk page of the article and at WP:RSN. Per WP:MULTI, I won't respond here, too. THF (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No LaRouche involved, so this is a misleading statement, this editor says Le Monde Diplomatique, Der Spiegel, Scott Horton (lawyer) all fail WP:RS. My question is: do they? But the real question here is: is tagging a sourced article as OR violating policy?'' Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nescio not only misrepresents his sources, but he misrepresents my arguments, which are spelled out in detail on the talk page and at RSN. He's being disruptive by arguing this in multiple places. THF (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Uses of the AbuseFilter

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter#Uses of the AbuseFilter regarding possible uses of the AbuseFilter in the future and whether we want to consider possible implications of them (particularly as a mechanism to control specific editors). Any thoughts would be appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unethical conduct by User:Russavia

Please react to extremely rude personal attacks of Russavia: [20]. Also, the user continues to play with the rules placing unwarranted tags without presenting any valid grounds.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently some other editors were also complaining about the same lately: [21].Muscovite99 (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Muscovite has been found by the Russian arbcom committee to be a persistent POV-pusher.[22] [23] [24] and is currently enjoying yet another week long block ru:Обсуждение_участника:Muscovite99. There are issues with the article as mentioned, and which are discussed, but Muscovite in his own words has persistently removed dispute tags which have not been resolved, as in his own words he wants to make the "most grotesque" article possible. I also warned him that if he should accuse me of being in the employ of the Russian government again, as he did here I would take that further, as per the arbcom decision that found that accusing editors of being in the employ of governments is not helpful, and considering that it was because of insinuations made by the user on whose talk page that accusation by Muscovite appeared, I am somewhat appalled that said editor not only did not tell Muscovite this, but has actually encouraged him somewhat. One will note that Muscovite comes to enwiki and engages in persistent POV-pushing and disruption only when he has been blocked from ruwiki. And if he thinks that the tagging is frivolent, then he is mistaken, as whilst I am not wanting to write a glowing positive article, I do want a NPOV article, and it is impossible to do as such when someone admits they want the most grotesque article possible. As to other things Muscovite brings up, that is under discussion and will be a soon to come case at WP:AE. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As has been said elsewhere, this is a content dispute, and should be handled as such. Please use those channels. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the use of such language as "<…> This does not mean that you need to come back to en:wiki, and continue with the same sort of bullshit you pull over at ru:wiki." (See the first link above) is a content dispute? What are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA then about?Muscovite99 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I mean that. I suggest you both avoid climbing the Rechstag dressed as Spider-Man (after searching through a multitude of essays to find the most appropriate one). get back to worrying about the article and stop arguing about "baw, User:X insulted me and it was teh personal attacks!!11!1" Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. That was quite educating in showing up (by way of contrast) how ludicrously politicised and KGB-controlled the RuWP is.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Step right up, get your tickets here. Don't miss out on the comedic stylings of Muscovite99. Don't be disappointed, buy your tickets now. That has got to be funniest damn thing I have heard all day Muscovite; well actually no, the funniest thing was the message on my talk page where you claimed that you got banned on the orders of Putin. This is the second funniest thing. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The above is not the only example of Russavia's incivility against Muscovite99. See the edit comment of this diff, which refers to Muscovite99's request to refrain from disruptive tagging as "nuttery". In background of other related uncivility issues in very recent pass, I can only ask: wikistress? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no the nuttery is his claim that Putin ordered the Arbcom on ruwiki to ban Muscovite. It's laughable nuttery. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Query: Is the FSB/KGB's control over the Russian WP as complete as The Cabal's control over the English WP?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. Any editor who doesn't agree with him is also a member of the Russian security service or the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs super-secret Wikipedia propaganda department (this is who I am employed with according to him), so their control over Russian WP is more complete than the Cabal's control over English WP, becuase now the FSB/KGB's control also extends to English WP. I can see a ring of cuckoo's flying around one's head right now. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• As a matter of fact, Russavia continue to attack fellow editors even after receiving an official warning from an uninvolved administrator. The nuttery is propagated by Russavia who said about himself: "I can confirm that I am a member of the secretive Russian government team of internet agents." (at the bottom of this diff).Biophys (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Per-article blocking

