Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221

Sanity check, please

I just made my first rangeblock (here). It's anon. only, but could a more competent admin just check to see I haven't blocked millions of people and fix my idiocy if I have. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You blocked 24.106.0.0/18; that is 24.106.0.0 through 24.106.63.255, 16384 IPs in total. Sound about right. (Courtesy of block range calculator.) — Edokter • Talk — 16:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I count only two IP vandals in the entire range this year, outweighed by a number of good faith editors. Overkill? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I count the same. I think this was probably a bit too much. Also keep in mind that, for larger residential ISPs, a WHOIS lookup will likely tell you a larger range than what a particular user may be able to acquire, simply due to internal network structure. (I make no assertion either way whether you were trying to block a single user or not, just a statement of fact.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And conversely they may roam over a much larger range than the whois indicates. You'd need a bigger sample to determine that. Road Runner also do their own whois server, so for example, one of those vandals (24.106.59.228) is only on a /27: network:Network-Name:UNIVERSITY-SCHOOL-24.106.59.224, network:IP-Network:24.106.59.224/27, network:IP-Network-Block:24.106.59.224 - 24.106.59.255. I'd recommend narrower targeting. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jared Lee Loughner#Proposed merge

Would an admin close and summarize Talk:Jared Lee Loughner#Proposed merge per the requests at Talk:Jared Lee Loughner#Discussion needs to be closed? Over a week has passed since the discussion was opened. Cunard (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Beeblebrox, for reading the long discussion and summarizing it. Cunard (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Enneagram of Personality - is there an administrators' consensus on it as "pseudoscience"?

In the current dispute about whether the Enneagram of Personality article should include the "pseudoscience" category it has been claimed that there has been a "consensus by administrators" that this should be the case. I would appreciate any information about whether this is so or not and, if it is true, links to the discussion about this if possible. If I have asked this in the wrong place please accept my apologies and direct me to the correct place. With thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I should probably also add that there appears to be some kind of campaign going on between certain editors recently to discredit the Enneagram of Personality in this kind of way. Afterwriting (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It contains the word "psychospiritual" and the phrase "According to esoteric spiritual traditions...", so yeah, I'd say good odds it's woo-woo crap, i.e., pseudoscience. But that's not up to admins specifically, any editor can weigh in on an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't, someone really ought to unblock/unban Joshua P. Schroeder. But as Seraphim said, content dispute. Work it out on the talk page, not here. NW (Talk) 18:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the point of applying the term itself, as the nature of the subject is unmistakably clear without it. It DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a content issue. If there are credible sources calling it pseudoscience then the question is simply one of what weight to give them, if there are not then the term should be removed. None of which will change the obvious fact that it is subjective judgment masquerading as science, so fits the label nicely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) at 09:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't log out

Green move protection lock put on Nicholas Hagger page, thereby locking my username in. I am unable to log out from this page and my username is permanently visible. Could you please help me and advise how to log off this page. Thank you very much. Sanrac1959 (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have to clarify what the problem is. Your name is not on that page's text. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Geo noticeboard

This noticeboard has several outstanding threads on it that haven't been answered yet. Someone ought to go over there and address the concerns before MiszaBot archives them. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, there is not much information given on some of them. Perhaps someone should write a page notice so when someone is posing the problem they can give background details to work on, and perhaps diffs etc. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be a very good idea; I support 100%. Any volunteers? I'm not an admin (yet) so I'll leave it to those of you who are. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Noticeboard links

Resolved

 – Bsherr (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this morning that this template was changed to Collpased by default. I Cant find a discussion to indicate consensus nor is there and edit summary to explain why it was done. I dont know template programming too well so I am hesitant to mess with it. Is there some thing I am missing? or is there some thing that can be done to switch it back to normal? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A title bar was added to the navbox, which apparently triggered the default behavior "autocollapse", which collapses it depending on whether other navboxes are present. Without prejudice to whether or not the navbox has a title bar, I've set its state to "uncollapsed". --Bsherr (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#RFC:_United_States_cities

After one month and over a quarter of a megabyte of commentary, the 11-part RFC topic area has now not seen edits in over 36 hours. I believe it is time to summarize the results of this RFC, and in this diff another editor asks if an administrator is needed to close. I don't know, and I can't find exact wording related to a formal procedure for ending RFCs as there is for other discussions. This one involved a survey which is now stale, with 3:2 respondents opposed to a change which was the main RFC topic. There is a lot to read, I will check here for the answer if anyone is up to the task. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, but I'll close it when I get up (in about 10 hours) if it's still open. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Looie496 request for recall

Admins, a request for recall of User:Looie496 has been initiated, if it passes then Looie496 may either voluntarily resign as an administrator, or alternatively run through a request for adminship. Please see User:Looie496/Recall for further details of the process, as well as the recall request itself. Administrators in good standing may support the recall at that page. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision deletion RFC

All editors are invited to participate in a recently-opened RfC on the use of criterion RD3 in revision deletions. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

New user neutrality board

See notice here on AN/I about a new user neutrality board. Input welcome. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sanctioning for POV Pushing

Carcharoth made a suggestion on ANI the other day: administrators should be more willing to sanction people for NPOV violations. He, SlimVirgin, and I had a short discussion on his talk page, but this is a matter of broader importance. I wondered if other administrators had any thoughts on this issue. The discussion between the three of us has been copied below. NW (Talk) 07:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Copied from Carcharoth's talk page here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

---

This is a sufficiently important point that I felt I should ask it here instead of at ANI where it might be missed: how do you propose that administrators sanction users for POV pushing without being accused of blocking people who they disagree with? NW (Talk) 08:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why you need the teflon-spandex dress - spandex to show of your mighty gutmuscles, and teflon so that the accusations don't stick to you. But seriously, to recognise POV pushing you need to understand the topic area, and sanctioning for POV pushing is extremely rare, and usually only possible in connection with other violations (civility and edit warring). That's the whole point of WP:PUSH. Even ArbCom usually assumes the position that "X is a content issue", and then looks for behavioural excused to justify their sanctions - which often sets troubling precedences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So what is wrong with an admin saying "I don't know enough about the topic area to tell whether this user is pushing a POV - can the editors active and with a good track record in this area (yeah, I know, difficult in some areas) please explain to me why this is POV pushing, and if enough uninvolved editors agree, I will take action?" It could be horribly gamed, but eventually anyone gaming this would be caught out. Carcharoth (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You've identified one of the problems, which is that it is relatively easy to identify and sanction incivility, but much harder to identify and sanction POV pushing. My view is that if someone thinks someone is POV pushing, the alleged POV pusher should be called out on it, and a discussion should ensue. If it can be clearly shown by discussion among editors active in the topic area that an editor is pushing a POV, then uninvolved admins should feel free to block and/or topic ban. The point being that admins can make 'easy' decisions over things like incivility, but 'harder' decisions over distortion of content need editorial input, including input from content experts (though sometimes the POV pusher is or claims to be a content expert). i.e. the input of editors active in a topic area help, as they can point to sources and attest that an editor is misrepresenting sources, and putting undue weight on something, and so on. To demonstrate incivility, you often only need a diff or two. To demonstrate that someone is POV pushing takes much more. Some people 'know' that someone is POV pushing, but ask them to explain it and they often shy away from the work needed to write up an explanation, and/or provide such a poor explanation that no action gets taken (even if they are right). In some ways, keeping a record of problematic diffs helps here, even though that is often discouraged. But to show a pattern of POV pushing, you sometimes need to build up a record of diffs over time and then present it for consideration. The other problem is that if an article is skewed from NPOV, someone trying to return it to NPOV can be accused of POV pushing (this has been called NPOV-pushing). It is much easier to identify POV pushing when it is clear where NPOV lies, and much harder when it is not clear what constitutes NPOV. To answer your initial question, my view is that administrators sanctioning for POV pushing should do so with the backing of a community discussion to point at. Then, the administrators would simply be enforcing the will of the community. Carcharoth (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I fear you are being optimistic, but I'll leave it at that for now and will write more on this tomorrow. Please ping me if I forget. NW (Talk) 08:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem, NW, is that we rarely see admins block someone they agree with for POV pushing. Involved admins tend to use the tools in support of what others see as their "side." That's why it's an issue. If we could be sure admins would block and protect equally across the board (that is, if we could find some non-human admins), we wouldn't need to invoke the idea of "involved" to restrict ourselves. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree, SlimVirgin. But I think there is also another important factor. Take this scenario: You have four editors editing a medical topic, say HIV/AIDS. 99.999% of physicians and biomedical scientists are in agreement that HIV eventually causes AIDS. The general public is less so, but is still very convinced of that fact. An administrator with no real connection to WP:MED wanders over to the article and sees that all four editors are being very polite. He looks further though and sees that while the two physician-editors are trying to use articles from the Cochrane Library and other high-quality journals to describe the biomedical part of the article and The New Yorker and other such high-quality magazines' full length articles for the social part of the article. The two denialist editors, as they freely admit they are, do not focus all of their time on this topic; nevertheless, it is a big portion of their editing. They wish to make self-published webpages and books from lone dissenting academics a much higher proportion of the article than it is currently, having the section on denialism total maybe 10-30% of a 40k word article. The administrator decides to block the two denialist editors for POV pushing. On appeal to ANI, the block is upheld, tenuously.

Two months later, the same scenario occurs again, this time with a different administrator and a different topic, say the abortion and breast cancer. Again, the denialist editors are blocked. This time, they do not appeal their block.

Finally, a few months later, the same scenario happens again with vaccines and autism. This time, the first administrator is involved again, and again he chooses to block the minority POV because they are the ones trying to promote Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy as sources that are just as valid as the CDC or NIH. This time, the editors have done some research into the topic area. They appeal their block to ANI once more, but they argue that administrators linked to WP:MED have consistently patrolled controversial articles seeking to crush a minority POV. That argument would carry a lot of weight with a good deal of the community, even though every time, the block was probably deserved. How would you propose those situations be handled differently? NW (Talk) 18:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A situation like that is not one an admin needs to handle. An article RfC will attract fresh eyes, and if it doesn't it should keep on being posted until it does. The problem with allowing involved admins to use the tools is that they can't self-regulate, because they may, with the best will in the world, believe their POV is not a POV.

Here's your scenario again, but with a different subject matter. At Jesus myth theory (sorry if you've seen this example before; I use it a lot), mainstream biblical scholars, who are the only experts in the historicity of Jesus, overwhelmingly say he did exist, and several say it's akin to Holocaust denial to say otherwise. Of course they are almost all Christian. Other reliable academic sources cast doubt on Jesus's existence, but they are not the real specialists.

Should a Christian admin who is familiar with the biblical scholarly sources be allowed to block me for insisting that the Jesus myth theory be written up seriously—not as a fringe POV that is ridiculed, as used to be the case—and that a link to it be included in other Jesus articles? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Good example - your honesty trying to add (presumably?) well-sourced information will be trumped by simple dishonesty. There will be accusations of POV against you by people who are quite obviously much worse. Templar98 (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it shouldn't take a Christian admin to block someone for pushing the Jesus myth theory on any mainstream article on Jesus. The "Jesus myth theory" is fringe tinfoilhattery of the worst degree - pushed by the ignorant and the biased. It isn't that expects "overwhelmingly reject it" it is that they totally ignore, in the way geographers don't debate with flat-earthers. There are any number of Jews, atheists and agnostics employed in Jesus research - but you will not find any serious liberal-arts institution, on Biblical Studies, or indeed classics, or ancient history, employing anyone who peddles such nonsense. It gets written up in sensationalist books and bought by the same conspiracy theorists who buy all such incredible nonsense. Among real scholars this is just ridiculous pseudo-science. Anyone pushing it in Wikipedia should be shown the door.--Scott Mac 02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:I propose that Wikipedia apply itself in its second decade to putting an end to extreme and ridiculous POV-pushing that even the editors who post it can't possibly believe.

Easily found is that Professor Richard Dawkins of the University of Oxford tells us in The God Delusion that a "serious" historical case can be made "that Jesus never lived at all". ... in the provocative "God Is Not Great" Christopher Hitchens speaks of Jesus' "highly questionable existence" and says of the resurrection: "We have a right, if not an obligation, to respect ourselves enough to disbelieve the whole thing."Sydney Morning Herald. Templar98 (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Any thoughts? NW (Talk) 07:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC) :Yes - it's unwikipedian, in setting up admins as content arbiters. In the case of persistent-to-the-point-of-disruptive WP:FRINGE POV-pushing particularly with excessive reliance on unreliable sources, topic bans can be proposed and may be agreed by the community if they wish. Rd232 ^talk 07:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not POV-pushing that's the problem, it's propagandists who deliberately distort, sometimes from sources they know to be dishonest - at other times just removing what they don't like, no matter how well-sourced.

In some cases, it's much worse again, there is the most shocking case of dishonesty here and the editor has not been stopped.

How much damage has he done? Enormous amounts, just look at this edit, writing out the published definition of a military strategy "proposed and approved defense strategy of Israel under which "Israel finally realizes that Arabs should be accountable for their leaders' acts"" and replaces it with his own "concept used in the Israel Defense Forces regarding asymmetric warfare". Unstopped, over a period of months he has turned that article into a mockery of NPOV, completely writing out the communal punishment element that is central to every discussion in the sources (except those engaged in the most obvious white-washing).

Admins have got to be prepared to deal with vandals like that, and it would seem they're not. So bad and so well known is the situation that, just at that one article, none of the 4 or so original editors have bothered to come back and try to stop the vandalism. It's just not worth the effort to try and make the article honest, such a mountain of nastiness will come your way and such will be the retaliation nobody's prepared to do it.

I note that I'm supposed to inform anyone who is "subject of a discussion", but I don't expect a discussion to arise on that case, so I'm not bothering. It's just one example of a very serious situation, that allegations of "POV-pushing" doesn't even start to cover. Templar98 (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm with Rd232. There are a lot of contentious issues in the world whose disruptions and divisions are imported to Wikipedia. We know a lot of them from long experience: India and Pakistan, Israel versus Palestine, (FYRO)Macedonia, Northern Ireland and The Troubles, U.S. party politics, Scientology, climate change, Holocaust denialism, circumcision, autism and vaccines, China versus Taiwan, … I could form a quite long list. It's easy to recognize a single-issue editor from the limits to xyr areas of article and article talk page contributions. But it's not easy to recognize a POV pusher, which is a subtly different thing.
  It's not wrong to press for a particular point of view on an issue to be documented in articles. Ensuring that all (substantial) points of view are included, and that articles are not one-sided, is part of what the Neutral Point of View is all about. Indeed, pressing for multiple points of view to be documented on an issue where multiple substantial points of view exist, is the reverse of POV-pushing, which is the pressure for just one point of view to be documented, and to be expressed as if it were the encyclopaedia's own.
  Administrators are not police. Wikipedia is policed by everyone. The whole editorship is responsible for pushing back and exerting peer pressure to combat issues such as POV pushing. It's an abrogation of responsibility to try to foist that upon administrators alone. We're only the people who are trusted not to go mad with the page protection and account blocking tools. (We're trustys.) We are not funnels through which every single dispute and every single content decision must be poured. There's not enough of us for that, and the whole point of an open wiki like this is that the workload is spread over millions of people, including the workloads of dispute resolution and ensuring article neutrality, not over a few tens of administrators. If one wants an encyclopaedia-writing project where there's a defined small committee of content dispute arbiters who have the final say, such projects exist elsewhere. (See this project's setup for the limited sets of people who have a final say in content disputes for example.) That's not how this project is set up, however. Here, that's everybody's job.
  Uncle G (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• I cannot speak about specifics, owing to coincidences, but my concern is that pov pushing is automatically viewed as inappropriate - I consider it is the WP:WEIGHT of the viewpoint being pushed that informs NPOV (which is not some aggregate of the breadth of viewpoints, but a result of the careful weighing of all notable viewpoints) and only the WP:UNDUE advocacy of one or more viewpoints to where other viewpoints are improperly deprecated is actionable. That is where an understanding of the nuances of the subject, and also of unconscious or systemic bias, is required - and perhaps finding an uninvolved sysop who has those attributes is an unrealistic hope? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• While I concur with Uncle G's sentiment regarding limited set vs "everyone" I do think that we need to address when editors consistently attempt to use wikipedia to push a certain narrative or frame content in a way that is inconsistent with our encyclopedic goals. The "everyone" approach works at its best in cases of blatant vandalism, clear-cut cases where most people can distinguish encyclopedic content from the inappropriate. As stated by editors above distinguishing POV from NPOV can be time consuming for editors that are not well versed in the body of sources, cherry-picking and slow purging of sources that go counter to a given POV can make it very difficult to judge an article just "as is". Most editors and admins seem fairly averse to tackling controversial subjects, which allows problematic editors to go unsanctioned and discourages those who seek to take them to task - why bother, some might reason. Over time this risks leaving both sides with only the most impassioned, jaded and embittered - which discourages new "neutral" editors.
• I believe that we do need to be able to nip problematic tendencies in the bud before they become "par for the course", and we also need to more readily apply topic bans for those that display an inability to work constructively to forward our goals. un☯mi 14:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• "administrators should be more willing to sanction people" - we never sanction - or should never do so. POV pushing is not per se a problem it's creating NPOV or UNDUE content. And that can be reasonably clearly demonstrated, in most cases. If you have "pro" and "anti" editors trying to support their POV with proper RS, and without UNDUE, as long as there's a levening of neutral editors, or an abundance of common sense (to prevent an excluded middle presentation) then there need not be a problem. Most of the classic cases are the reasons we have stuff like WP:RS, which are elsewhere sometimes useful but often create unneeded difficulties. Rich Farmbrough, 15:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC).
  

When editors are consistently creating articles that favor a certain POV or uses language which is problematic in tone then I think that such behavior should be addressed, it is true that the edits could be countered by other editors but from personal experience this often invokes allegations of wikihounding etc. It can be very time consuming to get to the bottom of what the balance of RS support in terms of article content, as such, when an editor has exhibited a pattern of POV edits it should be considered disruptive and detrimental - I don't think that this should be a controversial stance. un☯mi 15:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

we never sanction - or should never do so - Can you clarify this? Sanctioning editors (through blocks, warnings etc) is one of the main things that admins do. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Admins are no more qualifiedto deal with this than anyone else. They are active WPedians who know the basics of policy, but they are not necessarily reasonable in any other respect. They are just as susceptible to forming preconceptions about the subjects that interest them, and just as insistent about their views. The theoretical way around this is for them not to try to enforce NPOV on subjects they care about it, but it is impossible to edit on a relatively controversial subject without unconsciously or unconsciously developing a preferance for one or another side of the argument--and not necessarily because the position is actually right, but because the people supporting it are the less disruptive--or because of some ersonal preference for something non-specifiable. 192.76.177.124 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• I can see things in this suggestions that would make me want to be careful. Encouraging administrators to do more of this could boomerang in the sense of a few of them blocking more of those with whom they disagree over POV. The issue isn't whether we can read an editor's mind about their POV, of course, but the effects of their POV editing. There, we usually have existing reasons for sanctions, based upon those effects. When a POV pusher violates a policy, there's a basis for blocking. When it's more like a long-term pattern of pushing without quite stepping over any lines, then it may be better to handle it via RfC/U. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem with that approach is that it ends up valuing civility over core points like verifiability and reliable sourcing. Perhaps the issue was worded poorly? Should administrators be willing to sanction individuals for repeatedly using un-/poorly reliable sources disproportionate to their weight. NW (Talk) 21:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • No, they should not: that's still in the realm of content arbiting. The community may sanction such editors if their behaviour is sufficiently problematic and remains so after attempts at education. Rd232 ^talk 21:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes they should-- this is precisely the tactic used by POV pushers. They always use marginal sources, and never accept higher quality sources. Their tactic is to find sources that agree with their POV, and use them to the exclusion of others, and then argue sourcing, which prevents them from behaviorl sanctions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes they should - there is no place for people repeatedly and deliberately using propaganda sources in articles. Behaviour like that gives the impression of rampant and infectious dishonesty. Templar98 (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • No, they should not. (with minor caveat ¹) I agree with Rd232; telling an editor who is adding sourced material (not a copy vio, attack, etc) that they are blocked should, in general, be a community decision, not an individual admin decision.¹ NW referred to both "un" and "poorly" sourced material. I distinguish between the two. Repeatedly adding unsourced material is blockable. But references may be poor in the eyes of one, but not another; best let a community weigh in.--SPhilbrickT 19:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Who wrote this? Also, why does it have to be a community decision. Everything is appeal-able to the community-at-large anyway. NW (Talk) 18:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• The bottom line is that Wikipedia is a social network, with the creation of encyclopedic content merely providing a context for the social aspects. Asking for sanctions in order to improve the integrity of content (other than sanctioning simple vandalism) displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is all about. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• I should point out that various flavors of this proposal occur in the status quo (with both good and ill effects). The most common approach is to wait until a POV pusher violates some more "neutral" prohibition (3RR, sockpuppeting, etc.) then enforcement can be undertaken without a veritable which hunt over the prospect of an admin having an opinion. Only slightly less common is actual blocking/topic banning for being generally disagreeable. We see this much less for "older" accounts but new accounts that burst on the scene and advertise some product or mess up some tough issue will generally be dealt with harshly (again, for good or ill). Obviously the first "solution" is a terrible one but we should be perfectly clear; the first solution is merely a kabuki dance presenting hard rules as the real show (this of course is only saying that a subset of 3RR and so on blocks are facades, don't invert the relationship). But we know that what brings attention in the first place is often the behavior/POV and not the specific rule breaking. Even if we ignore the current actions of admins, the policy seems to imagine that there is a hypothetical corps who are knowledgable on a subject, untainted by prejudice and also unwilling to work as content editors on a variety of subject matters. That's clearly not the case. What we get are admins ignorant of subject specific issues stepping in because their ignorance serves as an (effective) shield against criticism, admins closely related to a subject avoiding content work but enforcing the area and the "sweet spot" staying the hell away from subjects that bring the issue up in the first place because they are a good cure for a nice day. I hope that we can be a bit more reflective on this subject. We need to understand how the status quo does (and doesn't) function, determine whether or not that is a problem and see what sort of solutions might come from acknowledging some of the inherent contradictions in policies and norms. Protonk (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• In my experience we really don't have a good way of dealing with semi-sophisticated and sophisticated POV pushers and most admins are too reluctant to call these editors out and seek to stop them. Editors who provide references for stuff they add are given a huge degree of leeway, even if it turns out that the material is based on faked or cherry picked sources and their conduct on talk pages is unhelpful. My view is that prolonged POV pushing is essentially disruptive editing and should be treated as such by admins. This doesn't involve the admin needing to rule on who's right or wrong (though I think its OK for them to do checks of disputed references to see if the reference says what's being attributed to it), but rather to apply sanctions to stop unacceptable behaviour continuing. POV pushing is by definition a breach of WP:NPOV and most POV pushers also violate WP:CIVIL and many also breach WP:V, all of which justify blocks if the editor doesn't respond to concerns raised about their conduct. Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• I'm with several editors above that POV, non-neutral editing is a major problem and that we have failed to develop appropriate methods to deal with it. In a way WP is a victim of its success in this regard; given our readership, editors feel it is worthwhile to spend hours to on these push-me-pull-you activities. As several others have said, it is easy to weed out the unsophisticated, who blatantly breech one easy-to-detect policy or another, but more sophisticated editors learn to be civil, provide references, avoid 3RR etc but still disrupt the development of the encyclopedia by putting their own POV above neutrality. The disruption includes not just article content but the whole editing environment, discouraging neutral editors from participating, and sometimes forcing neutrally-inclined editors into the opposite role. I've always been struck that NPOV states that the "policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it" (my emphasis). Why is it that we enforce some policies, but not others?

I don't actually think it is that difficult to spot at least some of these editors; they edit a narrow range of articles, often travelling in packs supporting each other and opposing "the enemy" in every discussion whether it is an AFD, a RS question, Arb Enforcement, ANI, or content disputes. Often they soapbox about their personal opinions, cast nasturtiums, and reject input from uninvolved editors and administrators. And of course they very rarely, if ever, write for the enemy, supporting well-sourced material that comes from the other "side". While POV pushing can be subtle, it often isn't at all, and we don't even deal with these more out-there editors, as far as I can see.

I understand that making these determinations is not simple. I'm not sure that action by single administrators or blocking is necessary or desirable. A time-limited topic ban, following a discussion at AN, ANI, or an RFC would be work just fine. --Slp1 (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, admins should sanction or block for POV-pushing; it's Wiki's worst problem, and disute resolution rarely works because others (admins and other editors alike, in RFC or ANI) are afraid to weigh in. The *only* admin who ever even paid attention to threads I started at ANI is Nuclear warfare. (Rd232 and I will be on opposite sides of this debate, because he supports the six-year POV in the article Hugo Chavez, which has not been neutralized for as long as I've been editing Wiki, no matter how many mainstream reliable sources I list, and is populated by editors who do the same to other socialism articles, pushing a radical view and ignoring mainstream sources. In the past I've proposed a 1RR restriction on that article, to try, in vain, to force editors there to discuss edits and sources, but Rd232 rejected that as well.) The other problem with POV articles is that admins attempting to understand the content disputes often need to read volumes of archived talk pages to see how long the tendentious editing has been going on. And, going to the arbs will be of little use-- the savviest POV pushers know how to keep their behavior in check, and are able to watch as new and inexperienced editors make the POV edits and then take the fall-- and a new one of those comes along all the time and is taken advantage of, no matter how much deteriortion in the article-- so the real POV pushers won't be sanctioned before a we-dont-do-content-disputes ArbCom, while the clueless newbies will, and they are usually encouraged by the savvier POV pushers to continue POV editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with Sandy's comments. Another behavior by the more savvy POV pushers is to not edit war when their material is removed, but instead wait a few months before re-add it, usually with an edit summary that doesn't indicate that it's basically a reversion. Nick-D (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

At Chavez, it's much more blatant-- every time a new editor from one POV appears, that editor is openly encouraged to continue the POV editing, while editors from other POVs are so beaten up they become discouraged and leave, or turn to uncivil behavior, while the main editors keep their hands clean so they can't be sanctioned by ArbCom. It's very astute behavior, and basically assures that no DR will work, and the article will remain POV. Cla68 wrote an essay, WP:ACTIVIST, that in its earlier versions perfectly described the situation at Chavez and Catholic Church, but that essay was edited out of any useful meaning by others and no longer resembles anything like the useful, descriptive essay that he wrote. The core of editors who support the POV Chavez article do the same on other socialist articles. Tag teaming is also an issue; but for an admin to realize how long this has been going on takes reading years worth of archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I only have to know (and do only know) a tiny amount about Hugo Chavez to know that the editing of his bio is dominated by his ideological opponents who have no concept of NPOV writing.

Here's the first part of the second sentence there: Following his own political ideology of Bolivarianism and purporting "Socialism for the 21st Century", he has attempted to introduce socialist reforms to the country, emphasising the introduction of participatory democracy and further civil rights for women and indigenous groups. Abroad, he has been a vocal critic of neoliberalism and capitalism, instead supporting Latin American and Caribbean cooperation ....

Whether there has been a war going on over reliable sources I don't know - but if I was going to clean it up, I'd not take aim at those with POV since many of those, on both sides, could be completely honest. I'd take aim at those who insisted on inserting surprising and likely bad information from bad sources. Those folk are either dim or, perhaps in many more cases, lacking in personal morality. Templar98 (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Gone off to do some research! Templar98 (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In case you suffer from editcountitis, here's your first clue :) The top ten contributors to the article include nine editors sympathetic to Chavez's ideology, and one editor who is a famously inefficient editor and chalks up high edit counts with typos and small MOS and citation cleanup, but has added no substantial content for years. And to find the extensive listing and discussions of sources not used, you'll have to go back months and years in talk archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I wish I'd seen this from you earlier, it would have saved me the effort I have made to make sense of your grumble. Draw up examples of all the "good" editors who have been driven off in frustration by "bad" (or, in my terms, dishonest) editors if you want any chance of admin intervention not being to your disadvantage. Templar98 (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The "good" editors were driven off so many years ago that it's no longer useful to draw up that list. More recently, the editors who aren't sympathetic to Chavez's ideology have engaged in just as much misbehavior on talk as those who are sympathetic-- largely out of frustration with the ownership. In other words, they would likely be sanctioned first or as well, while the POV pushers have been savvy enough to keep their hands clean, while others do the actual editing that POV the article. Fact is, it's nine to one, with everyone else giving up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I only have to know (and do only know) a tiny amount about Hugo Chavez to know that the editing of his bio is dominated by his ideological opponents who have no concept of NPOV writing", not curiously, you are wholly incorrect (and obviously you haven't examined what is "going on over reliable sources" before making a statement here). I suggest you take a closer look at who is writing the article, who is doing MOS and citation cleanup, who wrote the lead, and who is discussing on talk. And read WP:EDITCOUNTITIS before you take a look. The (previously) featured version of the article was written by Saravask-- an editor sympathetic to Chavez-- and the article has been dominated by his ideological supporters since its inception. Saravask has since moved on, but his (old, 2005) version was at least well written and sourced, although POV, and not necessarily POV "with intent" as we see now; at the time he wrote it, he had never been to Venezuela, didn't speak Spanish, couldn't read Spanish sources, and Chavez was little known outside of Venezuela. I think he did the best he could with what he had in 2005, but since then, sources have been almost exclusively partisan or marginal, with exclusion of due weight to high quality reliable sources, which are rejected as "capitalist" in favor of "socialist" sources. And the usual tag teaming. This article presents a good example of why admins can get involved; whenever a tag team is reverting text sourced to mainstream reliable sources, replacing it with text sourced to partisan sources, not discussing and ignoring high quality reliable sources, it's not a difficult call. And you really should read beyond the lead of contentious articles before opining, since in almost all contentious articles, the lead becomes the battleground, while the rest of the article remains an underdeveloped or poorly sourced mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've been away and tried to make sense of both the article Hugo Chavez and it's talk-page. It is way beyond me to say where this article should be going. Earlier I said that the article looked as if it were likely controlled by an anti-Chavez group (based on quickly looking at the lead) and I withdraw that, the article body may be somewhat pro-Chavez. But it's not offensively biased and is increasingly being written according to two books of 2007, that's good.

Overwhelmingly the talk-page looks as I'd expect it to do if all issues had been hammered out previously by mostly calm people. Meanwhile, statements like: "crime, corruption, consolidation of power, undermining of democratic processes, economic detioration-- all are major issues directly attributable to Chavez and his administration" with absolutely no evidence (eg previously deleted passages) presented are a waste of time and will turn observers like me against you.

All in all, there is no need for administrator intervention, in fact, I don't see how it could possibly improve things. Bringing this particular topic up here looks to me like Forum-shopping. Templar98 (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that it takes time to sort a mess like this one (which you obviously didn't take, considering the time between when you went off to have a look and again responded here), and digging in to talk page archives is never fun, but the "absolutely no evidence" is simply wrong. Again. Alternately, if you don't want to read talk page archives, Google is your friend, but there is no point for anyone to continue placing high quality reliable sources on a talk page where the majority of editors are sympathetic to Chavez and reject them any way, no matter how often they are supplied (and everyone on that talk page already knows it). And, you don't appear to have read the reviews of the 2007 book you characterize as "good". Obviously, admins working to sanction POV-pushing editors will need to do more homework than you've done. And your statement about "forum shopping" is so off the wall, that it "will turn observers like me against you"; for me to present an example here, in one forum, of this problem can hardly be characterized as "forum shopping". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well any concrete example was liable to be distracting in this discussion; so I won't engage with the details of it, which will achieve nothing but bore passersby. The one general point arising from this exchange is that to give admins the responsibility to try and tackle this sort of behaviour would often require them to absorb vast amounts of background knowledge (and if they have done that, WP:INVOLVED is likely an issue), and then it remains a judgement call that may do more harm than good even if it's made correctly, by substituting arbitrary individual edicts for community dispute resolution. In short, add this to List of ways to kill Wikipedia. Rd232 ^talk 23:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Rd; I also disengaged when I noticed that a banned user was taking this discussion off-topic by focusing on my one example as if it were "forum shopping" and to be solved in this discussion. Back on topic, after a good example of the dubious worth of "uninformed" input, yes, they have to absorb vast amounts of background knowledge, but neither is RFC or any other forum equipped to do that well (those places become nothing but pile-on from already involved editors or those who have an axe to grind, and those who don't do the homework either, and become very time consuming, only leading to messy Arbcom cases), and we should be able to do something else to get these topics back on track. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the problems with DR: noticeboard threads too often end up being a rehash of the same thing by the same people. WP:CRS will hopefully help reduce that same effect for content RFCs. (You seem to be thinking about user conduct RFCs with your reference to arbcom cases, which I wasn't at all. Of course we need to consider both if the RFC I proposed below happens, but my thoughts at the mo are about content dispute resolution.) Rd232 ^talk 14:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives

I don't think anyone would dispute that the problem of POV pushing exists; so taking Carcharoth's untenable suggestion in a Devil's Advocate sort of way, what else can we do? I'd suggest a concerted effort to improve dispute resolution processes, particularly looking at the totality of how these processes work and interact. One concrete suggestion is trying harder to ensure fresh input is brought to disputes as appropriate, and the recently-created Comment Request Service seems both a good idea worth promoting properly and a good example of this approach, which might inspire other ideas. Rd232 ^talk 21:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's premature to label Carcharoth's proposl untenable (and you have a pony in this race :), and dispute resolution doesn't work as the same editors show up en masse. RFC is nothing more than a stop on the way to ArbCom. I've proposed 1RR in the past, as a means of forcing other editors to discuss their edits and sources, and you rejected that. We need more admins with balls, of the old JzG school, who knew tendetious editors and wasn't afraid to block them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that if you block only one of them the rest of the tag team start making your life miserable by posting everywhere demanding unblocks and labeling you biased. Admins who upset too many tag teams end up being hounded severely, as happened to User:YellowMonkey recently. Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

So true. Why is that NPOV is supposed to be a core policy of Wiki, but Wiki is everything but neutral, and neutrality is the easiest policy to game? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There are several core policies that POV pushers will tend to violate, some of which are editing policies. Perhaps it would be more helpful if the discussions focused on enforcing existing, community-endorsed policies rather than the more vague "POV pushing".   Will Beback  talk  02:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For example? They violate all of them usually, but in savvy subtle ways, so that arb cases become something like the Climate Change case-- gynormous and long-lasting-- and place an extraordinary burden on the editors bringing the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict). And I'd reiterate that NPOV actually is a community endorsed policy that requires NPOV from all editors.--Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the concerns that have been raised here by Carcharoth and in fact it reflects some of the things I've been saying for some time. And it is true that because behavioral policies are easier to enforce than content policies, there is too much time spent on looking at behavioral issues rather than content issues, which detracts from the overall quality of the encyclopedia.

However, I very much doubt that there's anything near the competence level (in terms of detailed knowledge of the topic areas they are to be constabulatin') required on the part of the admin corps to be able to meaningfully intercede in contentious topics or even to be able to recognize POV pushing when it happens. Let's be honest here, the basic formula for adminship is experience with vandal fighting + staying out of controversy + a minimum threshold of content contributions to make the applicant seem legit. The end result is that perhaps outside a very specific area that a particular admin is familiar with, they are in shark waters. As much as I agree that the content related policies are much more important than behavioral policies and as much as I would like to see a reallocation of admin effort in the content direction, I just don't see how proposals toward that end are not going to make things even worse.

To their credit, I actually think a lot of admins recognize that they are not equipped to settle all these esoteric content disputes and this is why they restrict themselves to only dealing with behavioral issues. Which is fine, except that it leaves this big black hole of how to deal with POV, which ultimately compromises the whole encyclopedic endeavor.

I've mentioned before that what is needed is a specific role, distinct from an administrator, which would be specialized in tackling difficult content concerns but given the inertia that's unlikely to happen. Other than that, the only real progress to be made is in bolstering the dispute resolution process, by making it binding (if you ask for a 3O or an RFC and you get an opinion you don't like you got to abide by it or you get blocked) and by creating incentives for outside participation in it (right now, it's a hit or miss thing - it can work sometimes, but sometimes you can ask for an RfC and wait 4 months before someone shows up and tells you that "everyone should just get along" which, however well meant, is not helpful at all)

I guess what this means is that while I agree with the spirit of the initial question posed by Carcharoth, the realistic side of me thinks that rd232's suggestions are of more practical value. Bolster DR process, make it binding and impose discretionary sanctions within THAT framework. Volunteer Marek  05:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I think this AE request pretty much encapsulates the whole problem. SA can be a total asshole but there's no admin that's about to ban him that could keep POV out of these articles like he can. I got no dog in that fight (aside from generally being on the side of common sense) but it very much looks like behavioral issues are going to trump content issues once more. Par for da course and all that. Volunteer Marek  06:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that neither content nor civility should trump each other, they are enforced separately and on their respective merits. SA did not need to get himself topic banned from pseudoscience articles if he had refrained from acting in the manner that he was previously sanctioned for, indeed he could probably have escaped sanctions even after the AE request was filed by admitting fault - instead of filing an appeal that was understood to be an attempt at wikilawyering. He is still able to edit the rest of wikipedia - apart from articles where he had shown difficulty in keeping his composure, but choose to ask for a 1 year wiki-break enforcer, is there evidence that his hand was forced in any of this?

I am not too familiar with the article in question or the sources that pertain to it, but if we give SA/JPS the benefit of the doubt it seems that he exactly fell victim to the lack of "POV process" that we are trying to find a solution to, lashing out in frustration.

Personally I think that Carcharoths suggestion regarding having a collection of diffs is a good one, this could be on a subpage of relevant wikiprojects. This could serve to foster early discussion on whether the edits were "truly" problematic or not, hopefully leading to early remediation rather than having the issues build up.

For myself, I try to make use of appropriate DR processes when applicable, the problem is that they are sometimes derailed, either by way of active boykotts, !!votes rather than discussion, or simply lack of admins willing to close RfCs. This can make DR frustrating and ineffectual. I don't think that admins should become "content arbiters" as individuals, but they should take a more active role in ensuring that DR is able to function constructively - pointing out weak !votes, striking diversions and asking for clarifications as well as sanctioning disruptions within them. un☯mi 11:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ways forward

Would there be any interest in a general RFC on improving dispute resolution generally, taking into account how the entire system of DR works, and how its parts interact? A recent innovation for RFCs (comment request service) is a step forward (not sufficiently recognised in the discussion above, but it's early days and it will take time to have an impact), and I'm sure there are other ideas too. For example, we could have more emphasis on actively intervening in disputes in a neutral, mediation-type manner to assist with dispute resolution. This doesn't need to be done by admins, it can be any experienced user. Would it be crazy to have a class of editors who are elected as Mediators (with WP:INVOLVED-type rules applying), to go beyond the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal (which waits for requests for help) and actually wander the halls of Wikipedia rendering assistance? Perhaps it would, but talking about crazy ideas is good for creativity, and may throw up non-crazy ones... So, any interest in an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution? Rd232 ^talk 23:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

New user neutrality board

I've set this up as an experiment to see whether it proves useful. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/users. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps edit the header above to clarify that this is a new board, rather than a board for new users. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to note that I replaced {{trial policy}} with {{proposal}}, I thought the original template misrepresented the board. Fences&Windows 01:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Need help renaming an article

The article Wenatchee sex ring is on a self-evident basis, clearly misnamed. As the article itself makes clear, there never was any "sex ring". Some weeks ago, I posted on the talk page there about this, but it seems talk on that page is inactive. Is there some way to jumpstart getting that page renamed? 98.118.62.140 (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You can make a request for the retitling the article at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Kind regards, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't need WP:RM - the original title violates WP:BLP six ways from sunday and I've boldly moved it to the neutral Wenatchee child abuse prosecutions. Exxolon (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. As of today, I now have a user name, so I'd like my IP edit history from my IP of 98.118.62.140 to be moved to my user name history. I've been on the wiki for a year, so I'd like to keep my edit history. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): I don't think that's not possible, Tweedle. You can link to it on your userpage, but I don't think an admin can merge edit histories. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What about moving the IP user page to a 3rd page and then moving my new user page to that page? Tweedledee2011 (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

None of that will move the "contribs" file assigned to that IP address to you, however. As Neutralhomer said, if you wish to "claim" edits made under that IP address, just make a note on your userpage. --Jayron32 04:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

EXTREME POV pushing

Marcel Rosenberg, as recently created by User:IJA.

Is this much anti-semitism and anti-communist POV pushing in a very brief article acceptable at Wikipedia at all? User:IJA is truly pushing Nazi POVs, and doing it shamelessly. A prophylactic block (a long one, I hope) may be somewhat helpful in a case like this. (User notified of thread here.) 24.47.118.184 (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You may have a point about this, but I am not too thrilled about having to undo your edit here: [1]. --FormerIP (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Get back on track. HEY, WE'RE DEALING WITH FASCISM. 24.184.232.211 (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. I recently did an essay on the Spanish Civil War and I did a bit about Rosenberg. I found an article about Rosenberg from metapedia (I'd never heard of it before) from google-ing his name. I just copied and pasted the content into Wikipedia from Metapedia as Wikipedia didn't have an article on him. I didn't know I was doing anything wrong at the time. Now that I have actually read what it has said, I can see that is rather POV. I'd just like to say sorry, I didn't have any fascist POV intentions. IJA (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just searched Wikipedia for "Metapedia" and I didn't know it was a White Nationalist site, I just came across it by searching for Marcel Rosenberg into google. I apologise once again. IJA (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

First things first: do not simply copy and paste text from other websites into Wikipedia, as it can violate the copyright of the original author. Such text will be deleted. Secondly, you shouldn't use Metapedia as a source for whether the sun will come up tomorrow, much less for anything of substance. The whole point of its existence is to push a stealthy white supremacist point of view - though they aren't very stealthy if the material in question is to be judged by. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully understand. I had no idea about Metapedia, I just thought it was one of the many online encylopedias which anyone can edit. I wasn't intentionally being POV. IJA (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've revdel'd the text as blatant copyright violation, as Metapedia was not attributed in line with their GFDL license when the article was created (the text is also worthless coming from such a source). IJA, how many other articles have you created by copying verbatim from a source? Fences&Windows 03:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder, and not especially aimed at you, Fences & Windows - but with our current licensing we can no longer use GFDL-only text in any case. Only text that can be licensed under CC-BY-SA-3 is allowed (which is not true of GFDL-only text), and then only if we meet the license terms when we include it, and then we need to attribute the text even if it isn't required by the license. Anyone who's not sure what would be acceptable to copy should just not copy anything from elsewhere, which guarantees that you haven't violated copyright. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that dawned on me later. Thanks for the reminder. Fences&Windows 19:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, Metapedia. I can't even browse that site from my ISP--either the site has been taken down or my ISP is nannying it. Oh well at least that saves me having to scrub my optic nerve down with lysol. --TS 03:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's just down at the moment - I was just now checking the site for a copyright statement to link here, and I can't bring it up even through Tor, which implies that it's not an ISP problem. At least, it's not one for me; it may be that it's down and your ISP filters it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it must just be down. I'm getting a 404 for it. Shame. I'll just have to pick up the Daily Express instead. --FormerIP (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• - A user that is cut and copy pasting content to this wikipedia after three year of contributions and saying "I just copied and pasted the content into Wikipedia from Metapedia as Wikipedia didn't have an article on him. I didn't know I was doing anything wrong at the time." - is setting alarms off for me. Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

External links on Metapedia

Aside - can anyone explain just why the external links on this article are formatted the way they are? Exxolon (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to add external link to metapedia.org on the article, but URL of the website is registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. Karppinen (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Great - ED all over again. Can someone fix that so we can have the link in the normal format please? Exxolon (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If that is done, you probably want to add a abuse filter to have someone review where and when those links are used. 65.122.75.14 (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A users repeated incivility towards other editors

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonriddengirl (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin needed to summarise + close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents

Unless I missed it, no one else has sought out an admin to close the Use of classified documents RfC. So, I suppose i'm starting that request now. Can an admin please close and summarize the RfC, since it was started on December 15th and it is now the 17th of January? Silverseren^C 01:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Um...hello? O_o Silverseren^C 14:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm clearly being ignored. :( Silverseren^C 16:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the header, and moved it to the bottom; hope that was OK. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I would help, but I have already commented on the issue. Keep in mind that in discussions as large as this one (and indeed, as contentious), many of the most active admins have already weighed in with their opinions, making them ineligible to close. For admins that are less active, closing such a discussion can be daunting to say the least. Where passions are high, there is often a shitstorm in the waiting regardless of which way the discussion gets closed, which again tends to scare off admins. --Jayron32 16:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we need to find someone to close it. This RfC is an issue that really needs to be completed. Silverseren^C 17:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's still open this weekend, I'll do it (or at least write a summary; I may be too chickenfeces to actually close). Anything is better than studying for midterms. --Danger (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to interpret consensus and close it just now, not having been previously involved in the discussion whatsoever. The inevitable flames are directed here. henrik•talk 20:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please participate in this MfD

Resolved

This is an attempt at a neutral notification because I don't feel enough neutral people (not associated with the related Wikiproject) are commenting. Please see [2]. Thus far, the majority of people commenting are members of the Wikiproject itself who are, understandably, voting keep. However, those requesting deletion are basing their decision on policy as it exists. Hopefully this isn't breaking policy and in no way is this intended to sway a vote, but to implore those not directly affected to share their opinions. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The debate in question is located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/I-P editing battleground statistics. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Interwikilink to Azerbaijani Wikipedia

Hi. Please, add Azerbaijani wikipedia ([[az:]]) to "More than 50,000 articles" section of the {{subst:Wikipedia languages}} template. So last week we have reached 50.000 articles: 10 000+ articles. I applied this term in the templates talk page, but users which answered me don't want do discuss it. They think that, they are right, but I think their reasons are not eligible in this situation. Please, resolve this problem.--Wertuose (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The previous discussion may be found at Template_talk:Wikipedia_languages#Azerbaijani_wikipedia. Note that az.wiki is correctly shown on the master list (here) as having 50,000+ articles. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Help needed at SFD

Currently, the SFD backlog goes all the way back to November 25, with 2 older discussions still open (November 10th and October 8). Can some one please come and help out? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. This still has not been dealt with. Cunard (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs

(Reposting after this was archived.)