Since Per-article blocking seemed to have consensus back in 2005, and bugzilla:674 was adopted, is there any chance of this extension being activated any time soon? This could be a valuable tool, especially with rangeblocks that would otherwise cause too much collateral damage. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• This would be great for enforcing topic bans. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Great for 3RR too I think! Viridae^Talk 21:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support per WP:WTHN. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm in favor of this, per Guy and Viridae, but note to Tim: I was dejected to discover, when this was mentioned a few months ago on WP:AN or WP:ANI or somewhere, that rangeblocking specific articles would not be possible. I had hoped it could replace article semiprotection or site-wide rangeblocking for an article-specific vandal on a dynamic IP, but was told it could only be one account/IP per article block. --barneca (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• This would be really handy for enforcing topic bans - no admin should waste their precious time monitoring someone when the software can do it for us. Dcoetzee 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

... and reverted on SVN again. Looks like we have to wait. MER-C 01:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

ISIS neutron source

Could another admin please take a look at these edits by RLMCG (talk · contribs), and keep a general eye on the article (due to this promise of further action)? WP:OR and WP:V need to be explained to them, and the text in question removed, but I have a conflict of interest. Thanks! _TalkIslander 20:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Some help would be appreciated... _TalkIslander 17:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

user:198.200.181.209

User:198.200.181.209 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was warned for vandalizing our articles on Newt Gingrich and Marilyn Monroe - the proverbial odd couple if there ever was - last april ([25]). They were then warned and blocked for vandalizing other articles last month ([26]). They proceded to vandalize the only page left that they could edit, viz. their own talk page, leading to it being semi-protected for inappropriate use by a blocked user (see [27]). Yesterday, they returned to vandalizing Newt Gingrich and Marilyn Monroe ([28]; [29]), whereafter they were blocked for one month ([30]; [31]); they again vandalized their talk page, whereafter their block was expanded to prevent editing of their talk page ([32]). Given that this appears to be an unrepentant vandal who has taken us through the same spin cycle twice in as many months, should we consider more permanent sanctions?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• WHOIS shows this to be a {{SharedIPEdu}}; which is now blocked for a month. Longer blocks should be permissible if this vandalism continues. --Rodhullandemu 20:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Being WP:BOLD here and compressing non-relevant post
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Be aware of this court case and how it applies to WP Resolved  – I'll remember to be nice to people, but no admin intervention needed. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC) http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/05/texas.exoneration/index.html This is a case of a man wrongly convicted of rape. He was offered parole if he would admit to guilt. He refused to do so. In Wikipedia, we must not try to coerce people the same way. Two years ago, I was indefinitely blocked by Ryulong falsely accused of being a sock. Two administrators (according to one of them) knew I was not a sock and unblocked me several months later. I was not forced to make a false confession. In WP, we sometimes want confessions before unblock. We should try to work in the spirit of cooperation with everyone and not wield a stick to get a confession so that we feel good. I am appalled by the nastiness that some Wikipedians display. There are some nice Wikipedians but we are outnumbered. Let's work to get the encyclopedia better and work with each other. For those that missed Wikicup, you can still play as a pretend competitor. Chergles (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Ok we'll keep that in mind. Btw I thought we already had a discussion about this? User_talk:Patton123#see_my_comment--Pattont/c 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC) The issue is not Ryulong but forced confessions. I have seen a few cases of that. Just be nice to each other and follow the golden rule. Chergles (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Sure friend ;-)--Pattont/c 21:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Damn. I thought this was going to be the Flagged Revisions smoking gun. Maybe next week. MickMacNee (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

CU/OS election has started!

Your participation is needed! The historic first-ever CheckUser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee has just started. It's taking place here. Editors are needed urgently to scrutinise the candidates so that those appointed are the best possible people for the job. Your participation here is important to make the election a success. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: admin-only pages

There's a constant tension between maintaining open discourse on Wikipedia and avoiding leaking information to malicious parties. WP:DENY prevents us from publishing information about vandals, but as admins cycle in and out over the years, many a vandal is forgotten and gains another chance to wreak havoc. Many oversight issues have to be handled with great care to avoid further publicizing the private information involved. In particular, I think it would be useful if more of the sequestered discourse of ArbCom on their mailing list were visible to all admins. Copyrighted material that may still be under discussion also needs to be quickly removed from public view.

I don't believe there's currently technical support to restrict pages so that only admins can read them; I propose that such a feature be implemented and some pages created for some of the types of information I describe above. An alternative would be a private wiki configured so only admins can read it (an existing setting I believe), with all En admins automatically made admins on it.

The most obvious objection to this is that not all admins can be trusted all the time and they might leak information as a means of vengeance, or if they think they're just doing someone a friendly favor. I don't know, what do you guys think? Dcoetzee 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see two sides to this. One is that it makes it easier to share information that would make admins' life easier, while not enabling the trolls. The other is that a private wiki/admin-only pages makes it a lot easier for people to say "zOMG teh cabal iz taking over!!!1!!11". I don't know, personally, which concern outweighs the other — just giving my two cents. Hermione1980 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

zOMG teh cabal iz taking over!!!1!!11
I see how an admins only forum would be useful in some cases but I think propensity for overuse is just to great as compared to benefits. If DENY gets in your way, ignore it. There is nothing terrible about discussing a vandal on wiki, frivolous discussion of them should be stifled but it does not do that much harm if we do: most vandals worth discussing are already so dedicated a little recognition wont make much difference. Cases so sensitive that they must be discussed in private should be referred to the ArbCom, silent discussion of users for no pressing reason, to which I imagine what ever was set up would devolve to quickly, is a bad thing. The admins IRC has already proven itself a failure. Icewedge (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

-admins and the satellite channels is where all the Grawp fighting goes on without any problems. BJ^Talk 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't really think of many uses for this TBH. The type of vandals that last for years are the type that WP:DENY isn't going to make a significant impact on, but there's only a handful of them (see also WP:LTA). The vast majority of wiki-related things discussed in the admins IRC channel are much better discussed in a real-time forum like IRC than in wiki-style discussions as they're either trivial things that need only minutes of discussion, or they're things that need urgent attention. If we did do this for some reason though, it would have to be a separate wiki, as MediaWiki isn't designed for per-page read restrictions. Mr.Z-man 02:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Z-man here... I don't see much use for it and see the negatives outweighing the positives.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Zomg the cabal is taking over. Can't imagine the use for this. Isn't there already an admin only IRC channel or something? Protonk (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Past experience suggests that this would play really badly with the community, especially those whose agitation it is most designed to avoid, and it would undoubtedly be compromised anyway, as the admin IRC channel is. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This already exists. It's called deletion.--Patton^t/c 12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't even support it as an admin. Whether it is the cabal spider hole or the executive lounge, until the need is shown for it, it should not occur. Would we desysop people for telling "secrets"?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can think of something. It relates to a problem which may, or may not exist - a way for vandals to cause trouble it might be hard to detect initially. I don't know whether it is minor or potentially serious. How should this be raised? Ben MacDui 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Kasernewinkt

User:Kasernewinkt constantly keeps reverting Vladimir Lenin to what he calls a "merged section"1. He has broken 3RR and I need some admin support on this issue. Thanks Luna Rain^HowL_Cry 01:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User blocked for 24 hours. Ruslik (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Link

Resolved

 – Redirect created and user welcomed. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Administrator - could you please link (Redirect) the word CARIACO in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariaco_Basin page to the following page (recently created): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARIACO_Ocean_Time_Series_Program

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llesath (talk • contribs) 03:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