For SfDs, would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs, Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/November/10#Maharashtra geography stubs sub cats, and Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/1#Template:Multiple stub? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. This still has not been dealt with. Cunard (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Prods over the limit

Northwood Mall and Tallahassee Skate Park. Both are prods over the 7-day limit and in need of deletion. Anyone game? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. The skate park one was also a copyvio. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

AIV

Large backlog at WP:AIV. Orphan Wiki 15:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It may not be all that big a backlog; the bot isn't clearing out the ones that have been blocked. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

When the bot stops working it's almost always because someone has messed with the page's header[3]. I've now reset it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The page had been backlogged for about an hour before I added that template. I merely did as I was instructed at the top of this noticeboard. (Administrative backlogs → add {{adminbacklog}} to the backlogged page). But anyway, I won't add it again in future. Orphan Wiki 15:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Would that have caused the problem? The template wasn't added until 15:06; this IP had been blocked for half an hour by then, and it remained listed until I removed it manually at 15:20. </technologically clueless question> Whatever it was, I'm glad to see the bot back in action. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. The page had backlogged for a whole hour. That's when I added the template. Orphan Wiki 15:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not really related to what I asked. :) I'm asking if it is ordinary for the bot to leave a listing for 30 minutes after it is addressed. Otherwise, I'm not entirely sure that it was your addition of the tag that caused the bot to stop delisting addressed IPs, though certainly it seemed to start working again once the tag was removed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No. 30 minutes is definitely not normal. I think it's two things. First, thing X was added that caused the bot to stop working, and then the erroneously added tag caused it to continue to stop working even though thing X was since removed. For AIV, there's a {{noadminbacklog}} template in the header that should be changed to {{adminbacklog}}, instead of adding a new tag. I just can't figure out what thing X is. T. Canens (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Odd. When I reverted AIV to this version, which it was stuck in for 20 mins, the bot works quite normally within one or two minutes. The first problem is probably the server the bot is running on rather than the page content. T. Canens (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at the source code earlier and couldn't find any reason that either of the suspect edits would break the bot. This is now really bugging me. If anyone knows the answer I'd really like to know! Dpmuk (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The same thing is happening today, FWIW. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion Request

Resolved

 – JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Process Plus/Process PlusI'm sorry, but I'm at the doctor's office, so I don't have time to do what you ask. You've made a reasonable request, so there shouldn't be any problem with someone else fulfilling it. Please go to WP:AN and post a request for undeletion — simply copy/paste the following message:

"Please undelete User:Process Plus/Process Plus. Nyttend, who deleted it, says that it should be undeleted, but he doesn't have time to do everything properly, so he told me to come here and ask for help."

Hope this helps! Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Process Plus (talk • contribs) --Process Plus (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI

I've never seen WP:UAA as backed up as it is right now — Timneu22 · talk 20:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There were quite a few reports that had already been blocked, looks like the bots that usually remove them stopped working for a few hours. January ^(talk) 20:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A bot proposal from Δ

I know people will want to attack, make nasty comments but lets set those aside, As I am doing NFC enforcement I have noticed that a lot of media has a rationale but for a dab page, I have been ignoring these for the most part however I have come up with an idea and prototype code to fix them, right now it is isolated to the article = parameter of most non-free rationales, but it could be expanded to a few simi-standard hand written rationale formats. It basically checks to verify that the article specified is a dab, and that the dab points to the article where the media is being used, if it matches it replaces the link to the dab with the correct article title. I am posting here due to the fact that due to my current restrictions I cannot just post to the BRFA process and get the ball rolling. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• I like this idea, and I don't foresee any big issues. As long as it saves images from being CSDd by someone else, it sounds good. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delta, as long as you do so in a careful, deliberate manner, I see no issue with this. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I was planning on a bot for the work. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      • If that's the case, I'd suggest leaving the bot in someone else's hands. There's already enough people still upset with you over bot-activities, no reason to give them more ammunition. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Seems helpful. I'd support it. Resolute 18:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Me too. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• This sounds like the one that would catch the majority of the problems with #10c so clearly an appropriate thing to try. I'd make sure you limit your semi-auto editors for this to just do this and have a link to something to explain what you did in case an error does pop up. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• I think this sounds like a great idea. I disagree with TheHandThatFeedsYou that you should leave the bot with others; open discussion here seems to be sufficient, given your restrictions. Thank you for taking this to a wide audience for a discussion. --Jayron32 21:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• I agree this is the right approach, and seems reasonable. A few comments:
  1. If there is opposition to you (personally) doing it, someone else should, as it seems entirely sensible.
  2. Perhaps if you change the rationale, we should leave the old one with a "moved rationale from" template change note included (or new template indicating it's a now-moved rationale), to preserve the history more clearly in the image page side.
  3. Expanding on this - When you find 10.c violations in general, perhaps a / the bot could do some automatic investigation, by checking all the "What uses this image" pages' page move histories to see if any of those prior names match the rationale, and then fix those as well. That would seem to fix a lot of the cases that caused the negative reactions last week.

  Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Moves are something that I am not looking to address at this point yet, paso a paso, Im not really sure a rationale moved is really a needed thing, for the most part its fairly simple fixes like [4] where the person who wrote the rationale just made a minor error in the article parameter. (in this case they forgot the (KIJHL)) When I get some more free time, Ill take a look at how big of an issue the moved page thing is. But these problems need fixed one step at a time, there is really no point in trying to make the project too complex. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • That's a perfectly reasonable approach. The first step you outlined and asked for comment on seems fine to me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Anyone have any real objections before I file a BRFA? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, I object. Given your contentious history (and the straight-forwardly nasty way that you opened this thread) I'd suggest that you leave everything about this to someone else. Great idea seems to be the consensus, but I'm strongly siding with THTFY. Perhaps it would be just easier for you to find something to do that doesn't involve a bot?
  Aaron Brenneman (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Just for your information, Ive been running a bot for a good while already, Please review WP:AGF, I hid nothing in the manner that I brought the idea forward. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

    • You might want to follow your own advice since you opened this thread with an assumption of bad faith. This is the exact problem that was spoken of last time.--Crossmr (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Aaron Brenneman, I think you should comment on the issue, not on the editor. But since you wish to discuss about the editor, perhaps you weren't aware that Δ currently runs Δbot which helps with WP:SPI cases? Were there oppositions to Δbot before it's approved? Yes. Are there complaints about Δbot since it begins working in SPI? Nope. (For the record, we had to prepare a backup plan if Δbot does go down.) If you think what Δ's bots do are everything bad and nothing good, you're very much mistaken. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

        @OhanaUnited: Please don't link "no personal attacks" at me over such a petty slight. Overuse of the term makes it mean less when someone is actually attacked.

        @Δ: I'm not sure why you're responding to things I didn't say, that you don't run a bot at all? That you hid something? And, how am I not assuming good faith by pointing out that you have a contentious history (i.e. arbitration, etc) and that it's ongoing (i.e. 90% of this board over your last bot thread)? My straight-forward opinion is that I would prefer that you find something else to do. Everyone has opinions.
        Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

        • As they say, "Opinions are like <rears> - everybody has one." –MuZemike 03:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

        And why didn't you feel the need to bring this up with Delta Ohana? He started this entire thread with an assumption of bad faith, but as soon as someone calls him on it, you rush to his defence. The first thing he did was comment on other editors before he even brought up his issue.--Crossmr (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• User:FairuseBot, which I'm hoping to reactivate today, can already do this for disambiguation pages and redirects (see, for example, [5]). I can update it to also handle hatnote disambiguations, if people want me to. --Carnildo (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This seems like a far better idea for everyone involved.--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • A new bot is a good idea (much less work for us) I agree with The hand that feeds given your reputation delta (including the bizaare edit war I had to step into), the bot is better in someone elses hands (I want to play with the bot!)--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 08:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Clarification there, my reply was to Carnildo. I think it would be better for him to modify the existing bot which already does this.--Crossmr (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I would much prefer that Carnildo runs this task on his bot. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• I am very sorry to say that, after much experience, I have come to the conclusion that Δ does not have the right temperament to operate bots. This is reflected in the fact that he is under edit restrictions at the present time. He should not be approved another bot, particularly not a bot relating to images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

malware alerts

for the last week several times when I search i get a malware alert from google about both the wikipedia page and the offical author site for example I just tried to find out about barbara hamblys latest books and got an malware alert on both her wikipedia page and her offical website ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.96.184 (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not get the same alert when searching for "barbara hamblys". Nevertheless, if the alert is originating from www.google.com you may want to contact Google regarding this, otherwise it could have something to do with your anti-vandalism or anti-spyware settings. -- œ^™ 12:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism campaign on Today's featured articles

Starting on January 14, a vandal or a group of vandals have been excessively vandalizing Today's featured articles, starting with Calgary Hitmen and then continuing with Moons of Saturn, and I. M. Pei. Up to this point, all the vandalism edits were Scientology-related.

However, the last two TFAs, Wintjiya Napaltjarri and Unification of Germany, this vandal(s) has taken it a step further, causing massive edit summary vandalism (which are all currently RevDeleted, but if you read down, it would show some disgusting message).

This vandal(s) is exclusively abusing open proxies to vandalize TFAs, so the only option we have to far is to semi-protection. Moreover, if this persists, we may have to keep TFAs locked up for the remainder of its time on the Main Page, and pre-emptive semi-protection may also need to be considered. –MuZemike 22:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I also discovered that some of them are from Brazil and the United States according to geolocate data. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• We'll just have to semi the articles, unless we can block more open proxies. I wonder if this is related to Access Denied (talk · contribs)? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This vandal is also hitting nearly every article linked from the leads in the TFAs. The following have also been vandalized in exactly the same way:

• Palace of Versailles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nation state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pintupi language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Indigenous Australians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Western Desert cultural bloc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tjunkiya Napaltjarri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Contemporary Indigenous Australian art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Haasts Bluff, Northern Territory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Batik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Drypoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Iconography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Art Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Art Gallery of New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• National Gallery of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• National Gallery of Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note that this is probably not all of them, as I have not checked the others, yet. –MuZemike 22:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit filter, maybe? Although that's just a temporary solution. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

See filters 381-383. I seem to have blocked around 100 of his IPs in the last few days. More examples there. It's probably not worth pre-emptively semi-protecting all the articles on the front page (TFA/DYK/ITN are all targeted), but no reason not to for a short time after the fact. It can soon get pretty tedious constantly finding unblocked proxies. Block on sight - around six months on average should be sufficient. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What about rangeblocks? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not possible (or rather not effective). HTTP proxies are scattered throughout almost every range there is, but with ProcseeBot and prompt blocking (even AntiAbuseBot has been joining in), one can soon run low on available IPs and encounter increasingly more blocks than edits. We even outblocked anontalk and his spambot once. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Open proxies! How many times do I have to explain to everybody that you cannot rangeblock here? –MuZemike 00:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I was sleepy and I didn't completely read the post (my fault) or I probably went "yeah, they can't do that" and not have asked. Sleep is required. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's started up again on Sacrifice (video game) (TFA right now). I have semi-protected 4 hours; the next time I see that, I semi-protect for the remainder of the time while it's on the Main Page. –MuZemike 03:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

They seemed to have stopped for half an hour or so before you semi'd it. I prefer to play whack-a-mole than protect if it's plausible, personally. As soon as you protected it, they moved onto the other article linked from the TFA blurb, so I've semi'd all of them for the rest of the day, as well. Could someone add "all our edits" and "are belong to us" (is that supposed to be a sentence, btw?) to the filter? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

HJ, the latter is a take off All your base are belong to us. Sounds like b-tards. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this issue is a darn nasty one. I may have some information though. A site updates every minute with new proxies and that site is the one he is using! OF course, I'll find it again, but for now, don't know what to do. --Hinata talk 17:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

How 'bout semi every ITN and TFA on the Main Page? --Perseus, Son of Zeus 20:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And then the constructive anonymous editors can't edit the pages. We can play whack-a-mole. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Lad, A Dog (Today's featured article) Was hit by a proxy about 10 times. I guess we can play whack-a-mole (LOL) --Hinata talk 11:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously guys. If you guys really want to play whack-a-mole, it would be greatly appreciated if there was more help. Less than 30 watcher. Cmon guys. I mean just look at this, 69.22.172.167 (talk · contribs). Only one person was reverting them. They were vandalizing for a whopping 7 minutes. Even better, 3 different open proxies were vandalizing for 10 minutes. One person was reverting them and no one else was helping them until that person reported the problem to another admin. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we not make the TFA article semi-protected by default, either for the 24 hours or until it drops off the recently featured list. I can understand a reluctance to do this in the long term, but at least for the next few days in the hope that the current abusers of it get bored and move on. Kevin McE (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we can manage, as long as the TFA is well watched and the filter is modified as needed to catch up. Besides, they just move onto other articles when the TFA is protected. The more obvious they are, the easier it is to find them and block them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearing of WP:RM backlog

So I've been working hard to clear the backlog on WP:RM (doubtlessly earning myself the enmity of a considerable section of wikipedia :) ). Only two articles require closure, and there is only one more article left on the backlog. I refrained from closing Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World_Rally/Infobox_style#Requested_move because of ignorance of template conventions and, even though the nomination was unopposed, the nominator's other nominations were all opposed strongly. If someone knowledgeable could close this, they will have cleared the backlog. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that RMs stayed open for a full 7 days yet you seem to have cleared out those from the 15th, many of which won't have been open for 7 days. Normal practice seems to be not to close RMs to they're in the backlog section, which I'm aware is a little odd as that means they're be a backlog at the start of every day, but that does guarantee they've been open seven days. I'm not advocating re-opening them, just suggest as that seems pointless, more just a comment for the future. Anyway, thanks for the doing that. Dpmuk (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, working properly RMs should start getting closed on or even before the last day. They are supposed to be closed before' going into the backlog, not after (hence term 'backlog'). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Err, that's slightly different from my impression of current practice even if that's what should be done, and as I'm sure you're aware current practice normally drives policy/guidelines not the other way round. Also seems to go against Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions which mentions a normal 7 day listing period. As I say it's not a bigee but different admins doing different things is likely to get confusing for all involved. Will raise this at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves as that would be a more appropriate place for this discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, this is an innocent misunderstanding. :) 7th day has always been the day of closure, though the fact that in practice there has been a continual backlog may have suggested otherwise. Threads which need more than 7 days should be relisted, not left in the backlog. The backlog needs to be empty, otherwise administrators are alerted that the area needs attention other areas don't .... this is the significance of the word 'backlog'. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Lawline

Resolved

 – User blocked, no admin attention needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

User making legal threats. --75.47.148.241 (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Lawline is already blocked indef as of early yesterday for legal threats. Hence, I am marking resolved. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

CAT:UAA

Guess what? It's backlogged again! Admin help (and non-admin help to remove the obvious non-vios) to get it back down again would be greatly appreciated. This seems to have become my pet backlog, but I can't keep on top of it all by my lonesome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who added the backlog tag, the 100 was an arbitrary number, feel free to lower it if necessary. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Reduced to 50, now that there are only 12 items in the category. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 15:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

More eyes on Filter 189

It would be useful to have more eyes checking over edits that trip Filter 189 (BLP issues). There's stuff that slips by and sticks around for some time that really shouldn't. Maxim_(talk) 03:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, there's a tag for it and two other filters, [6]. Cenarium (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "Expand" template

I just spent all of yesterday and into today removing instances of {{expand}} by hand, replacing them with other templates. I snipped out literally hundreds of them by hand. I better get a cookie for this. :D

In any event, there are now no articles using {{expand}}. Anyone want to finally delete it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted by PeterSymonds. Some subpages remained, so I restored it and deleted it again. Restoration was because I can't remember how to find the link to list all subpages, except that I remember that it appears when I delete a template. Since deleting it gave me the link, I've deleted all subpages. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, more or less necessary, there are a whole bunch of Template:Expand transclusions outside of mainspace. If someone is willing to remove them all, it would be greatly appreciated. HeyMid (contribs) 21:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of them are by way of {{tl}}, and the rest are on abandoned userspace drafts. I will work on MFDing or otherwise taking care of the userspace drafts, but do the ones with {{tl}} really need to be removed, since they're just sentences mentioning the template? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The ones mentioned in my link above are all transclusions of the {{expand}} template. Is someone willing to remove the transclusions (using AWB)? HeyMid (contribs) 22:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Excellent work TPH. The link to start with for non-mainspace stuff is here, with project space and file space probably being the more important ones. Protonk (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Surely someone with AWB could take care of this in about 5 minutes? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Very good. Now, can we have a category or tool for identifying for stub articles that are 250 words or more plus references? And {{unreferenced}} that now have 3 refs or more? I know from OTRS emails that people are reluctant to remove "official" maintenance tags, so some proactive cleanup would be a good thing. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• I hoped that I would get some credit for removing the tag from thousands of pages too. :) As of rev 7567 AWB will more accurately tag pages as stubs. We also did some work to improve autotagging in overall. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected images on the Main Page Part MVCCIVC

Whack!

for letting File:Jean-Paul_Laurens_-_The_Byzantine_Emperor_Honorius_-_1880.jpg sit on the main page for OVER 9000 nanoseconds unprotected. (X! · talk)  · @382  ·  08:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Protected. I hope I did it right. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And I need some help with protecting File:Theodosius-1-.jpg. Not quite sure how the entire main page protection thing works. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, you need to save a Commons image to your computer, upload it locally and then protect it, but it doesn't matter for ITN images, because ITN is cascade protected and you don't need to worry about OTD images, because they're automatically protected at Commons the day before. I think it's the same for TFP, and DYK images are protected in the queues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

But then why would some slip through the cracks? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example? I'm not intimately involved with TFP or OTD, but I've haven't seen images on DYK slip through the cracks recently or any with ITN in the 8 months or so it's had cascading protection (which, btw, doesn't show up in the log, you wouldn't see it until you clicked edit). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, X! said an image above wasn't protected on the main page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I had it protected on Commons before I made the notice here. (X! · talk)  · @331  ·  06:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Main Page image protection

OK, to clarify, as best I understand it, images for TFA, OTD and POTD are usually protected at Commons because Commons:User:Krinkle runs a bot that adds images from our WP:Main Page/Tomorrow to commons:User:Krinkle/enwiki mainpage/core, which is cascade protected. However, the bot doesn't seem to have been running for the last few days; I've left a note for Krinkle on Commons. Images for ITN don't need to be protected directly because Template:In the news is cascade protected and DYK images are protected in the queue about 36 hours before they're due to appear on Template:Did you know. It would seem that people have become overly reliant on the Commons bot in recent months, so I'd encourage admins to check the images on WP:Main Page/Tomorrow (on Commons if they're not locally uploaded), especially around 0000 UTC. If you find an image that's not protected here or on Commons, WP:ITN/A#Images (although written for ITN) is a kind of idiot's guide. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Support needed for Wikipedia QnA website to open

Moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Support_needed_for_Wikipedia_QnA_website_to_open by Skomorokh 18:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The many puppets of Dhoncarlo

First we had Dhoncarlo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Then we had Dhoncarlo2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (electric boogaloo). Now today I noticed Dhoncarlo3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

Is there any technical way to stop this user from creating DhoncarloXVIII? Should I just make a habit of looking for Dhoncarlo in the userlist every few weeks? Essentially its just a myspace-y user who uses their talkpage to chat about things between friends so relatively low on the disruption scale. Syrthiss (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a complete waste of time IMO. 94.173.28.252 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Many Puppets of Dhoncarlo? Wasn't that with Peter Cushing? freshacconci talktalk 17:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You are thinking of The House That Dripped Socks. Syrthiss (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Thank you. A cautionary tale of the hive mind. freshacconci talktalk 17:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, all are  Confirmed plus Dhoncarlo1 (talk · contribs), also now blocked. –MuZemike 18:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Close a discussion

Would someone please close Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sarychev Peak? The voting period ended on 4 December. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That sure looks closed, on 14 December. Courcelles 04:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Welcomelaws

Not sure where else to post this, but should most welcome templates such as this one generally be subst'ed? Welcomelaws currently has about 700 transclusions, and I wanted to confirm whether or not those transclusions ought to be subst'ed. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they should be substituted. Keegan (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Though a bot should likely do it, so the substitution doesn't give 700 folks the orange bar for nothing. Courcelles 08:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please send a request to the fully-protected User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force for me? I think it will do the job. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 08:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Met-Rx and related articles - POV / OR / COI issues

Can I request a few wandaring admin (or editors) to add Met-Rx and related BLP articles like A. Scott Connelly and Darren Meade to your watchlist. I stumbled upon these while watching a BLP edit-filter tag, and there appears to me to be a lot of POV pushing and OR by a very limited set of accounts. Thanks,  7  03:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

See [7]. At least one of these editors has an axe to grind. Note the name of the person who wrote this. Corvus cornix_talk 04:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

these seem to be closer to an AFD than having effort put into to protecting them. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Met-Rx is a pretty well-known product, I can't imagine an AfD succeeding. Corvus cornix_talk 04:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Should have been more clear I was referring to the BLPs. I have no idea how about body building so I can't be sure how notable Meade and how important the competitions he participated in rank in importance. But A. Scott Connelly seems very close to AFD. I'll look for sources but a redirect may to the company may be valid. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently admin User:7 has removed content based on an apparent WP:RS book [8] (I'm not an expert in this field, hence I'm a bit cautious about this) which claims to expose some of the nutritional supplements marketing issues, including those surrounding Met-Rx and its founder. Perhaps admin User:7 should recuse himself from taking admin action in relation to Met-Rx. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

??? What? Seriously? I brought this here. I also didn't take any admin action. The revert that you linked above contained many negative claims, including what appear to be direct quotes from alleged legal correspondance, which were not supported by a properly cited RS but by a "see here for more information" external link to a book with no reference to the page number... all of this from an editor with a known COI (or at least a publisher of original research) by searching her chosen username. You believe I have the COI here?  7  08:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously, the user you chastised cited a SFGate article [9] which certainly verifies that part of her contribution. What steps did you take to verify that the stuff she added from the book? Tijfo098 (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that the SFGate article I linked above quotes Lightsey (who is associated with the NCAHF) as one of the critics of Connelly, so the extended material that follows in that diff is likely to be found in the book by Lightsey. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The steps I took were: 1) notify her about her original copypvio, 2) notify her about NPOV writing, 3) googled her name and discovered that she is the author of many web articles and blogs containing claims of fraud by the subject, 4) Reviewed the google book entry that she incorrectly cited and determined that the content she quoted was not available in the limited preview, 5) reverted her non-NPOV comments again because of what appears to be unclear citation style while asking her to provide a page number within the book to help substaiate the comment, and 6) send one one note to her about her apparent COI. Lastly, I raise the issue here for others to review. While the SFGATE article is a RS, and therefore the top fraction of her article can be included, the overall POV which she has shown from the outset of editing, combined with her obvious COI made me lean toward protecting the BLP until the POV and sources can be verified.  7  08:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So at the same time you suspect JD to have 1) copied a portion of the text literally from a web site, and 2) completely fabricated another portion of it. Hmm... Tijfo098 (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this NCAHF release verifies the essence of the paragraphs cited from Lightsey book, namely that the Cooper Clinic demanded that MET-Rx stop using its name as an endorsement of their products. Of course, it's much easier to delete and pretend that you're upholding some high standard. SPAs like Special:Contributions/Caliberfitness do the same. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, does our Met-Rx article even say that the FTC sued them for their andro advertisements? Nope. Clear win for NPOV. Settlement. Book coverage thereof [10] (I hope your google preview works on this one.) Tijfo098 (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And, yes, Connelly personally promoted andro as safer than steroids in USA Today and the typical "other physicians disagree" follows [11], so it probably belongs in the article on him as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

An if I'm trustworthy enough to quote a book without google preview "Hurt passes along Connelly's confusedly pseudo-scientific explanation that MET-Rx helps you lose fat and add lean muscle mass through something called 'nutrient partitioning.'" [12], p. 85. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This and this are also fairly interesting. It looks like yet another case of Wikipedia being used as a battleground. I've removed some stuff from Meade's article (specifically, judgments against him that appear verifiable, but lack wp:secondary coverage). Tijfo098 (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I found where all this started [13], and the obvious conclusion (my protein is better than yours, mwahahah). And I though conflicts on Wikipedia were batshit crazy. Fucking A. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for RfC Close

Resolved

 – RFC closed. --RL0919 (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Back in December the label "left wing" was added into to the UAF article. The addition was disputed and the matter went to both the RS and the NPOV notice boards. There was then an RfC here. The results at each of those notice boards have been disputed by those who wish to insert the label. As a warning there is a lot to read through --Snowded ^TALK 20:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. This still has not been dealt with. Cunard (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is still ongoing. I don't see a reason to close it yet. -Atmoz (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Also note the statement that the results "have been disputed" is inapt - the results, in fact, found that the proposed sources are RS by WP standards, and that there is no source provided making a contrary statement. Also note for TLDR purposes the amount written disputing the reliable sources. Collect (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The RfC has now run over 30 days and has expired and a bot has removed the RfC tag. Collect's comment is misleading, the issue was not whether the source (The Times) is reliable, but what weight to give an isolated comment by a reporter. This article is about "Unite Against Fascism" (UAF) and has attracted many people who support the organizations that the UAF opposes. The "left-wing" description was data-mined and is not representative of how UAF is described in the media. The Conservative Prime Minister of the UK for example supports UAF, but according to UAF's opponents (the British National Party and English Defence League) he is left-wing too. TFD (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Socialist Worker's Party called it "left wing." The Times Telegraph, Daily Mirror and Daily Mail all have called UAF "left wing" which is nowhere near a pejorative in the first place. All the rest of the mishmash that "well right wingers call it left wing therefore it is not left wing" makes no sense unless The Times is right wing. [14], [15], [16] etc. show the nature of a refusal to accept simple statements from reliable sources, and a PA saying You may believe that all three major parties in the UK are really one Communist/socialist/fascist party, and hence left-wing, but I do not follow that logic which, to me, indicates a very strong POV from some editors on this. Collect (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Also see [17]. Collect (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Quit it. This isn't the place to rehash the dispute. -Atmoz (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. This still has not been dealt with. Would an admin review the discussion here and at the RfC to see if it should be closed? Cunard (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No discussion on the RfC or additional editors since December (and this is the third forum its been too). Move to close has resulted in the same editors rehashing the same arguments. There has to be some limit on time and the number of forums an issue has to go to before its settled, especially as the RfC came down on the side of the long standing stable version of the article. Editors are now discussing changes to the body of the text to reflect some referenced material about alleged SWP attempts to take over the body and that will hopefully be positive in part (I think) because the RfC was so clear. Closing it now will help that process. --Snowded ^TALK 09:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Per inactivity, the Rfc should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Dogme language teaching

Resolved

 – AFD was closed by User:Bwilkins. --RL0919 (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogme language teaching has been open since early November, and as far as I know, has gone through intermittent phases of transclusion and untransclusion. Could someone please close it? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. This still has not been dealt with. Cunard (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. This still has not been dealt with. Cunard (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jenova20

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

10:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with meatpuppetry from an external site

At Braid (video game) (among other video game articles) several IPs have been adding the "OnLive" platform as a platform, though currently within the VG project we don't consider it a platform akin to the usual ones and thus don't include it. These IPs have been rather persistent, including one user Warrenonlive (talk · contribs) who did actually register to make the edits and other pages. In trying to determine if this was a COI, I checked around the OnLive community to see if there was a "Warren" associated with the service, but only found that the person appears to be a fan; regardless the user was later COI-banned. There is talk page discussion but behavior suggests these are drive-by IPs more interested in supporting OnLive than improving WP and thus have not participated in discussion.

Now, we are still getting users make these changes to the above page, but I'm sure there are others. I found this offsite thread on a OnLive board [18] clearly trying to promote the service at WP. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for correcting proper information and the other edits they've done on pages specifically about OnLive seem to be in line. But when you see comments in that linked thread like "They banned me from posting because they're idiots. If someone wants to continue and straighten these morons out, please feel free." (from the Warren user) and "First, I need to find my fuckin mallet so I can bust their brains!", I become worried about a meatsock cavalcade here.

As these are random users and not associated with any single IP, obvious a block won't do anything. Is there anything else we can do short of page protection? --MASEM (t) 19:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately not; semiprotection is likely the only viable option. This is what we do when the /b/tards start up. It is literally impossible to do anything else to stop them. --Jayron32 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Could not the WP:Abuse filter be configured to disallow edits that match a certain regex? -- œ^™ 21:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, OnLive is a completely valid topic, and they're not adding http:- type links. Regex'ing anything would be more false positives than this. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is this a big enough issue to seek page protection over? It certainly doesn't appear to be vandalism... Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Coordinated deliberate disruption, managed at an off-wiki forum, isn't generally considered proper behavior. --Jayron32 07:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily have to be deliberate, just ignorant (i.e. canvassing for AfD votes, normally done by clueless newcomers who think votecount matters). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 08:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Asking someone else to violate the rules of Wikipedia is a deliberate act, regardless of your knowledge of the rules. Asking people to go do something is always deliberate. --Jayron32 13:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please rename a File

File:Irwell Scuplture Trail Dig.jpg should be renamed to File:Irwell Sculpture Trail Dig.jpg (bad spelling). Please help. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 16:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That file is on Commons not here, so you'll need to ask at Commons for an admin to move the file; en-Wikipedia admins can't help (unless they happen to be Commons admins as well). Bencherlite^Talk 16:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 17:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Commons has a permission level of "filemover", which can be requested here. I'm not an admin over there, but I'm still a filemover. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey there

To any admins out there: this IP address has been making a lot of bad edits. Should he/she/it be blocked? Thanks, and cheers, RomeEonBmbo (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist. But next time, please report incidents like this to WP:AIV. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centro del Sur

Can I ask someone to keep an eye on this AFD? It mysteriously got three "Speedy keep, it's notable" !votes right out of the gate, and every single !vote seems way off base. I think all three !voters need at least a minnow slap for blatant misuse of speedy keep and blatantly off-base !voting. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the history of that AFD. Let me make this very clear TPH: Your first act, after reading this, should be to go immediately and revert your last edit to that AFD. Regardless of what you think about the appropriateness of someone else's reasoning, it is not your place to alter the comments of another person, even one letter. Period. If you want to have a meaningful discussion over their comments, use the AFD talk page or refute their arguements in the AFD itself. But it is beyond inappropriate to change the comments of other people simply because you think them wrong. Closing admins know what arguements mean, it is not your position to "fix" the arguements of others and assume the closing admin cannot judge the AFD correctly without your help. Fix this now. --Jayron32 02:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I struck speedy keeps because they fit none of the criterion of WP:SK. I've seen others do that before. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Don't alter the comments of others. Explain why they are wrong, but please do not do alter their comments. That you have seen someone else do something wrong before doesn't make your actions anymore right. Its fine to have a discussion about the proper use of the speedy keep vote, but for so many many reasons, it is quite wrong to alter someone elses comment. Again, the closing administrator doesn't need your help identifying when a bad arguement has been made. They can see it just as well as you can, without you redacting the statements of others. --Jayron32 02:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, please calm down. Your behavior in that AfD has been very disruptive. As somebody else said, "opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one." Let them be. Diego Grez (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You forgot "...everyone elses stinks except mine, and no one likes to hear anyone elses". The lovely thing about that metaphor is how many levels it works on. --Jayron32 03:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have expressed my thoughts about the article (and trod over one of the dreaded "Arguments to avoid at AFD") and applied the Not-A-Vote template as it appears that several of the viewpoints being expressed are in direct violation of AFD principles.Hasteur (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is backlogged

Just making a general note. The gears of Wikipedia must be turning slowly at the moment. elektrikSHOOS 07:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have been pared down, currently sitting at <70. Funny enough, now requests for unblock is backlogged at 11. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Derry stale

Per this diff, a perhaps unwarranted pair of threads at WT:IMOS#Derry and City status in the United Kingdom, started by a seemingly novice IP editor, are going nowhere. There is also an advert, WP:IECOLL#Advert (elsewhere?), now looks as if it is all moot and could stand to be ended, as IECOLL is probably the best venue for the discussion anyway, and a longstanding compromise is in place. Can an uninvolved party take a look? Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BVC Airlines

See my comments at this discussion. It seems that a set of fake "news" websites have been set up to give an impression that BVC Airlines exists, and a new editor created a Wikipedia page to reinforce the impression. If you check, e.g. http://afrikghana.com/, it looks like a real news site, with a news article on BVC. If you click on the links, you get dead links or may get to http://www.afrik-news.com/, a legitimate site. The other "sources" are similar: a front page that looks real, fake news article, links to a legitimate site with similar look and feel. Do we just blacklist the sites or report them and the incident somewhere? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

To put it simply, if we come across what seems to indicate attempted fraud (although there could be an innocent explanation in this case) does Wikipedia has any legal obligation beyond protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User:HJ Mitchell granting of autopatrolled permissions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved between filer and admin.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Over the last few days, HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) has granted a large number of editors with autopatrolled permissions. His user rights log indicates that he has been granting permissions once every three minutes or so.

I raised the following problematic permissions with HJ Mitchell here and again here. Other editors also raised concerns, eg [19] (HJ corrected this one).

A list of the examples I have found:

• Youndbuckerz (talk · contribs) - most recent article creation is a copyright violation. Talk page and deleted contribs demonstrate a long list of BLP creations that have been deleted.
• Czalex (talk · contribs) - recently created an unreferenced BLP
• Hervegirod (talk · contribs) - most recent creation is an article on a product that uses non-independent sources, and closely paraphrases the sources.
• JustPhil (talk · contribs) - most recent creation is unsourced.
• Sdrawkcab (talk · contribs) - most recent creation is unsourced.
• Sticks66 (talk · contribs) - most recent creation contains close paraphrasing.
• DmitryKo (talk · contribs) - recently created an article on a product sourced only to the manufacturer's website.
• Daibhid C (talk · contribs) - most recent creation is unsourced.

Fixed a few username typos. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate the input of administrators familiar with NPP and autopatrolled permission to comment on these permissions and consider the reverting them. As I'm no longer an administrator, I am unable to revert them myself, and I think in any event that HJ needs to reconsider all the permissions he has granted, not just these samples. In my view, HJ Mitchell has failed to take proper care when granting the permission, and has failed to have due regard to the consequences of allowing problematic article creations to bypass new page patrol. His response to all of the above examples, when I raised them specifically, was (a) to refuse to reconsider the permissions and (b) to say that he would continue to grant the permission as he has granted it in the past. The granting of autopatrolled rights is discretionary. But the discretion needs to be undertaken with care, and should not be granted to users with recent histories of problematic content contributions, especially copyvios, unsourced content, and use of non-independent sources for commercial products. An administrator granting the permission should look at the user's contributions, especially recent article creations, carefully and not quickly. I'm hoping we can resolve this all informally here; otherwise an RFC/U may be required. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a bit: Has HJ Mitchell granted the permission after or before the problems noted above? That is, is he granting permissions to people obviosly not qualified to receive them, or has he granted permissions to people who looked good before they were granted, and then went on to abuse those permissions? It would help to know if this was a case of wrecklessness or merely of A'ing too much GF. --Jayron32 21:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

All of the above permissions were granted after the problematic contributions. All the problematic contributions were recent, so a diligent admin should have picked them up. HJ Mitchell has subsequently refused to reconsider the permissions or his approach after the specific issues (that he should have picked up before granting the permissions) were raised with him. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've always been under the impression (and there was some discussion on this a few months ago) that autopatrolled/autoreviewer should not be given to users who regularly create problematic articles such as unsourced BLPs. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_2#Autopatrollers_who_create_unreferenced_BLPs from late September. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of these look… well, there's a reason that Mkativerata points to the first revision of the article in complaining about Czalez' work: The editor added sources in the very next edit, a few hours later. Hervegirod's work last week on Functional Mock-up Interface contains three sources: Is HJ Mitchell supposed to magically know that all three sources are non-independent? (For that matter, are they really?)

For that matter, where's the policy that says WP:Independent sources must always be named instantly in any brand-new article on a non-controversial, non-BLP subject? (I know where we say that such sources must exist, but I've never yet found one that says these sources must be cited within minutes or even days of an article's creation.) The actual policies say that sources must be cited if, and only if, the article (1) contains direct quotations, (2) contentious matter about living people, (3) material has actually been challenged, or (4) the editor believes it WP:LIKELY that the material will be challenged. And with the exception of BLP work, there's no deadline for supplying those citations—certainly not the "first time you click the save page button" standard that Mkativerata seems to support here. None of these conditions seem to apply to these "unsourced" pages. So at one level, I feel like Mkativerata is complaining that HJ Mitchell has not held editors to a much higher standard than the one represented in the community's written policies.

Beyond that, this is a huge undertaking, and it's unreasonable to expect perfection. IMO HJ Mitchell has responded appropriately to individual complaints, and reversed himself when further information resulted in him changing his mind. When further information didn't make him trust the user less, then he appropriately did not reverse himself. Appeals about individual cases can be handled here, but they should be individual cases, not general bashing of HJ Mitchell for doing a large and tedious task with an apparent error rate of less than one percent (<1%!). Also, any complaining admins can pick up their mops and start working through the lists themselves. It's easy to pick apart someone else's work after the fact, but it would be far more productive to help out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I point to the first revision because the sources were added after a bot notification on the creator's talk page. Errors are fine but the error rate here is very high (see here), could have been avoided with diligence, and HJ is refusing to acknowledge them as errors, so they'll just continue to be made. Just because a task is tedious doesn't mean you should race through it, causing more problems than you solve. That's why it's an admin conduct issue, not just about individual permissions. Where are you getting 1% from? I sampled one page and its about 50%. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

HumansEditors makes mistakes sometimes. Are the above editors constantly creating mistakes in regards to their flagged permissions? Dusti^*poke* 22:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

They haven't because they've only just been granted the permissions. You seem to be missing what this thread is about. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Notified HJ Mitchell of this thread. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My initial analysis of the situation is that HJ Mitchell might be fallible. I look forward to further comments. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell is a well-respected and highly experienced Administrator that has been granting permissions for the better part of a year. If any mistakes were made, they were honest ones. I think this could have been handled better and don't feel this thread at WP:AN is appropriate. I would encourage any uninvolved Administrator to review the situation and discuss any concerns directly with HJ Mitchell rather than having this thread go on. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 01:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• The amount of work HJ Mitchell puts in at WP:RFPERM is exceptional and should be commended. I think he's entitled to some mistakes. And I'm sure that since he's been made aware of this issue, he will take greater care in granting autopatrolled permissions, despite his response to Mkativerata. -- œ^™ 01:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Emoci/temporary

At MFD for 7 days with unanimous consensus to delete. All my other MFDs from the 21st were closed successfully yet this one's still open. Please to be closing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You can haz close. --Danger (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Psst... did I do it right? [20] --Danger (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You did. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Asserghozlan's rudeness

I'm not certain, but Asserghozlan's edit summary seemed a tad rude at Ahmed Nazif. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So ask them to tone it down. This is not an appropriate use for the administrator's noticeboard. --Danger (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't contact other userpages anymore. PS: I weren't sure if I came to the right place or not. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

User warned for making personal attacks. User warned for edit warring. -Atmoz (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 15#Nicholas Hagger and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 8#Category:Lists of U.S. locations with large ethnic populations

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 15#Nicholas Hagger and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 8#Category:Lists of U.S. locations with large ethnic populations? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Working on the DRV. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Lifebaka, for closing the DRV, and Ruslik0 for closing the CfD. Cunard (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Policy template

As this affect a template used on many key Wikipedia pages, I'm bringing it here rather than just making the change The various templates used at the head of most or perhaps all policy pages, e.g. [[TEMPLATE:Enforcement policy list]] has the first line reading & linking to "Five Pillars", as if the various policies listed in it were the five pillars-- for an example, see WP:HARASSMENT. I think this is confusing, and suggest that the first line ought to read (and link to) to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I also find those templates confusing. --Danger (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I edited {{Enforcement policy list}} to link to Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines#Editor_behavior, was that the kind of thing you were thinking of? Fences&Windows 03:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Autoblockfinder?

Does anybody know of an alternative tool to autoblockfinder? It's expired. :/ I find that tool pretty handy when pitching in on the unblock mailing list. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made a clone of the tool. --Chris 14:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There's also Nakon's copy, which was also created after someone found the account hosting the old tool had expired. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colchester, Vermont

I have been given {{uw-test4im}} for my opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colchester, Vermont. Can someone explain to me why I deserve an immediate block for lodging an opinion? 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• A vandal/troll created that AfD in bad faith, and then warned you. -LtNOWIS (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. I've left a note at User talk:65.93.15.80 clarifying that the warning was left in bad faith, in case other editors see it in the IP's edit history later. —C.Fred (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:MFD backlog

It looks like everything under the January 23 and January 22 headers can safely be deleted except for Wikipedia:Confusion, which may need either a relist or a no-consensus close. Literally everything else from the 22nd and 23rd has a unanimous consensus to delete. (Note, that once the Prep School wikiproject is deleted, Template:User Prep School and Template:WikiProject Prep School can be safely deleted via G8.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Bumpty bump. Anyone here? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Here. I thought you had the mop, but no one seems to be here now. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 15:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think an MFD backlog of a few days is such a problem that it needs to be posted about here. Ditto for prods that have just expired. –xeno^talk 15:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not critical, but there's no reason not to post it here or maybe AN/I. Ten Pound Hammer, if they're not done by then, I'll do it once I get back from classes (dear god midterm oh help). I probably won't close any ones that aren't completely obvious since I don't have much experience at MfD, but at least the list will be smaller. --Danger (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If folks make a habit of initiating threads regarding "just past the post" backlogs, administrators may pay less attention to backlog notices in the future. –xeno^talk 15:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for comments on the Audit Subcommittee

The Arbitration Committee has conducted an internal review of the Audit Subcommittee and is now seeking comment from the community, in particular about the subcommittee's effectiveness to date and ongoing representation from community delegates ("at-large members").