IP able to edit despite block

Resolved

 – Dweller is Rip van Winkle

I'm curious. See this block log. The IP's most recent contrib seems to have come during the block period. Explanation welcomed! --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The block is from 2008. O Fenian (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Its a block log anniversary! We should have a small anti-vandalism party. Euryalus (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean it's not 2008 any more? When did that happen? <rubs sleep from eyes> --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to 2009! Here's your sign. ;) —Travis^talk 13:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

St. Augustine's College (Raleigh)

Can someone have a look at this article? It seems to have suffered a recent dose of WP:SCFT. I've been speedying images from it as replaceable fair use and/or blatant copyvios. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

user:NewMegaStar Spammer, copyvio, 3rr

violated 3rr, despite warning, by repeatedly removing speedy delete copyvio notices on article Almeda Abazi. user was warned repeatedly NOT to remove these notices. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• NewMegaStar (talk · contribs)

Well, that one was a mess. :/ Thanks for keeping on top of it until the content was deleted.

I see the article has been recreated by a contributor who I believe was attempting to clean it, but was evidently unaware that it was pasted from this blog. I have blanked the article and listed it at CP and advised the other contributor in case s/he wants to further revise in temporary space. As to user:NewMegaStar, I personally am inclined to think that any block short of indef would be punitive at this point (note that it most definitely would not have been during the time when behavior was ongoing, when a block would have served to stop the behavior). I think attempting a remedy short of indef blocking would be preferable and will leave him or her a note discussing this matter. If the contributor persists in copyright violation or other disruption, such as removing CSD tags from articles s/he creates, then I think an indef block would be warranted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD backlog

There is a major backlog at CAT:CSD. feel free to help and remove this post after wards.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Holder

Resolved

Hi, I'm Holder from the Alemannic Wikipedia. When I started to merge my accounts to a single login for all Wikimedia projects, I found the user user:Holder, who is blocked since several years. I want to submit an application that this blocked user is usurped, so that I can create a global account under the name Holder. Thanks, Holder-als (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:USURP. –xeno (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

213.170.221.18

This ip seems to be editing from St. Lawrence College Athens, Greece, according to WHOIS (cpe-sanlorenz-3.egreta.gr) also quote:i personally am at st. lawrence college and i get the information straight from the school. the information i mentioned is recorded and can be confirmed by the school. [33]. The problem is that the article being edited is St Lawrence College, Athens which I also happened to attempt to wikify. I have warned the user of his or her WP:COI [34], [35]. Despite that the user keeps on reverting the article [36], [37], [38], [39] continuously adding WP:Peacock claims to it. I have tried to resolve the matter on the article's talk page, however the user has responded negatively and rudely to my urges for him or her to provide some sources for this unreferenced material or to read the WP:policies and guidelines [40], the user has also proceeded to threats of blanking the article's talk page as he already has done once [41], [42] in addition he or she seems to have vandalized the article [43], the user has also received warnings of vandalism on October 2007 and on November 2008. Please advise or take appropriate action. (I've moved this since it seems I posted it on a wrong ANI)--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for a week. I am reluctant to block an IP without more ample warnings. If the IP resumes the conduct in a week, come back and post again and post a link to this discussion. I think you will find admins willing to take more energetic measures. In the meantime, please post an explicit warning on the IP's talk page telling him what he did wrong, why it is wrong, and that he stands likely to be blocked for a priod of time (which is what we do with IPs) if the conduct continues. Also watch out for the use of other IPs at the school, if that happens come back to this board, and post again. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thehelpfulbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

This bot appears to have been adding sections for <references/> tags to non-articles such as talk pages or even AFDs. [44] [45]. Should it be blocked for now, and all of it edits to Talk: space, Wikipedia: space, other non-main namespaces reverted? FunPika 20:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Stopped the bot. I'll fix these errors and find out what's wrong with the bot.. :S The Helpful One 20:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollbacked edits and fixed the problem with the code - restricted to namespace 0 - i.e. Mainspace. Sorry about this! :) The Helpful One 20:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)