As the October 2009 election yielded few candidates relative to the number of seats available, it has been suggested that filling the non-arbitrator positions by appointment after community consultation (similar to the previous round of CU/OS appointments) would attract a greater number of suitably qualified candidates.

It has also been suggested that greater numbers of community delegates be appointed to ensure adequate ongoing community representation. Should a sufficient number of suitable candidates apply, the committee will appoint three "primary members" along with a number of "standby members" (who will also receive the CheckUser and Oversight privileges) and would stand in should a primary member become inactive or be unable to hear a particular case.

Comments are invited about the above, as well as any other general comments about the Audit Subcommittee. The Arbitration Committee would like to thank outgoing community members Dominic, Jredmond, and MBisanz for their patience and continued participation on the subcommittee while this review process is ongoing.

The next call for applications is provisionally scheduled for 20 February 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 18:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive220#Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs

(Reposting after this was archived twice.)

For SfDs, would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs, Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/November/10#Maharashtra geography stubs sub cats, and Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/1#Template:Multiple stub? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. This still has not been dealt with. Cunard (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to T. Canens and Ruslik0 for closing those discussions. Cunard (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/January/3, Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/January/5, and Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/November/28 have uncontentious unclosed discussions.

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs is more contentious. Would an admin (or admins) close these discussions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, T. Canens, for closing Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/November/28. Cunard (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. Several debates still need to be closed. Cunard (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. Several debates still need to be closed. Cunard (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. Several debates still need to be closed. Cunard (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

AN3 backlog

WP:AN3 hasn't seen any admin attention in over 12 hours. There's only about three reports that need tending to, but the board isn't exactly useful if no one's checking it. Anyone around to take care of this? Swarm ^X 16:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Heads up on potentially controversial image in the upcoming DYK

The DYK scheduled to go on the main page on Wednesday, 2 February 2011 00:00 (UTC) includes a potentially controversial image, namely File:Miraj by Sultan Muhammad.jpg. It's a Persian miniature, circa 1539 - 1543, depicting the prophet Muhammad without showing his face. The image is used in several articles and its use in this DYK was discussed, but I figure that folks should be forewarned. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Pagemove masterclass required

User:Kwamikagami is finding it difficult to correctly move talk pages when he moves pages, and also has difficulty correcting talk page redirects when he creates dab pages. Would any admins who are experienced in this area care to offer him a masterclass? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Taopplive - Spamtastic!

Taopplive (talk · contribs) seems to be spamming himself, both in his userpage and this article. Please block him, and delete the article and the userpage. Thanks! Diego Grez (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

working on it. Ironholds (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does it have a couple of hours to go? Ironholds (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the length and depth of the business there, I imagine you'd want to get an early start. But yes, the original nom is dated 03:48. Also: you're a brave soul. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far it's going to be a matter of "this is what AfD is for. This is what AfD is not for. I want you to all read the lists and then apologise, loudly, to the community, for wasting their time" :p. I'll shove a closing template on and get to work on one of my trademark Longarse Closes. Ironholds (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ironholds, for reviewing the discussion. The AfD began on 03:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC), and it is 01:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC) right now, so it can be closed at any time. Cunard (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Right, now closed. And now we play the waiting game! For a large number of angry messages. Ironholds (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wow. Thank you for the very detailed and informative rationale. Would you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)/Temp as well (see the comment by Ron Ritzman)? Cunard (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, the only reason I did that (following the instructions here) was because all those headings were screwing up the view of the log page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Now done. All users, note; any hatemail to be sent to the usual address. Ironholds (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that the same door we ought knock down while brandishing pitchforks tipped with trout? :-) --Danger (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Tipped with trout? TROUT? You should be desysopped for saying something so offensive. It's FLAMING trout, thank you very much. Just because I'm the new guy doesn't mean I don't deserve an incendiary aquatic animal poked into my face on the end of a farm implement like any other admin. Ironholds (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Setting trout on fire? I'll bring the chips and soda! HalfShadow 03:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about needing to send hate-mail or not. I did think there was a specific resolution reached by consensus for the subset of New York ones which could have been noted in the close, which was that two of them should be redirected to a third, merged article. Instead the ones-to-redirect got "Keep" decision noted at them. I redirected them with edit summary stating that is what i believe is the actual consensus in the AFD. I believe that will stick, knock on wood. Otherwise, i am not sure about the close, though i see the point to cut off a possibly-confusing discussion. --doncram 03:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing I would like to respectfully request is that you (or anybody else) not add ===Headings=== to any future AFDs. It really screws up the log page the AFD is transcluded on. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I was focused on the AFD, which occured on one page. It seemed helpful to split out tangential discussions and label them as separate, and others were assisting in keeping it organized that way (and often moving those to the Talk page). Several editors were opening new sections. --doncram 05:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

For most discussions I agree with you but this is a "technical" issue. AFD discussions are transcluded onto daylog pages. When headings are used, particularly ==H2== and ===H3=== headings like in this AFD, it makes every AFD on the log table of contents after it appear as a subsection of the AFD with the headings. If headings must be used then start with ====H4==== headings. The only H3 heading in the AFD should be the article title. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• I find the handling of this AfD to be very sad. Don't get me wrong, the close was entirely correct. It would also have been entirely correct if it had been done only a day into the AfD; every user involved in it, and all of the others who read it over, knew what the outcome was going to be very early on. Instead of acting upon this, the "all AfDs must last exactly and precisely 7 days" process overtook everyone's common sense, probably causing more harm than good. An experienced editor could have provided some guidance on other alternatives to the nominator, the nomination could have been withdrawn, the days of discussion could have been put more fruitfully toward finding a path to address these articles in smaller chunks and in a more appropriate way, and considerably fewer feathers could have been ruffled. Next time, can we please stop this in its tracks much earlier? Process for process' sake is harmful to this project, particularly when the process interferes with improvement of the encyclopedia. Risker (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

To add to that, I was simply unaware that there was some 7-days-then-close rule at all. It seemed unhelpful and rigid for it to be closed at the point it was closed. If i had known there was some practice like that (is that in fact a hard and fast rule? i didn't know it was a rule at all), i would not have been making announcements and calling for more participation and engaging in maintenance and discussion. I am more familiar with RFCs that take 30 days i think, and i think RFDs take 30 days too. I see that IF there is some absolute 7 day limit on AFDs then having big AFDs won't work well, and earlier advisement upon that woulda been helpful. --doncram 05:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

...doncram, you've created how many AfDs over the past 5 years, and you're trying to claim you don't know how long they last for? I'd suggest either retracting that statement, or not opening any more AfDs until you know what the rules are. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Uncivil comment struck. The answer to the question was "only 8".

That at least explains some of the more confusing elements of the AfD. Yup, AfD runs on a seven day-then-close rule; it can be relisted for up to 14 more days, but only if consensus isn't clear enough to aid in making a decision. Here, it was, so that wasn't an issue.Ironholds (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, most of the articles in this AfD met the criteria for speedy deletion under A7. --Orlady (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Risker I think you ought to raise those concerns at WT:AFD because the opinion that 7 days means 168 hours always and forever is pretty entrenched ore there. Or start closing some non-SNOW AfDs early if you are really adventurous. Protonk (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason the 7-days-means-7-days concept was put forward (and possibly why it got entrenched) stems partially from the move from 5 days to 7 days, which was to avoid losing part of the input of those people that only look at AfD once a week. Not everyone is around every day, and at the point where AfDs were being closed within a few days, the feeling (from some) was that not enough input was being obtained (or rather, only the immediate flurry of initial input was being considered). Some of the most thoughtful input on AfDs tends to come from those who may only become aware of an AfD after a few days. This contrasts with those who comment regularly at AfD, sometimes less than a day after an AfD opens (for some AfDs, it can take a few days to really work out what is needed). FWIW, I agree with the close here, though closing to restore order is not really a close. It's just a reorganisation - a "come back later when you've decided what to nominate". I'd also encourage boldness in terms of reversing such expansions of AfDs mid-stream. It might seem like a good idea at the time, but can go wrong as it did here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer advice

Resolved

 – Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hi guys. I just needed some peer advice on what is the policy/guideline with respect to assigning rights for one's own alternate account, when one is an administrator? Can an administrator - who has a publicly disclosed alternate account created for automated edits - use her/his administrative capacity to grant the alternate account the user rights like autopatrolled, reviewer, account creator, rollbacker, AwB, confirmed, etc? Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 17:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have never seen a case where that would be a problem, since you've been granted those rights by the community anyway. That's not to say there couldn't be one. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, what I intended asking was whether there's any particular policy or guideline that prohibits such granting... Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
      • No there isn't, as long as it wouldn't be a problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for the help. The issue got resolved. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

IMO what types of flags (autopatrolled comes to mind) any particular bot task runs with should be discussed at the bot authorization request. You (or the BRFA participants) may want certain types of bot edits to be reviewed by RC patrol. And I'd be extremely skeptical of giving Reviewer to a bot account; you want a bot to process pending changes from humans? That defeats the whole purpose; FR is for human review or else we'd rely on semiprotection or Cluebot reversion. I'd certainly oppose any bot that purported to have bots process flagged revisions unless it had first demonstrated high accuracy in some kind of simulation. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

New IP Addresses to be Released

According to this CNN article, the Number Resource Organization is releasing 340 undecillion, or "340 trillion groups of one trillion networks each" soon. Since admins deal with IP addresses all day long, everyday, this is something we need to be ready for and possibly update some of our rangeblocking software and other systems to block these new IP addresses when (not if) the time presents itself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

They're talking about IPv4 running out of IP addresses and the total amount of IP addresses with IPv6. I'm sure we will eventually allow IPv6 editing; just a matter of when. –MuZemike 02:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As it happens, just today we had a thread on WMF support for IPv6 on our servers on the wikitech-l mailing list. It was not well documented but the ops staff have a fair amount of planning done already and (with a couple of open questions) a path forwards mapped out now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The last Ipv4 allocation ran out today(yesterday if your in Europe!), see http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207961/Update_ICANN_assigns_its_last_IPv4_addresses and other news sources. IPv6 will be all over the tech news for the next few days. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's simplistic. IANA - the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, released the last 5 "/8 blocks" (each of which has 2^24 or 16 million addresses within it) to the Regional Internet Registries (ARIN in the US, RIPE in Europe, AFRNIC in Africa, LACNIC in South America, and APNIC in Asia). This was prearranged - once they were down to 5 blocks left, each RIR got one of the remaining 5.

So, IANA has no more to give to regionals. The regionals have all of what they had earlier in the week, plus one more /8. APNIC is expected to "run out" (assign to internet service providers) the last of its currently held space in roughly this summer, RIPE at the beginning of 2012, ARIN in summer 2012, and the others later than that.

Once those last assignments reach the ISPs, they then get used for customer addresses. When THOSE run out 3+ months later, in each region, that's it for IPv4, unless you negotiate transfers of unused existing space (possible but not happening yet) or buy someone who has unused space (possible, happening somewhat now).

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

See IPv6 address for what non-logged-in signatures are going to start looking like. Yucch. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list that: The Eastern European mailing list case is supplemented as follows:

The topic ban placed upon Piotrus (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European mailing list and subsequent motions is lifted, effective immediately. Piotrus is reminded that further disruption related to this case may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Help with getting back a page

The page Plants vs. Zombies was vandalized and then moved to Plants vs. Zombies (Dara's game). Both me and Reach Out to the Truth caught the vandal, but a second apart, so that when my moved occurred it overwrote the actual content and not the redirect as I had checked a moment before, so the actual content of the page seems to have vanished somewhere. Any help in restoring this is appreciated. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Is [21] the content you are looking for? Syrthiss (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it fixed itself. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I fixed it, you mean ;) Handled, deleted the vandalism redirects, and indefed the vandal. Courcelles 18:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, all good now. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

A nest of hoax articles

Bear with me, this is a little convoluted. I have uncovered a rat's nest of intertwining hoax articles and wanted to make a note of it here in case another admin would like to dig deeper to ensure I haven't missed anything.

• User:Merrit597 created the article Max Wood which was tagged as a blatant hoax and which I deleted as such. When you view the deleted versions you can see the article was added fully formed with infobox, categories etc as well as a multitude of blank section headers. Checking through Merrit597's contribs I also found John Parkinson (entertainer) and Dave Turnbull, both of which were also hoax articles.
• Studying the "what links here" prior to deletion led me to Hearts upon Diamonds which was created by User:Khan580. Note the similarity of the construction of the article to the other hoax articles (fully formed with infobox, cats, many blank sections etc).
• Looking through the edit history of Hearts Upon Diamonds IP 86.141.248.114 popped up. This IP also created the hoax article Pete Townsend by building on a redirect. (I have since restored the redirect).

I'm sure there must be more untangling to be done, however I've hit a dead end and I'm not sure what the next best move would be. Perhaps an SPI is in order? Note that I haven't notified the hoaxers as I'm a little worried about WP:BEANS with regard to tracking all of the articles and users down. If all three should indeed be notified then I will do so. I've posted here as opposed to ANI as there is no huge urgency; however as many of the contributions have been deleted, only admins will be able to trace through the deleted contributions. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like Jake Picasso, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jake Picasso/Archive for details of previous sockpuppets. O Fenian (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, looking at the previous SPIs the IP is close to others that have been confirmed as his. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI the Jake Picasso user was also though to be a sock account of Jake Duncan. --Kumioko (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

O Fenian just hit the bullseye. The following accounts are  Confirmed as Jake Picasso:

• Merrit597 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• TeagueUnder (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• LemonsGruff (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

All accounts blocked and  IP blocked. –MuZemike 01:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

More problems with Hauskalainen

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes still being added

Why are people still configuring pending changes to so many articles? I thought we weren't supposed to be adding it to any more new pages until the new version is released. -- œ^™ 08:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The protection policy says that, in the interim, "It can be removed from pages where it is causing problems, and added sparingly to pages where it has clear benefits (in its current incarnation) over semi-protection. ... Any new use of PC during this interim period should be sparing and focus primarily on BLPs". I think there's always been a consensus that it should aimed at BLP problems, which it mostly is. Add to that the various improvements made to the software, some special cases, and a little experiment to see what works best, I wouldn't say it's particularly excessive. Plenty of that log is removal of PC, and there's around half the number of articles using PC as there was during the trial. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

• Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and its subcategories seem to contain several thousand entries. It would take a long time for a human admin to work through that list :: could someone write a bot to work through the easy cases (i.e. same filename and identical images)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that this is a good idea; many of the images so tagged should not have been moved to Commons because their free license isn't actually free or because their source is unclear etc. etc. Or the move was done improperly etc. etc. It takes a human being to assess this and deal with fair-use issues/dig through the history to discover the provenance etc. etc. MGA73 is working through the backlog (as am I, but much less effectively) and he may provide more insight. --Danger (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed and rejected. I work on a handful every couple of days. Yes, it is tedious, but unfortunately, I've found a number of issues, none of which would be easy for a bot to identify. An image that looks a little too professional to be a user contribution, a fair use image on WP, copied to Commons with a claim that it is PD, an image whose status depends on the date it was taken; all of these are reasonably straightforward for humans to sort out, but not easy for a bot.

That said, my process is to pick a date, open all the files in separate tabs on one screen, then open them again on a separate screen, and navigate to the Commons counterpart for each. Then I do the review, but if someone had an easy way of doing the first part automatically, it would speed up my work.--SPhilbrickT 14:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If you use Firefox, the Linky add-on can apparently do this. I know that The Transhumanist uses it for similar tasks, but I've never gotten it to work for me. --Danger (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that was helpful. I just knocked off a few.--SPhilbrickT 18:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is worse for the files with different names; I've been trying to knock out a couple of days' worth of categories daily, but I don't always have the time. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we've decreased that backlog by about 100 categories this month. It's a messy and unpleasant problem, but it's getting done. --Danger (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ive got a better solution than any that has been proposed, it only works with the same name files but take a look at tools:~krinkle/CommonsMoveReview.php ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of old edits?

Hello there, I don't know whether this is the right place to request or not, but I would like to have my userpage edits prior to January 2010 deleted. Not only that I want the edit history to look clean but looking through my userpage edit history I found some things that I feel ashamed of now (which would mislead a lot of people), like [22], [23], and [24]. Yes, I knew that I did have a good friend of mine during high school who is an opposite gender, and of course we were good friends. It's not like we were dating or anything, and she was not my girlfriend. Of course I was excited about being friends with her, as she was a very friendly person. However, I couldn't believe that I actually showed off my friendship on my Wikipedia userpage, whether it's just a regular friendship update or the false restraining order in January 2008 after the school administration had to overreact after I was really friendly with her (like when my mom got that person a nice wallet for Christmas or when we randomly hugged each other in the halls between classes, or even joked around about each other). My user page and talk page were subject to vandalism, including this edit I once received on my talk page.

I also had YouTube videos associated with this too, which I removed most of them (although I left a few because I mostly like to upload traveling videos). Those YouTube videos received nothing but a bunch of retarded comments so I knew that I needed to remove the videos that nobody else would understand (like talking about how the school imposed a false restraining order between me and that friend). While I left this video up on YouTube since it does have a sense of traveling, I did receive a retarded comment three weeks ago saying that I am "gay as hell" and "talk like a five year old".

Sorry if I am being too talkative but I like to go into details and felt like giving some descriptions. So I would appreciated if an administrator would delete edits on my userpage prior to January 2010. I am now an adult and a candidate for a pilot license so I don't want to be associated with edits that I now find personal and possibly childish and immature. Thank you again for all your help! NHRHS2010 |  Happy Holidays!  17:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure anyone is going to look back that far in the page history. Also, not sure if this falls under the revdel criteria. However, you can request U1/G7 and then just re-create your user page, otherwise another admin more familiar with the revdel criteria can take a look. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This is not an appropriate use for Rev-delete, but as Fetchcomms says, you can just put {{db-u1}} on your user page and it will be deleted, which hides the history from anyone except admins; then you can create a new one. JohnCD (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes that's exactly what I did and while one of my subpages got deleted immediately my main userpage is taking long to be deleted. I'm not trying to rush anyone but just to let you all be aware that the deletion tag is on my userpage for over an hour. NHRHS2010 |  Happy Holidays!  19:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
      • And, User:Davewild took care of this. Thank you again for your help! NHRHS2010 |  Happy Holidays!  19:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
        • If you want a userpage deleted without calling attention to it, I believe you can just email an admin and ask. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem#Poll

Would an admin close and summarize Talk:Jerusalem#Poll and the RfC at the subsection Talk:Jerusalem#RfC: Neutrally describing the capital status of Jerusalem? There has been no discussion for over seven days and the participants have asked that it be closed. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Move for >200 pages?

There was previously a discussion that I tried to open at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Requested move: Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which unfortunately has become somewhat stale despite my efforts to revive it again. Anyway, moving over two hundred pages sounds pretty much like something for an admin to do, so in case it happens or any other developments happen that would need help from a sysop arrives, some monitoring of the controversial request might help the process along. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see a consensus for such a mass move? It surely doesn't exist at the discussion you linked to... Courcelles 08:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Move error

I've moved articles successfuly before, but I apparently botched this one. I tried moving Lincoln, Madera County, California to Lincoln (former town), California, and the article appears to have moved correctly, but the talk page seems to have lagged behind. I tried to move it (the talk page) by itself, but got the message that the page already existed. Also confusing is that the comment I left on the talk page (explaining the move) has disappeared.

I've also found it difficult to correct the links directing to the old page. I went to see what connected, and there were a surprising number of them for a town that hasn't existed for nearly 100 years. I guessed that most of them were the result of a county template (found here), and I expected most of the links to the old page to disappear once I corrected it. But they didn't, and my guess is that it has something to do with the talk page.

I guess I need some help from someone with a mop. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like you did everything fine. The redirects from the old article page and talk page seem to be pointing where they should. 28bytes (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and your disappearing comment is not showing up because it's on the redirect page. I'll move it for you. 28bytes (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. 28bytes (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what happened, but I see that Pages that link to "Lincoln, Madera County, California" looks clean now, and it didn't before. Thanks for everything. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of scope userpage

Users article Mario Macan has been deleted and now user has created same artcle in his user page User:Mario1011--Musamies (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the categories from the page per WP:USERNOCAT and tagged it as a userspace draft. If you believe the article should be zapped, you can nominate it for deletion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The same user has been uploading copyrighted images to here and to Commons (all been deleted now I think). I think User:Mario1011 is actually Mario Macan - a very very minor actor. –anemoneprojectors– 20:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Guides study/project

Hi Everyone!

I wanted to let you know about a study that we are getting together to start next month. As I’m sure many of you are aware we have had a decrease in new editors over the past couple years.

As a community we have a lot of ideas but We’ve been stymied by a lot of options and little data.

We want to conduct a study over the next couple months (with some resources from the Wikimedia Foundation) to help craft strategies to develop new users, to get data on exactly how our new users are finding their first, and later, experiences on Wikipedia and of course to help share the experiences of the experienced users who are here to find out what works, what doesn't and what resources they need to make their work easier.

The plan at the moment is to have several groups of users, 1 group that is just followed (the control) and several other groups with guides who actively reach out and try to help them edit and join the community. I hope that you can help us as we get ready for the study start next month and help the new users once we start! You can find out more information and sign up on the project page and if you can think of anyone who might be interested please please PLEASE point them this way or let me know so I can reach out to them personally! Jalexander--WMF 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It might actually be more important to the project to concentrate on making editing Wikipedia more rewarding for our valuable and experienced old users, rather than worrying overly much about getting in new users, who naturally bring with them a learning curve for dealing with both the policies of the place and the culture of the community. The time and energy that's put into shaping (and culling) a random group of newbies could better be spent on tweaking policies and accepted behaviors in such a way that experienced editors are not driven away through burnout or exasperation. We've somehow come to accept that our best people will periodically need to take "Wiki-breaks" to prevent the eccentricities of the place from getting to them, when we should be looking at ways to make the project less debilitating and frustrating for the people who actually contribute the most to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Two points for Beyond My Ken. This is a long-running online and in person discussion between myself and James. Making things "easier" has a way of making things "harder". Progress has a way of feigning ease. I find it much more valuable to to not implement tools that will impede the progress of those who need help. Naturally I volunteer to help, but this means things like not having to register somewhere or following a focus group. Keegan (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs up for Beyond My Ken (talk) and Keegan (talk). It's very very true that "Making things "easier" has a way of making things "harder". Have a nice day. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There are obviously a lot of things that need working on and trying to reward experienced users is quite clearly one of them and an incredibly important one that is very arguably more important then new edits (arguable both ways though I think, the experienced users will eventually tire and go on to other things or want to adjust what they do regardless of how things are and so we need those new users). The goal of this is far more about trying to gather information, statistics and ideas then set up new structures that would be in the way of people. We as a community have a lot of opinions about how things are going, why current users are getting frustrated (we actually have a better understanding on this, since we are current users) and why new users are leaving quickly or not starting at all (this is harder, because we aren't these new users it is much harder to "get in their heads"). The idea of a bit of organization is trying to be able to get some of this data and see what works in something that is a bit less anecdotal. In the grand scheme of things it's a small study but can give us a lot of data. When the study is over if we find things that work well we can try and show that, how did it change things? How much more did they edit then the control group we didn't actively reach out too? What did Guide A do different then Guide B that helped their users edit a lot more (or was that just luck of the draw)? If it doesn't really do anything very different that is also important data and at the very least gives us more detailed data about the actions of new users and how they interact since we're following a particular group and can focus in on things. This can give us a lot of statistics that the community and the Foundation can use as they decide what's most important. Obviously policies, guidelines and behaviors also need to change in a lot of places. The Foundation can try and help here but in most cases they are, in the end, completely in the communities hands. Jalexander--WMF 07:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a idea of why all those editors might have left in the 2007 era and it's not pretty. I'll write it up sometime but basically IMHO the editing environment has gotten a lot better since then, and that is not a coincidence. Basically some policy and culture changes caused a lot of rather obnoxious editors to leave, and that was a good thing. That said, "retaining experienced editors" IMO shouldn't be as much the issue as retaining good editors, whether or not they're experienced. It's fine it that means changes that make the site less attractive to bad editors, even if that decreases the total number of editors. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, regardless of the friendliness of the project to old contributors, new editors will continue to join Wikipedia. Working on strategies to reduce the learning curve, much of which is needlessly exacerbated by confusing and difficult to use help pages, unclear contribution requirements and bitey regulars, is a worthwhile goal, even if only to reduce the workload for experienced editors in cleaning up after and... um... culling new editors. (Are there take quotas, like with game animals?)

And improving the editing environment is not exactly a zero-sum game, unless your contention is that informed and welcomed new editors are the problem driving away experienced ones. You're welcome to suggest ways of retaining editors. --Danger (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The number one way I can immediately think of to retain new editors is to delete all the user talk templates left by bots and page patrollers, and require any user messages actually be written by humans, and actually address the content of the edits being commented on. If you want to see a total tragedy over something like this, look up "Weiterbewegung" in the ANI archives from a few weeks ago. Generally though, what I'm saying is organize editing practices to concentrate on quality rather than quantity. There was a quantity shortage in the very early days, but now there is excess. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

@Gimme danger: I'm certainly in favor of new editors being more informed and welcomed -- but, then, I'm in favor of motherhood and apple pie as well. I don't believe there is a zero-sum situation involved, simply because this is a volunteer project, and people will work on what they want to work on, so energy put in one direction cannot easily be shifted elsewhere. I simply think that there's a discussion to be had about the way the project's philosophies are put into effect

For instance, "Anyone can edit", "Assume good faith" and "Don't bit the newbies" are all laudable philosophical statements, but, unfortunately, the way they have been implemented results in our putting up with a fair amount of shenanigans from users who any long-term editor can predict will never contribute much to the encyclopedia. That degrades the editing environment, and sucks up time and energy which could be put to other purposes. I'm not suggesting an authoritarian regime be put in place, but I do think that we could be a bit more practical about those new editors who have little or no chance of becoming productive contributors -- and I believe that's a bit more important than bringing more new users in without regard to the quality of their input. IP 71.141 is quite correct that the project is no longer desperately in need of bulk contibutions from the "anyone can edit" crowd, we're more in an institutional middle-age in which articles need to be corrected, improved and expanded, and that means that we should be focused on quality of edits over quantity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This discussion probably belongs in Wikipedia:Village pump. --John Nagle (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am always sceptical of suggestions that changes in the rate of creation of new articles or the rate of registration of new editors are indicative of anything other than maturity and reaching saturation. Do we have any evidence that, taking into account natural wastage, the total number of active editors is declining? Guy (Help!) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I thought it was well-established that the number of active editors and the rate of editing is declining. It should be straightforward to tell for sure by analyzing a data dump, and I'm sure that stats nerds have done that already. It actually feels a lot easier to "breathe" now than a few years ago, so I don't see the decline as a necessarily bad thing. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• I posted some graphs I threw together for the active editors question that Guy was asking ( Interestingly they are definitely declining but appear to be much slower then new editors). I put them up on the project talk page both for shameless self promoting reasons and to try and move the discussion off here. Everyone is welcome to continue there, Carcharoth started to close this discussion a couple hours ago since it was getting off topic for AN and he's probably right. Any admin who wants to close this (leaving this pointer preferably so people can continue) is more then welcome. Jalexander--WMF 23:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Close and carry out Olive <-- Olive (fruit) merge proposal

It may have taken two years and four month, but I think it finally snowed at Talk:Olive#Merger_proposal. Would some admin please follow Help:Merging#Closing_instructions and close and carry out the merge. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, the closer is only responsible for evaluating consensus and closing the discussion, not performing the merger. The articles' regular editors would be more knowledgeable of the subject. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, and left a note. Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for administrator tutorship on RFCs

Can I have a few admins take a look at Wikipedia talk:RFC#Closing RFCs for me? My request for help on that has gone unheeded for a few days. Or, any of you could close that difficult RFC for me instead! Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've put some notes there about what I do in closing difficult discussions. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User passing several articles without doing reviews

Resolved

 – User has indicated that they will not participate in the good article candidate/review process going forward. Double-checking of reviews already completed may be taken up at the appropriate venue. –xeno^talk 18:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• User revoked. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Noting that I've acknowledged the revoking of their comment and struck my comment accordingly; I still see no need for further administrative attention at this venue, and suggest any further review be taken up at the appropriate GA venue. –xeno^talk 18:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to spend time reviewing the edits of Hugahoody (talk · contribs). He has passed several articles in recent days without doing reviews. I noticed two of these were undone from today, but many others are in his contribution history.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe he was confused by this message on his talk page, which he may have misinterpreted as "just edit the article talk page" without having to do a review? -- œ^™ 09:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, this issue needs to be addressed by someone who wants to go through his contribution history. A quick scan saw at least two, in addition to Red Line (Washington Metro) and Orange Line (Washington Metro), which were already undone.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I had a chance to look up some more of the user's contributions. In addition to Red Line (Washington Metro) and Orange Line (Washington Metro), which I already noted were undone and seem to now have been properly failed, the following GA's are suspect: British Library (undone, rereviewed and passed), Secret Truths (minimal review), Conan (TV series) (no review - seems to have been undone), Jack Duckworth ((minimal review), and Simon MacCorkindale (virtually no review).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is any protocol making reversing a minimal review O.K., but maybe we could do a GAR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I undid British Library, Red Line (Washington Metro) and Orange Line (Washington Metro) which have since been reviewed by others. I also posted on Huahoody's talk page.[25]. I received the following responses.[26]. I shall take a look at the minimal reviews that Tony has noted and perhaps nominate them for community GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now created community reassessment pages for WP:Good article reassessment/Simon MacCorkindale/1, WP:Good article reassessment/Jack Duckworth/1 and WP:Good article reassessment/Secret Truths/1. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the Washington Metro articles fall under the 10 GANs of User:Racepacket, who was indefinitely blocked for copyvios a few days ago. At WT:GAN editors have been failing those articles without any holds if there's anything that can't be fixed quickly, and full reviews aren't being written. --Rschen7754 09:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is fairly well sorted now. It should probably have been raised at WT:Good article nominations. 13:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezhotwells (talk • contribs)

Yes it is resolved if the only issue was his GAC reviews. I did not check his history for any other problems he may be causing WP. I just pulled up his contributions and searched for "pass" in the edit summaries. I raised it here because he may have been doing other problematic things when someone looked more closley.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you TonyTheTiger for directing me to this discussion. I find your most recent comment to be quite an affront actually, suggesting I may be causing problems around Wikipedia because Jezhotwells has taken issue with my GA reviews. I apologise if my reviews left a lot to be desired and have caused reassessments. I do not apologise for any articles that were good and have been reassessed just in case. By all means, take a look at all my edits. See what I've done when putting the hours and effort into Wikipedia. To have all this put into doubt because of a few reviews that someone thinks aren't detailed enough is disappointing. Hugahoody (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It is nothing personal. You have a basic misunderstanding of what is helpful at GAC and I think someone should look at all of what you have done to make sure you are on board with what we need of volunteers. You very well may be volunteering lots of time trying to be helpful and yet causing problems elsewhere. All I am saying is that you failed to follow GAC procedures on at least a half dozen reviews and you may have violated procedures in other parts of the project with your attempt to be of assistance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't help. By all means keep that opinion to yourself but it is an insult to see it in writing. As a few examples, did my redesign of the Upload page cause any problems? Or the numerous JPG files I replaced with better quality PNG files? I don't think this is the right forum for this discussion either. It almost implies I am vandalising pages. Again, I apologise if my reviews were unreasonably short and therefore I will not partake in the review process anymore. I would appreciate if this discussion were brought to a close. Hugahoody (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Following Xeno's change to the status of this section, I revoke my comment that I will not partake in GA reviews in the future. If I choose to review an article again, I may well consult a mentor. Hugahoody (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of huffing and puffing here. User who has screwed up is offended that I am asking for a check of his contributions. Admin, notes GA issue is resolved and I concur. Not sure all the rest of his efforts should go unchecked, but I have better things to do. I am unwatching this page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm just standing up for myself. It just seems sometimes on Wikipedia that people forget there are human beings behind those user pages, not machines. While this shouldn't have been raised here in the first place, I'm pleased it is now over almost as soon as it began. Hugahoody (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Massive automated delinking by User:Hmains

I need a second opinion. User:Hmains is using the automated AWB tool to remove wikilinks to all “Century” articles (20th century, 19th century, 5th century BC, etc.[27],[28],[29] as recent examples of the delinking). I first became aware of his delinking here, which I reverted here with the edit comment “This is not an uncontroversial edit - possible misuse of AWB” which was ignored as Hmains's next edit was to restore his de-linking here. I am aware that there has been some debate about the linking of dates, but a “century” is not a date, and wikilinks to such “century” articles are useful navigational tools for our readers. He's edited/delinked thousands of articles, and he refused to stop when I warned him and tried to discuss it. [30], and Hmains' similar editing behaviour has also been previously discussed here, here, and here, but his use of AWB has not abated. I would appreciate your comments on whether or not Hmains use of AWB is contrary to its “Rules of Use” [31], and if so, can anything be done to stop his disruptive editing. Thank you for your attention. Dolovis (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not really for second opinions. Having said that, I've had a look at some of this, and the second link you provide is a discussion between you and another user two other users (not Hmains), so not that relevant for dispute resolution (but I would follow the advice you were given there). The third link is to a discussion from July 2007 and the first to a discussion from November 2008, so both too old to be really considered. I would suggest taking this to WT:MOSNUM, rather than here. FWIW, the right thing to do here is probably to make the links more subject-specific. Link to "something in the Xth century" article, and let people get to the Xth century article that way. Most of the time, linking directly to a century article will be an example of WP:OVERLINK. Carcharoth (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC) PS. You forgot to sign the notice you left on Hmains' talk page.

Actually the 2nd link is to a discussion from User:Verapar to admin User:JohnCD (i was not involved in that discussion) complaining about the mass delinking actions of Hmains. The only reaon I brought the old discussions to you attention was to highlight that this has been an on-going problem with Hmains. Dolovis (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Corrected my original reply on the matter of who was involved in what discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversial mass edits need prior consensus, as simple as that. Delinking has been the subject of a lot of trouble around here, no? If there's consensus that centuries should be linked, the links should remain. If there's consensus otherwise, they may be delinked but in a careful systematic way to avoid mistakes. This is a problem that does sometimes need administrative intervention if an editor persists in wide scale controversial edits despite appeals to follow or wait for consensus. I don't see any delinkings, or much editing at all, since this discussion began so best to just talk it out. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong place, wrong issue. Why, I'd like to know, are there still linked centuries (and millennia?) in WP articles, aside from those that are explicitly on chronological topics (which were exempted by the community in the huge 2009 RfC)? Tony (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but as you said, this is not the place to ask that question either. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Per Wikidemon. Doloris seems to have dredged up quite a lot of ancient history with the diffs supplied. My first instinct on reading the above is that Doloris may be WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Just because one editor is complaining loudly about certain actions of another doesn't mean consensus exists for not linking to century articles without good reason. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to suggest that every incident of 13th century and 5th century BC should be linked, but the massive automated delinking of all Century links by User:Hmains will result in these articles being orphans. My concern is not the delinking over-linked articles. My concern is that such delinking should be done in a careful way to avoid mistakes, and it appears to me that User:Hmains is not being selective or careful when using AWB to perform such delinkings on the massive scale as he is continuing to do. His misuse of AWB results in some controversial edits, which is an abuse of AWB. I am asking him to slow down, and to stop using the automated tools for his edits. Dolovis (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Following the suggestion of Carcharoth above, this is now being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Dolovis (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This section can probably be closed now. Carcharoth (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It can be closed only a necessary warning to everyone that asking if mass delinking a page is a good idea in that forum gets the same answer that asking a group of Republicans if obstructing every policy of Barak Obama is a good idea. -- llywrch (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Page move over titleblacklist location

Resolved

 – All moved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to have List of M*A*S*H episodes (season 1) through List of M*A*S*H episodes (season 11) moved to M*A*S*H (season 1) through M*A*S*H (season 11), but the destination is a blacklisted location. Also, make sure the talk pages are moved and if you could also fix the links in the template that would be great.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a consensus for this? I'll do it, but I'm not going to move 11 articles only to have them moved back tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Most season articles now are named just with the series name and the season in parenthesis. A few older articles still retain the old convention. I have been converting them as I have come upon them. See my edit history for tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I've done them all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for these types of moves. (see WT:NC-TV) In fact, one editor was recently blocked for repeatedly making contentious edits like these, such as these moves. —Farix (t | c) 12:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request

Resolved

 – Deleted/selectively restored. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Would someone be so kind as to delete the revisions prior to Feb 8 from La Maison Tellier (group), please? It is unrelated material previously on the page I used to draft the article. Cheers. Rehevkor ✉ 15:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the whole article, and then restored everything forward from your first edit creating the new content. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Rehevkor ✉ 15:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Misconceptions2 unblock request

Hi. I've received an appeal from Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs), who was blocked a year or two ago for disruptive editing. The standard offer he asked for last January was denied because he made an unblock request too soon after the block. However, he has not edited or made an unblock request in the last year (to my knowledge), and he promises to be a reformed character.

I'm still slightly uncomfortable, but far more comfortable than I was a year ago. So I make this request for consideration as per the terms of Wikipedia:Standard offer, to see what the wider community feels about this.

Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• So, looks like they were blocked a few times for edit warring and socking, then after this block was instated their talk page was revoked to stop their repeated poorly reasoned unblock requests. However it appears the talk page has been available again since July, and they appear not to have socked or made a stink on their talk page in all that time, which shows a certain level of restraint and maturity. I could see handing them the rope and seeing what they do with it, as long as they understood that any more edit warring or socking and the block will be rapidly re-instated. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• I agree.--SPhilbrickT 01:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Given that their user talk page is unprotected, I'd like to see a public statement from the editor explaining how they intend to stick to the various rules in future and what they intend to work on. This editor's article-space contributions were mainly in the sensitive topics of warfare and terrorism related to Islam, so in my view they need to demonstrate to the community that they will take a much more mature approach to editing in the future before they can be unblocked. The comments by their multiple socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2/Archive (including use of the roommate defence) shows that they were prepared to actively deceive the community and the subsequent unblock requests suggest that this editor was unwilling to accept responsibility for their actions and behave in a mature fashion, so fairly strong evidence that they've moved on is needed. Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The editor has responded to my post here and it looks OK. I'm happy to extend an assumption of good faith towards them, though I'd note that any policy breaches are likely to lead to an immediate long-term block. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, for what admins granteth, admins mayst taketh away (or the editor can easily be blocked again if necessary). Mjroots (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Long enough time away and apparently good behavior and legitimate interests in the discussion on their talk page. As noted by Mjroots, if this turns out to be a mistake, reblocking is easy enough. I AGF here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Unblocked After reading the discussion here and not seeing any opposition in the few days this has been open, I've unblocked this user. I've also warned them that returning to previous behavior will lead to a re-block. TNXMan 20:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Msa1701

There is an unblock request on this page. The user was blocked for socking last July. At that time User:Beeblebrox and User:Tnxman307 suggested he should consider the standard offer for blocked users. He has now posted an unblock request with an apology and a promise to make good edits. Do we think this user has learned his lesson and be let back in?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps have them work on a {{2nd chance}} submission in the meantime? (without the decline part, leave it on hold) –xeno^talk 21:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll propose that  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Need page deleted to fix messed up move.

Resolved

 – quite literally by some guy. Favonian (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved a user space talk page to article space. Please delete Kit_Barker so I can fix the mess. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Public terminals and Wifi networks

I want to raise a issue, what is to be done with public wifi's? Since obviously, they are classified as proxies, i my own opinion, they're not. It's just providing access to the internet. I want to know the position of the English Wikipedia administrators towards public wifi's... For my, it's a block for anon-only. (Trough Meta of course) --Zalgo (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of such IPs being blocked, except of course if they behave in a way that would get anyone blocked. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Usually, they're blocked as open proxies... --Zalgo (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well thats Silly Here are three types of Public terminals I use with some regularity which point to the problem:

1. University Computers: all the Computer traffic on my local campus are routed through the same Range of IPs. These include Public computer in the library, Laptops using campus Wifi, PDAs using Wifi, Prof's personal offices, and Administrative offfices. In Fact My public university is one in part of Several public universities use the same range of IPs. Overall blocking them would be net negative and leave 40 thousand student unable to edit Wikipedia
2. My local coffeehouse/internet cafe which anyone can log on to uses Wifi from the local electric company. The IP wanders nearly every day thus a block would be ineffective as a long term block would simply move to the next customer from the Local electric company the next day.
3. The local Barnes and Noble, uses ATT mobile Wifi, the same as if i was using my (hypothetical) Iphone would. Blocking it would be terribly ineffective as it is highly dynamic and would affect large customer base unnecessarily.

From this I think we can see the issue can be conclusively solved other than block upon disruption for short periods. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there any reports of such IP addresses being blocked and this causing serious problems (which can't be solved by logging into an account)? I've never had any problems editing from public wifi. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've also never heard that public WiFi address are blocked as open proxies, but in any case, you might try moving this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies. —DoRD (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(non-administrator) I'm not aware of any Internet Cafe's being blocked as open proxies for simply being an internet Cafe. We've occasionally had misconfigured routers in internet Cafe's that were acting as open proxies and of course run-of-the mill IP vandalism which led to the cafes being blocked. In my opinion, we should not be blocking public terminals or internet cafes for being open physically, as those are the only way some people can access the internet. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As someone who frequents WT:OP, I concur with Sailsbystars. There are some admins and stewards on meta who dislike *any* proxy, but certainly around here they'll only get blocked if they've caused trouble, and only hardblocked if they've been used for sockpuppetry. Usually. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion closure

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 26#Category:Persons convicted of fraud

Could someone please close this discussion , its been open 14 days and no comments for the last seven. Imo it needs a good look as without a little investigation it is unclear what peoples position is. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I closed the discussion and have written a detailed closing rationale.

I would appreciate if an uninvolved editor would review the discussion and my closing rationale, and I will not object to the outcome being changed if my reasoning is deemed to be off-the-mark. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the three previous discussions favoring your position on the close, I don't see a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The three discussion prior to this one, which had very scant community input (unlike this one) all resulted in "no consensus". To claim that there was a stable status quo to default to is problematic to say the least. That said, I think the consensus was clear to keep the category. When a vast majority of people are making one of many keep arguments that are not completely identical, one does not declare that there are too many arguments and then take the opposite action. That is exactly what happened here. Black Falcon should reappear to tell us if s/he is amenable to reverse the decision, so we can take it to DRV if not. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have responded in detail at my talk page, but I'll repeat the portion of my comments pertaining to the three previous discussions. My reasoning for restoring the original situation was along the lines of reversing an undiscussed move or forking of an article. If three requests to move or split an article end with no consensus to move or split it, and then someone (in good faith) moves or splits the article following mixed discussion, then is it unreasonable to undo the move or split pending the formation of a consensus? It is true that the previous three CFDs ended with "no consensus", but it was specifically "no consensus to rename to Category:People convicted of fraud". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no move here ... no "rename". There was nothing to "undue" when it comes to the existing category. A new category was created. You deleted the new category that was created despite a claim of "no consensus", which again I dispute in the first place. Please take a second and consider the actual circumstances here because you appear to be mistaken on several of the assumptions underlying your rationale.Griswaldo (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This closure inadvertently violates the BLP policy. I removed "category fraudsters" from a number of BLP articles. I did so because although the people have been convicted of fraud (expenses fiddling), "fraudster" may imply career criminality or lifestyle rather than specific related incidents in people famous for other reasons. Now, there are various ways of reading the term "fraudster" and ymmv. However, on a BLP we err on the side of accuracy rather than ambiguity in negative categorisation. Regardless of the CFD, a removal under BLP requires a consensus that it is safe and proper to replace the item - there is no such consensus.

What happened then was that Will beback created "persons convicted of fraud" as a compromise and that was then sent to CFD. I agree with Back Kite that the CFD didn't produce a clear result. (Although most people said keep or reverse merge). However, no consensus here, as elsewhere, ought to default to "keep". That is a matter for a DRV. But be that as it may, no consensus does not mean replace a description ("fraudster") removed under BLP. If someone wants to replace that, they need to generate a strong consensus in support. Replacing the category (as Black Kite did) without consensus is specifically disallowed.

I've re-removed the category from John Taylor, Baron Taylor of Warwick‎, David Chaytor and Eric Illsley‎. I expect there will be edit-waring to replace it, so can I ask some uninvolved people to watchlist here until the matter is resolved.--Scott Mac 10:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on one point - material in userspace for which insufficient cause for deletion is given should default to "Keep." Also essays in projectspace, especially since some discussions have been rumoured to center on strong editor-editor or bloc-bloc conflicts, rather than reasons for deletion, also should default to "Keep" and I trust you agree on these exceptions. Collect (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Help needed with deleting categories

The discussion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs has been closed as rename all, and there are a whole lot of categories (I believe over 100) which still need to be deleted. It would be nice if some other admins would help out - I've been doing most of the deleting here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think that close was dubious, looked more like a "no consensus" to me, but it's probably a fait accompli now. – ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This should help (without comment on the close). –xeno^talk 20:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

From a 30-second look, I'd say that is very likely to require DRV, and so I'd suggest a short hiatus before bothering to delete them. IMHO, of course.  Chzz  ►  01:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:CFD/W we have a bot for that. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

When is an attack page not an attack page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – article deleted, discussion over wording of G10 started. The rest of this wall of text amounts to a debate over the color of the bikeshed. --Jayron32 05:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

---

I put a db-attack tag on Tina Mai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on the grounds that unsourced claims of a person being a porn star and a spokesperson for a female fertility pill is an attack page. My tagging was removed, and now I'm getting flak about somehow I have a POV against porn, which is ridiculous, and I'm not assuming good faith. Well, yes, I don't assume good faith when a page is clearly an attack page. Now we've got to sit through a 7-day AfD discussion. Is it fixed policy that calling anybody a porn star without a reliable source is not a WP:BLP violation? Corvus cornix_talk 03:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that it would constitute a BLP violation. That's not the same thing as an attack page. I don't see why this is getting put on AN. This is a minor issue of precision. Note that the questionable content about the individual has been blanked pending completion of the AfD, so spending a few days on it is not intrinsically problematic and provides minimal risk. If someone wants to A-10 they probably could. This isn't necessary for AN or ANI. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to know that anyone can call somebody else a porn actor and it isn't an attack. Corvus cornix_talk 03:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In cases where the entire article has to be removed, speedy deletion is appropriate. NW (Talk) 03:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, no one is arguing otherwise. The primary concern here was that BLP and attack page are not the same thing. This is really a very minor procedural issue. I'm deeply confused about why we need to have an AN thread about this. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I need a clarification as to whether calling someone a porn actor without reliable sources is an attack or not. Corvus cornix_talk 03:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not intrinsically no. Note that whether something is an attack is not actually connected to sourcing. Note incidentally that G10 includes "is entirely negative in tone" which the article clearly wasn't. Finally, if there is somewhere that this should be clarified, the appropriate venue would either by at the BLP noticeboard or at the talk page for speedy deletion criteria. There's no reason to have this on AN. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, both of those claims are your contentions, both of which I disagree with. Let's let some others weigh in. I will abide by a consensus decision, if it really comes down to not being an attack to call somebody a porn actor, I won't bother to tag such claims any further. Corvus cornix_talk 03:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing that BLP violations and attack pages are not the same thing. Something can be one or the other or both or neither. The wording I quoted above about G10 in regards to "entirely negative in tone" is directly from the speedy deletion criterion page. I still don't understand why you think that AN is the ideal place to discuss this. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So I am assuming that you would find nothing wrong with waiting a full week for an article like "Joshua Zelinsky is an actor who videotapes himself having sex with other men and women and then sells those videos over the internet with money. He has made $50 million dollars doing this over the last two years." to be deleted, right? NW (Talk) 03:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No. That would be bad, in the same way that leaving this with the content is bad. Blanking the article and having an AfD with the blanked article there isn't particularly problematic. Nor for that matter is deleting purely by appeal to BLP or after content removal per A7 or A3. If someone wants to go and A7 the article I'll agree with them completely. No one is arguing about what is the best course of action. The point is a purely procedural note that G10 isn't the criterion to use. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What speedy deletion criterion applies for BLP violations that is not db-attack? BLP PROD is not a speedy deletion.Corvus cornix_talk 03:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A7 or A3 if there's no content after removing all the problematic stuff. G3 is also an option. If someone wants to delete simply per BLP that's something I'd consider an option too in the clear cut cases. But the wording of G10 is unmistakeable- it must be "is entirely negative in tone and unsourced" otherwise it isn't G10. If you think we should broaden G10 I'd be somewhat inclined to agree but that's a discussion that requires changing the wording of a policy that should occur at talk for CSD or at talk for BLP policy. I still don't see why we're on AN. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: best thing here would have been (a) remove the questionable unsourced BLP content (which is virtually all of it) and then (b) apply WP:BLPPROD (or perhaps even WP:CSD#A3, no content). Rd232 ^talk 03:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. I am really, really shocked that anybody can possibly argue that calling someone a porn actor is not an attack. I guess calling someone gay isn't an attack, either? Because if I were to tag an article as an attack page, that would be evidence of my hatred for gay people, too, just as my tagging of an article claiming that someone is a porn star is somehow evidence of my hatred for porn. Corvus cornix_talk 03:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Attack page is a technical term not a general term for negative content. Please reread G10. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yah, and you might want to reread WP:AGF, since you seem to think that my tagging of the article as an attack page is somehow evidence of my hatred for porn. Corvus cornix_talk 03:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Valid point. I made a bad assumption there that wasn't justified. I apologize. Have you reread G10? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A new user called "YeaYourMom" creates an article full of personal details like date of birth, high school and parents' names calling someone a porn star with no references? And Google turns up nothing relevant? Whether or not that's an attack page (and it is), it needs to be deleted with no further delay. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. If the original version of the article was not an attack page, nothing is. Jonathunder (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I missed the creator's username (and that they have no prior edit history); that changes the picture a lot and should have been mentioned sooner. Rd232 ^talk 04:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

While there probably are circumstances where someone could add "porn star" in good faith, this article clearly wasn't one of them. If it didn't "technically" meet speedy requirements, this is a good opportunity for a healthy dose of IAR - the article can always be easily restored if something turns up. Shell ^babelfish 03:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• After looking on IAFD (think IMDb for porn stars), I can find no "actress" named Tina Mai. Delete as non-notable and SALT. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No salting necessary. She may or may not be notable as a model, probably not at this point but who knows. The issue is that she isn't a porn actress. As for whether creating a page to describe someone's career in adult entertainment is an attack page, no, not inherently. It's a perfectly legal profession, acceptable in some circles. Some people use it as a slur, and there are some people who disparage all sexuality or eroticism as porn (per google image search, she seems to pose in a lot of topless shots that are carefully posed to be more suggestive than explicit) - so if that's the reason this misleading page was created, it would be an attack page. I think it is reasonable to suspect bad faith if an editor creates an unsourced page that makes false claims of a controversial nature about a person, but I wouldn't go so far as to say we can assume or conclude that. Only the article creator knows, we can only speculate. Or ask. Or just tell them not to do it again. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"She seems to pose in a lot of topless shots" - that's not the same Tina Mai. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• So I speedied the article (A7, A3, G3, G10, BLP, take your pick). If you want, DRV is thattaway, no need to stop on my talk page first. NW (Talk) 03:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And if anyone takes that to DRV they should be trouted. In any event, I've started a section on WT:CSD about changing the wording of G10. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wanted: Deletionist admin (will pay)

As pointed out on the mailing list, there's money to be made here.

I'm sorely tempted to apply.--Scott Mac 14:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wonder what they want gone. An article on themselves? On a competitor? On a band they hate? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If they have to offer money then it must be something fun, like a nation or major world religion. I just wonder if they realize that "permanently deleted" translates into "only until the check clears"? --Allen3 ^talk 15:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Everyone should keep on eye out for an admin whose lifestyle suddenly changes from that big $50 fee. (To avoid suspicion, now's not the time to buy the next round at the Admin Saloon.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

But it's Super Bowl Sunday! How does one not expect to buy rounds for everyone during or before the big game? –MuZemike 20:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I say someone trustworthy should bite, find out what the article is, and post it here. This is of course assuming someone hasn't already bit, deleted the article, and moved on. Make check payable to Jimbo Wales. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll pay US$50 for an admin with experience deleting pages to get rid of the Main Page. Just make sure it doesn't get replaced :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ask Robdurbar, since he has experience. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is that still possible? I know it's been done before, but I was under the impression that at this point it was just impossible to mess with. Meanwhile I know of a few other targets for deletion? No one would notice, eh? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Only one way to find out... :D - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll delete anything for 50 bucks :) –anemoneprojectors– 20:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, inflation. I remember when Larry, Daryl and Daryl would do anything for a buck. No comment on whether they were over or under-qualified to be admins.--SPhilbrickT 21:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Heck.Forget deleting.I want a Wikipediaette who will DO anything for $50 ;) Lemon martini (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What about all the related posts of people looking to hire freelance writers to write articles about them? Do you think the writers still get paid when I speedy delete their spam? l'aquatique[talk] 01:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've bid on this; waiting to hear back. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I sense great amusement coming in on this topic. Please do keep us updated, Mike, this could be quite funny. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We could blackmail the guy into paying more: "Hey, that was a nasty article I deleted; be a shame if it were to, I dunno show up again, huh?" HalfShadow 17:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No, because there's a "permanently deleted" clause there. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope that Orange Mike doesn't find out it's a WMF sting operation! Oy vey! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be even more amusing. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This should be looked into. While most paid editing requests are done with promotion or vanity as the motivating factor, a request to delete content might signify BLP concerns. The buyer might be represented here unfairly and not know how to remedy the situation. In this case an experienced user can edit or delete the material as needed. Even a borderline-notable subject that wants his article deleted should be given the benefit of an AfD. If this is just someone wanting to mess with corporate competition or an article they don't agree with, they should be politely told to go fly a kite. ThemFromSpace 07:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm still waiting on what the article is. Here's a proposal: when Orange Mike finds out what it is, lets all work on getting it up to FA status. That'd be a fun challenge! --Jayron32 04:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Or we could just take turns deleting and then restoring the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Frustrated

I have lost count of the number of times that I have seen unprotected images on the main page, we had two images on the main page today for about 4 hours before it was protected. Each time I see this I get an urge to reupload a goatse image over the unprotected image just to make a point. WHAT THE FUCK DO I HAVE TO DO SO THAT WE DON'T END UP WITH PENISES ON THE MAIN PAGE? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Try tagging the talk pages with {{adminhelp}} and an explanation of what needs to be done. If this isn't working quickly enough for you, browse through some administrative logs to find an admin who is currently online and drop them a talk page message. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It took me about 4 hours to notice the issue, once I found out I got it fixed fairly quickly, but admins should not be placing images on the main page unprotected. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In fairness they aren't. All that stuff is pre loaded a few days in advance. The On this day template in particular is not admins only. On the other hand 4 hours is kinda painful.©Geni 04:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

TFP is about 4 hours and 45 minutes old, so its not all preloaded. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

and SA problem today is about 8 hours old, nothing was pre-loaded. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, yeah, hi, WP:BEANS? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Its not beans if it has already happened in the past. Well maybe it still is, but the point stands. Why are people looking for ways to shoot the editor whose name I cannot type because I dont have a symbolic or greek keyboard, and why are people who don't know what they are doing working with the main page image? Syrthiss (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC) yeah, don't move my comments. its a reply to neutralhomer, seems out of place where you put it, and has a magical quality called a timestamp that shows that it was indeed made AFTER the comments below it. thx! Syrthiss (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am in no way shooting the editor, just saying we shouldn't give people ideas. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we make an even bigger editnotice? Something about penises in large bold letters should do the trick. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the editnotice could have an image of an actual penis, to shock people into action...? No? I'll get my coat... :) Rd232 ^talk 04:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How about this image with the caption "use protection please". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Use a bot to remove them if they are unprotected. Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.91.236 (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If a bot can determine which images are on the main page it can just protect them. I thought we already had something like that in place? Why is it not working? Yoenit (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Krinkle is SUPPOSED to be running a bot on commons to be fixing this... (X! · talk)  · @838  ·  19:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests/Δ Ive filed a request for +sysop on commons to fix this problem. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Were penises on the main page this time? If not, then the system worked as intended. Yes, it probably should have gotten fixed earlier. However, since most admins aren't involved in the day-to-day opperations of the main page content, posting these complaints here isn't going to get much changed. Empirically, the evidence is clear that it doesn't change anything because it keeps happening. We all know about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Instead of ranting HERE about it, which as we know for the umpteenth time, has no effect on ensuring that the problem will ever get better in the future, lets instead work on working with the people who actually DO update the main page, like WP:ITN and WP:TFA and WP:DYK and the like. Its usually a small group of editors that maintain those parts of Wikipedia. May I suggest we try to get something fixed in the way those project operate, rather than coming here and demanding that admins who, by and large, don't make it a habit to check the main page every few seconds to see if every image is protected. In other words, try to get the projects on board with better QC procedures to ensure that the unprotected pics don't hit the main page. Cuz these discussions at AN are not getting the desired result, we should instead try a different approach. Another idea might be to institute a bot-task which scans the main page every few minutes, finds unprotected pics, and then drops a short note at WP:AN or on the IRC channels so it can be fixed quickly. Anything has got to work better than bitching after the problem has already been corrected each time. Cuz that REALLY isn't working. --Jayron32 05:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

May I quietly suggest that if we are going to have a large image of a penis warning people anywhere,I can think of no more appropriate place than WP:DICK? :) Lemon martini (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Eyes on Egypt Pages Needed

Reports are coming out that "Egypt's president Mubarak will transfer powers to vice president", according to al Arabiya. With that, all Egypt pages should be watched if not semi-protected pre-emptively. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just went with what I had heard. Bad information on my fault. The people in Tahrir Square are NOT happy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I was a day ahead. :) Might need those eyes now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at RFPP

I don't know what the usual backlog is at Requests for Page Protection, but I'd appreciate it greatly if any admin who has a moment would look in there. Seems to be a bit of a traffic jam at the moment. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely appears to be a lack of admins over there at the moment - especially those willing to deal with more controversial cases. I've had a requested lingering there for over a day! Dpmuk (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jared Lee Loughner#Requested move

Resolved

 – closed by Bwilkins. -Atmoz (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin close Talk:Jared Lee Loughner#Requested move? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Women's Week

There has been a suggestion on the gendergap mailing list that the Foundation hold some kind of event around March 8 (International Women's Day) to encourage new women editors to sign up. A provisional page has been opened on Meta to discuss this. Please see Women on Wikipedia Week, and its talk page. Although it's being called a week for now, it could be for a month. All input welcome. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I need a "like" button for this suggestion... --Jayron32 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a seriously good idea. Interestingly enough, I attended a talk on Wikipedia and the GLAM project yesterday and most of the large (100+) audience were women. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Any techies about?

See my post at WP:VPT#PDF help please. It's driving me nuts! Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a problem specific to your own computer set-up; it's certainly nothing that the admin noticeboard can help with. It's not even related to Wikipedia - although, it has been answered on the pump; and as advised there, one place to ask is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing.

I appreciate that computers often drive us all nuts, but please don't ask Wikipedia admins to solve problems with Windows XP.  Chzz  ►  03:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC closure

Talk:Jared Lee Loughner#Placement of Image

Open for 24 days, no comments for the last 17 days, I left a note , any objections to early closure, if no one objects , would someone close it some time tomorrow, please. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Any compelling reasons to not wait the extra six days? I don't really understand the rush to close things before they're supposed to close, since we have no deadline to meet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing compelling, no. Off2riorob (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge closure

I participated in a discussion to merge Software license agreement into Software license. The discussion began in 2006 and the last Oppose was September 2010. No one has adequately disambiguated these similar terms and I'd like to move forward with the merge – but wanted to ask an uninvolved admin to close the discussion first. --Pnm (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

3 people opposing, 2 supporting - and one of those weak. I don't see consensus. If you need more input, try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software.  Chzz  ►  03:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted requests for more participation. --Pnm (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Closing a move discussion

The move proposal at Talk:Spark (fire) has had no comments for quite a few days, and can should probably be closed. Although by pure number of votes there's probably no consensus, I understand that what matters more than the number of votes is the strength of the arguments. There's plenty of jargon involved, so I'd hope that the closing admin would be somewhat knowledgable in science issues, and I suggest reading the entire talkpage to get the sense of the discussion.

As a sidenote, I feel I should include an honest disclaimer. I'm certainly biased in this argument, but I reason that an Admin familiar with science would be able to discount any arguments that are based in false science or inaccuracies. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this the right place to post this?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If it were a few weeks later, and there weren't a full month's worth of request in front of this one in the queue, then you would post it to WP:AN/I or use {{adminhelp}} (the admin bat signal). This is the correct place to say, "Hey guys! Month's worth of unclosed RMs!" --Danger (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Hey guys! Month's worth of unclosed RMs!"--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Right Time by Bosson

Not sure what to do here. The Right Time (album) and The Right Time (Bosson album) have both existed for over three years so I'm not sure if a merge or history merge would be best. They are the same article. Simply south...... 13:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Normally we'd redirect the newer version to the older one, but, even though The Right Time (album) is older, The Right Time (Bosson album) has more revisions and is more developed, so I redirected and tagged it with {{Redirect from duplicated article}}. -- œ^™ 14:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Should anything be done about the histories? Simply south...... 15:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah. -- œ^™ 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? There is also a The Right Time (Etta James album) so it would make more sense to redirect the first one to the disambiguation page. Simply south...... 01:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

History merges are only for fixing ccut-and-paste moves, not for merging articles. A history merge in the latter case would generally create many overlapping revisions. Graham87 02:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I've done the redirect only. Simply south...... 12:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Digital Leather

Article Digital Leather had been previously deleted (10 Jan 2011, 6 Jan 2011, and in 2006).

On 3 Feb, a new version was created by Rachel Grace (talk · contribs).

I checked it, and given the references, decided it was 'acceptable'.

Admin JzG (talk · contribs) deleted it as A7, and blocked the user as "Abusing multiple accounts" - no SPI, so presumably, in eir view, a DUCK.

xe also left a comment, Join the dots, block the socks [32]

A) I do not believe that Digital Leather should have been deleted under WP:CSD#A7

B) I do not believe it was reasonable to make an assumption that the user was a WP:DUCK.

The article created was substantially different, and reasonably referenced.

Even if the user does turn out to be the same person, the A7 was wrong. And, I believe, the assumption of sock was inappropriate. WP:AGF WP:BITE.

I take no pleasure in complaining here, but I have already asked JzG (talk · contribs) directly, and I am not at all satisfied with eir response of The user is either a sockpuppet or a metapuppet, per the duck test. This article subject is being astroturfed (sic) [33]

I note that another admin queried this, and JzG wrote, Call me a nasty suspicious bastard, but when Brand New Users register just in order to re-create content that was previously written by a WP:SPA and deleted I always think the worst. [34]

In reply to the above, JzG: I'm sorry, but yes - I do think you are being overly suspicious, and jumping to conclusions.

Please consider removing the block, AGF, and either restoring or userfying the article. If you suspect sock-puppetry, I suggest you file an SPI.

 Chzz  ►  05:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that the article should not have been deleted. It does not fall under A7, IMO; the references given mean it passes WP:GNG and doesn't qualify for A7. XfD, maybe; I haven't researched all the refs yet, but CSD, no. Another administrator, Killiondude (talk · contribs), moved the page from Rachel Grace's userspace to mainspace, which I also find to be a signal of this deletion being in appropriate. The sock accusations aren't completely unfounded, but I would definitely err on the side of caution and file an SPI (it could be related to paid editing as well?) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh FFS. we have an article created by WP:SPAs, deleted, then immediately re-created by a brand new WP:SPA. Do we really have to bend over backwards to enable this astroturfing? It's pretty clear that it's promotion and nothing else. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've salted the title. If the article is to be created, it should be done via a userspace draft and fully assessed before re-creation and only moved if it can be shown to meet the general criteria for articles. Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Mjroots, that is exactly what was done this time. It was written in userspace. It was assessed by an administrator and then moved to article space. And the result was JzG essentially saying "I have personally determined that Wikipedia will not, under any circumstances, have an article about this group - it's outta here, and so are you." This is not an acceptable standard. Can anyone give me a good reason why I should not reverse this deletion, and why I should not unblock the editor involved? At what point does a musical group become important enough that we will keep their article? I think the threshold has been crossed in this case. Risker (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Right. Written in userspace by a new account who registered just to tell the world about this fantastic and under-appreciated act. That happens all the time. Oh, wait, they get deleted all the time as well. If consensus is to let the spammers have what they want then so be it, but don't expect me to be especially happy about it. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have undeleted the article. We have three editors agreeing that it should be undeleted (Chzz, Fetchcomms and Risker), and one who gives as conditions to have such an article basically exactly what happened this time around (Mjroots), which means that the deleting admin is basically the only one left to support this deletion. This speedy is clearly contested, and has no copyright or G10 implications or any other overriding argument, so should be taken to AfD instead if needed. I have not unblocked the editor who created the article, because it is not clear whether more evidence of sockpuppetry is available or not, and because no clear consensus for or against the block has been achieved yet. An unblock by the blocking admin, or a SPI by said admin, would seem to be the best solution though. Fram (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the editor has had prior activity, with some few but good-faith contributions a year ago in a totally different field (excellent contribution here: [35]; mistaken but good-faith contribution here: [36]), I would say a sockpuppet case seems weak. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, IP info in the deleted history tells me that there were participants from different parts of the world working on the different drafts, and the Azlord account was probably based in a different location from that of Rachel Grace. I'll unblock in a short while (or somebody else can do so, as far as I'm concerned), unless I hear a good reason not to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask them what their original account was and unblock that one with an explanation of why they shouldn't be switching identities (in this particular case, it's clear that this is a returning user).

When someone makes the effort to create an article that does pass our notability critera, especially after the frustration of having had previous versions deleted — they should be congratulated and encouraged to contribute further — not blocked and their worked deleted because they didn't get it right the first time! — Coren ^(talk) 14:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(sorry, ec) I actually just unblocked her, before seeing your comment. I'm not sure what you mean by "their original account". She said she didn't have any. She's had her present account since February last year (and there are some IP edits in the deleted history of the band article from last August that may or may not have been her editing logged-out, based on IP location and what she says about herself, but that would of course not be problematic.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Works for me regardless. The point is I'd rather give the editor a chance. — Coren ^(talk) 14:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say that given the explanation above I am OK with the unsalting and undeletion. It would appear that there is a WP:OWN issue that needs to be dealt with. Mjroots (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, WP:DRV does usually work to take care of these things with minimal drahmahz. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that DRV probably would have taken care of the deletion of the article, but it would have done nothing to address the blocking of the editor, which was equally problematic and entwined in the deletion. Better to address the whole situation rather than bureaucratizing things any further. Risker (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Valentine's Day

It might be best to temp protect Saint Valentine as it is getting too much attention from anonIPs today and yesterday. ww2censor (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:RfPP is the place to go; however, I see some good contributions coming through and don't think the level of vandalism is quite high enough. Often publicity helps articles, such as Robert Indiana (the artist behind the Google logo today). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes might work. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was only supposed to be used for BLPs right now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You might be right; I'm not an admin, so I'm not really up on these things just yet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

How can I deal with difficult user?

Hi. I have complains about behaviour of User:DIREKTOR related to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nedić_regime I am not sure is he violating Wiki rules, but he forcing opinion that WW2 entity ruled by government of Milan Nedić should not be called "Serbia". I presented to him several sources that mention this entity under name Serbia, but he simply ignoring these sources (and all other that I presented to him). I tried to settle dispute with voting, but user User:DIREKTOR said that "there is no way that he will accept a move weaseled-out this way". So, how can I deal with user that ignoring sources and that trying by all means to push his opinion no matter what sources say? Is there a way for administrator mediation in this case? I mean, is there a way that some administrator can say his judgment about validity of sources that I presented and, if sources are valid, how one user can be forced not to ignore them? PANONIAN 19:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should try some of the steps listed at dispute resolution. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried that but seems that nobody care: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ethnic_and_cultural_conflicts_noticeboard#Serbia_in_World_War_II PANONIAN 19:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I would like to point out that the title itself looks a lot like trolling. Secondly, since we are discussing an article move, the user should understand that his sources, while (mostly) valid, are in a significant minority (a dozen vs 160) and that WP:NAME and WP:COMMONNAME apply. Thirdly, PANONIAN has still not grasped that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that our goal is not to "vote" on the most "popular" title, but to discuss and determine sources usage.

The user has posted a WP:RM on the page in question. It is in the process of being "democratically voted down" (in addition to lacking relevant sources support). He then proceeded to post a rather perplexing "RM" of his own design (while the first RM is still on), displaying a complete lack of understanding of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and intending to weasel-through a move without any regard for actual naming policy.

That said, I want to be clear that I have NO IDEA why this content dispute thread was even posted here. I assume the user is just frustrated he is not able to have his own way (he is also WP:CANVASSING [37] others in Serbian to come and "complain" about any content disputes they may or may not have with me.)
Just remember, I'm the "difficult user".. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am not the only user that expressed concern about claims of user:DIREKTOR: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANedi%C4%87_regime&action=historysubmit&diff=413925829&oldid=413924171 As for canvassing, I am not the one who canvassed other users to vote against my renaming proposal: [38], [39], [40]PANONIAN 20:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the right place for you two to argue. A noticeboard is not really dispute resolution, PANONIAN. Go to MEDCAB or file an RfC. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

CAT:UAA poke

Just a reminder, the UAA category is filling up with a fair amount of questionable usernames. If a administrator could rule on the names, I'd be happy to de-categorize them so that the backlog gets back to a reasonable size. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll work through some of them today. -- œ^™ 22:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Special:NewPages

...is cleared again. This is where I go "don't say I never do anything for you, you kids never thank me" or some similar guff and chase you off my land with a shotgun, right? Ironholds (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Goddamn, I must have tagged 30 pages and patrolled 5 times as many today. Someone's got to pick up the slack now that one of our old guard NPPers is gone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Don't forget there is also reams of material needing new page patroller love here. –xeno^talk 00:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  We really need to make it clearer to people that if the page is good enough to avoid CSD, you should remove the unreviewed template; I'm just as guilty as anyone else of forgetting to do that, but that would really save us a lot of time. Off to work I go. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  I have clarified the docs as a result of this comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  See also WP:FEED. There's a lot of new articles there, with users at least bothering to ask people to check. But, not enough people reviewing them.

  And related comments I made in signpost, today - suggesting that maybe it is time for all new users writing new articles to go through check (like AFC). Chzz  ►  16:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

RFD

May I ask an administrator to close two remaining discussions on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_9? (I can not because I participated in them.) Ruslik_Zero 20:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

SVG-derived PNG rendering problems

Hi! There seems to be something very serious with rendering (at least some of the) SVG image "previews". I'm not even sure yet if it's Wikipedia's problem or there's a problem in commons. The thing is, I've noticed this happening on File:EU-Hungary.svg first, which doesn't have any of the thumbnails rendered (not even the one that's used on the Hungary article), not even the old revision ones. Also when I click to the image page, I only get a placeholder icon. It goes without saying that SVG images are rendered correctly in my browser and as soon as I get to an SVG image, it displays correctly. Also, as far as the File:EU-Hungary.svg image goes, even the pre-rendered images (200px, 500px etc.) are broken and show the same placeholder icon (this one in particular). This might be an isolated problem, but I found at least another suspicious file (File:Location_Spain_EU_Europe_1.svg), which seems to contain some errors as well, so it might or might not be related to the problem mentioned above.
As for the notification, I know that it's technical in nature (and maybe you don't even have the ability/privileges/tools/knowledge to deal with it), but I haven't found a proper place to report this in a hurry. Therefore I'd also appreciate it if you'd point me to the right page for any future reports. Thanks. CoolKoon (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC) NOTE: I've checked the Commons page of the image mentioned above and its usage on other language Wikipedias and it's rendered correctly. Therefore I'm afraid that the problem IS indeed limited to English Wikipedia only. CoolKoon (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's rendering fine for me. Are you sure this isn't a problem with just your browser? lifebaka++ 11:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If it'd be a problem with my browser, it would be more consistent I think (I'd have problems elsewhere too and also with other files). And besides, why would a placeholder icon appear on the page when I click on this: File:EU-Hungary.svg ? Also, the links (to the pre-rendered images) on the page point to the placeholder icon as well and there's no way I could do that. Also, no matter how often I refresh the page, the same thing appears again and again (so it isn't a temporary problem). CoolKoon (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, it isn't the SVG image I'm seeing the problem with. The SVG image itself renders correctly for me as well. It's the PNGs generated from this SVG that are missing (And everything, thumbnails seem to be missing, pre-rendered PNGs at fixed sizes etc.). CoolKoon (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Svg's of all the EU maps aren't working for me, although some of the png's are (Hungary is working for me). Others are having problems too, and there's a message at Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab/Map workshop by another editor. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out! You're right, the rest of the EU maps don't show up for me either, at least when viewing from the English Wikipedia (if I view them from the Commons they work fine). When you're checking out any of the other maps, make sure you don't view them via the Commons, but via the English Wikipedia. Thanks for the link too, I've posted a notice over there too. Hopefully something will be done about it soon. CoolKoon (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done some research as far as the EU maps are concerned and found out that it's the EU maps of the following countries that don't work: Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. All of the files use the naming convention EU-Country_Name.svg (e.g. File:EU-United_Kingdom.svg, File:EU-Slovenia.svg etc.), none of these are displayed correctly (at least the PNG files derived from them), all of them use a placeholder icon instead and basically have the same issues as the File:EU-Hungary.svg mentioned above. CoolKoon (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what caused the issue, but purging the commons pages seems to work for me. There isn't any obvious broken code in the actual SVG files, so it's probably our (known buggy) SVG renderer at fault. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a centralized page or master bug-report about the known-bugginess? I've talked to lots of people who each individually know word-of-mouth that something or another is broken, but can never point to a place to make sure it's all tracked (or that new issues aren't ignored). DMacks (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There's our bugzilla ([41]), but I honestly wouldn't bother for this. The developers already know that the SVG renderer is less than ideal. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yaaay, it's fixed :D Thanks ;) How about using a different renderer? :P (nah, just kidding :) How about setting the renderer to debug mode for a while so that the developers could collect some more info about it? You know the advice you've given me bears some strong resemblance to the process (and result of) reporting bugs/issues with Lotus Notes to IBM (even as an employee)... CoolKoon (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ban of Access Denied

See [42] --Perseus8235 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume this is just notification, therefore WP:DFTT, it's been done. Email appeal is the remaining option. Sad, but.  Chzz  ►  03:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Mardi Gras coming soon-pending changes setting?

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, I checked the Wikipedia:Pending changes page and didn't notice a place to request it and WP:ANI didn't seem right either. For the last several years the carnival season has led to major spikes in vandalism and promotional editing to several articles dealing with the subject of Mardi Gras. A month or so ago I asked for Mardi Gras to be enabled with the pending changes setting, and since then it has gone really well. Would it also be possible to add the setting to several other pages associated with the holiday? Specifically Mardi Gras in the United States, New Orleans Mardi Gras, and Courir de Mardi Gras? It is now 3 weeks til Mardi Gras, and several of these pages are already starting to see increased traffic. Thanks, Heiro 01:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

As far as I am aware, English Wikipedia has not chosen to implement "pending changes", other than on a pre-selected number of articles, for a trial period which ended in November of 2010. Anyone please correct me if I am mistaken.  Chzz  ►  03:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, remember that Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia. WP:PROT, and semi-prot is (mostly) for significant but temporary vandalism (ibed). If there is evidence of vandalism, then sure - just request at WP:RPP (although now it's been posted here, I imagine it'll be dealt with, in this specific case).  Chzz  ►  03:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Last I heard, Jimbo/etc went against the wishes of the community consensus by leaving it enabled after the trial period which was approved based on the belief it would be disabled after the trial pending further discussion. That never happened (unless I missed it as well as the discussion the community had wanting to enable it permanently - which is possible I suppose). [stwalkerster|talk] 03:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

ECx3::See the logs page for Mardi Gras here, it was implemented Jan 10th. It sure makes it easier keeping track of the vandals and spammers on that page. As you can see, the article over the past few years has had to be semiprotected during the season, this was seen as an alternative this year, as requirement for editing is autoconfirmed, no fullprotection. If their edits are constructive, they get confirmed.Heiro 03:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I sympathize, understand, and all that. But let's not start an off-topic argument on AN. Please post a request to WP:RPP and see how it goes? With respect,  Chzz  ►  03:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Heading there now, thanks. Heiro 03:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User name question

I've posted this question at WT:UAA, but have yet to garner any input from the admins who regularly edit there. User:SJ MSI has been adding a link to http://malayalasangeetham.info across multiple articles (one example amongst many). This was previously brought up as an EL issue here, but there is also a username issue with an account named SJ MSI promoting a site called MSI. Should the account be blocked as a UAA violation? As a spam account? I've requested they stop adding the links until I receive additional input and I don't want to leave them hanging indefinitely as they are willing to communicate. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of scope user page

User:Llibertatcom, out of scope, same story in many local wikipedias.--Musamies (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I also have one, User:Ragityman. This one is more like an ad. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If any of these qualify for speedy deletion (usually attack pages or spam, but sometimes others), tag them appropriately. Otherwise, if you think they should b e deleted, nominate them at WP:Miscellany for deletion, where frequently the consensus is to delete such pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If it means anything, the old version of the first userpage is a long essay about how he was unfairly banned from Spanish Wikipedia [43], written in Spanish. The current page is written in Catalan and says, "The Bible says you should pray for these people" (I'm very proud I knew that without using a machine translator; I'm not so proud that I couldn't figure out which Iberian-based language it was though). Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with either of those user pages. "Llibertatcom", the statement doesn't look to be offensive or anything."Ragityman" doesn't make a massive amount of sense, but I fail to see how it could be considered a blatant advert for anything.

I'd suggest you speak to the users about any concerns you have, on their user talk pages. (Incidentally, you should have informed both editors of this discussion).

Regardless: if you think the pages inappropriate (for whatever reasons), please use Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. This isn't the noticeboard you are looking for. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  20:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Frances Fox Piven

For those interested in such things, the Frances Fox Piven AfD is shaping up into being a policy setting/confirming/direction discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• It really isn't. We don't make policy at AfD in any substantial sense. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Right. If one AfD made policy, things would be remarkably confused. A series of AfD decisions over a period of time does indicate our interpretation of policy & guidelines, but any one article can always be seen as a special case for any number of reasons. This is especially true with BLP , where the nature of our basic policy of Do No Harm means that we need to take each specific situation into account. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:PERM/C flood

There are about 4 requests not done on there; including mine. Please clear the flood. Dr. Zombieman ^brains.../_{the infected} 16:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I smell some foot odor. >.> /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Four is hardly a flood, Dr. Zombieman. Please remember that admins are volunteers.

I checked the requests (in my non-admin capacity), and none of them really needed the permission. They were either requests to upload pictures (when they could use Commons), or requests to move (which belong on WP:RM). I've responded to all of them.  Chzz  ►  21:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question closed

An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question;
2. NinaGreen (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
3. NinaGreen is topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating (broadly construed) to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford;
4. The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on Smatprt (talk · contribs). Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

What to do with a factually inaccurate image

This image is riddled with numerous factual errors and inaccuracies which I believe make it unfit for inclusion in the encyclopaedia in its present state. Is there a means for requesting a better image? Do I head over to Files for Deletion? Or am I making this inquiry in the wrong place to begin with? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The image itself appears to be unused on the English Wikipedia site for reasons you mention (see File talk:Europe 1914.png--images have talk-pages to discuss their contents just like articles do). The image itself is actually hosted on commons (commons:File:Europe 1914.png), and there's a talk-page there for discussing it. It's up to that site (which has its own procedures for dealing with content issues) how to proceed. I think they have a {{Disputed diagram}} or {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} tag you can place on the image-page on commons. DMacks (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You will find that I was the one to remove it from all non-user pages on this wiki and that I have already commented in the file talk. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Commons does not have the same sort of NPOV policy that English Wikipedia does, because it's not an encyclopedia. In general, a merely biased map or diagram (if it is that; I haven't examined it closely) doesn't violate Commons policy to the extent of requiring deletion, because even a biased diagram could conceivably fulfill an educational purpose, even if it's only of the "this is what they actually believe" variety. If the image is not being used here, you might want to let it go at that. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a question of bias or POV, this is a case of factually incorrect material contained in an image with reasonably high use across several projects. I have removed both this PNG and its JPG twin from all non-userpages on the English wiki, and I would like to see it stricken from all pages unless it is fixed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably, this is the original map that was used for creating the image.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No wonder. That map has many of the same problems, along with some painful colouration inconsistencies. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's indisputably inaccurate, you might consider two options: 1) editing the map and overwriting it with a correct copy, or 2) nominating it for deletion as outside not conforming to commons:Commons:Project scope. The second one is trickier, because any legitimate use of the image in an encyclopedia means it's not out of scope (e.g, an image referring to bad mapping techniques). Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy-deleting oddity

(boldly moving this to WP:VPT, Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC))

Too much to read...proposal to merge...

See Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_to_merge_two_subsections where I am proposing the merger of WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. Posting it here as is a policy we abide by :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Forced_Response_tool_for_Admins

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Forced_Response_tool_for_Admins for a proposed new tool for admins. Rd232 ^talk 01:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

User:V7-sport

V7-sport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

(not sure if that is the right forum here but there are no other people around in other forums)

V7-sport is WP:WIKIHOUNDING and attacking me on this page here and multiple other pages. With the justification i would be a supporter of jihad: ""This is made more disturbing by you exclusively intervening on behalf of anyone who has murdered the kuffar in the name of jihad." he said. What alone is already a reason to block him apart from shouting, disruptive editing, out of context quoting, ad hominem arguments and personal attacks. This is extremely disruptive and leaves no time to keep up with the real issues. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqinn (talk • contribs) 08:22, February 16, 2011

There's a duplicate of this thread over at AN/I, where it's receiving more attention. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 08:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No it does not got more intention over there apart from and one comment by lifebaka that did not directly addressed the issue. Thank you IQinn (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, WP:FORUMSHOP is bad, and ANI is the place for incidents such as this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Tagging dead-end and orphaned articles

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this but I have noticed that the tagging for orphaned and dead-end articles generate nearly identical tags with only the order of words differing. Could the categories and tags for both these types be merged to create one, and therefore make things a little more efficient? Hugahoody (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

...or preferably both of the templates could be done away with entirely. They only detract from the articles they appear on anyway. 71.185.49.174 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

→ WP:TfD. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK orphaned articles don't have incoming links and dead-end articles don't have outgoing links. Obviously the two will be highly correlated but the don't mean anywhere near the same thing. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My guess also is (per general observation) that many articles are either still tagged as orphaned and no longer are, or have never been tagged in the first place. One could rectify this by running a database request that lists articles that only 0 or 1 incoming/outgoing links, bounce that list with what we currently have tagged, and then have a bot take care of the tag/untag process. –MuZemike 22:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

At various points in the past, the limit has been 3+, 4+, etc. Indeed it is difficult to untag without some notion of how many is "enough" to satisfy readers. Tagging on 0/1 is fine, but untagging on 2? Maybe not. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 22:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd cheerfully support removing the orphan tag with two incoming links, but I hear that some people think three is necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Orphan says, Orphan: An article with fewer than three incoming links - that seems quite clear to me. 0,1 or 2 links = orphan. 3 or more is not.  Chzz  ►  17:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It really depends on the subject. If an article already has 2 incoming links and it's not likely to ever get any more then I say by all means remove the tag. -- œ^™ 18:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

^this is an excellent point, good common sense. The tags are to help us improve articles; if they don't serve a purpose, they're unnecessary. Chzz  ►  21:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as automated methods go "tag on zero, remove on three" is probably as good as it gets. Orphan tags are the ones I have the biggest issue with, though, because I can see no reason that there should not exist orphan articles - or certainly ones linked to only from lists, which supposedly "don't count". Rich Farmbrough, 14:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Please restore last discussion back

Please restore last discussion back User talk:Nilanchalswara and out of scope text away. Thanks--Musamies (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal of General Sanctions on Abortion articles

See WP:ANI#Alternative to Topic block of User:WikiManOne.... General Sanctions on Abortion articles The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity closed

An arbitration case regarding Longevity has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Longevity (broadly interpreted);
2. Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity (broadly interpreted);
3. John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
4. WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms;
5. Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 22:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

just a heads-up

There is currently a petition-like sign-up sheet on Indonesian wikipedia to call for a wikiwide ban on depictions of Muhammed. Not that the result would have any effect, but it's linked to three en.wiki articles with an implied "call to arms". The articles are Depictions of Muhammad, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, and Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. A few more eyes on these over the next days would be a good idea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That page needs to be deleted from the Indonesian Wikipedia. That does nothing but flame an already burning, gas filled fire. I would recommend pre-emptive semi-protection along with those "eyes" on the pages and if it gets too bad, just go for full protection. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the user who started the first vandal spree (Si Gam Acèh (talk · contribs)) has now logged on with a sock >> Si Gam Aceh (talk · contribs). Just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Si Giam Aceh, the user who started the page, was previously was blocked wikimedia wide by meta: meta:Steward_requests/Global/2010-08#Global_lock_for_Si_Gam_Ac.C3.A8h WhisperToMe (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, to deal with this I made a userbox that people can use User:WhisperToMe/Userboxes/NoMo if they feel that Wikipedia shouldn't host those images. I believe that Wikipedia should host the images, but I am also happy to host the userbox for people who disagree with me. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand that was the line of thought that landed us in the userbox wars. Well when people started using such templates for vote stacking followed by some rather drama inducing actions by others.©Geni 21:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking more into this, but I think one of the ways the wars were solved was by using the "German infobox solution" where each user may host infoboxes for himself/herself or for other people. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Mailer diablo/The Mailer Diablo Deletion Project/Userbox Wars says that the German infobox solution pretty much solved it WhisperToMe (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And SGA is starting to make some loud statements at id:Wikipedia:Surat_pernyataan_permintaan_penghapusan_gambar-gambar_penghinaan_terhadap_Nabi_Muhammad_saw.#Comments WhisperToMe (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Check

Please check Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. //Josve05a (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmiri

• Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmiri (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zahidukpnp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmiri was deleted and salted by "Joe Daly" following an off-wiki complaint (I presume OTRS) by User_talk:Zahidukpnp, who states he is a representative of the United Kashmir People's National Party about vandalism and neutrality. Apparently, Daly then invited Zahidukpnp to start a new article despite the COI issues, which he did at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmiri. Zahidukpnp then got rather upset over being put through the wringer on sourcing for the article, but I think we've got it reasonably sorted now and any further discussion around such a political article needs to happen around the article and not in AfC, which isn't really the place for it.

I feel the article is in decent shape to start this process. Accordingly, I ask that Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmiri be unprotected so that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmiri can be approved and moved into the mainspace. Thanks, Zachlipton (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting case indeed ( [44]). I had to clean up the article from this to this (diff), which is probably what triggered the interesting reaction from this COI editor. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 17:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow I hadn't seen that original revision. I brought this issue here not only because the target page is protected, but also because I thought such an unusual case needed more eyes. Once this gets moved into article space, I was planning on notifying WP:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir and possibly WP:WikiProject India to invite review by people more knowledgeable in the POV issues around this subject, as AfC reviewers aren't Kashmir experts. Perhaps having OTRS volunteers suggest that involved parties create new articles themselves isn't a great idea? For something like this where there are a number of sources to support notability, perhaps WP:REQUEST and a post to relevant WikiProjects would be better, though the chances of anything happening with such a request anytime soon are rather low. I suppose there is no good answer. Zachlipton (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I independently asked about this here on BLPN, before I saw this thread.  Chzz  ►  21:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So, any thoughts? I'd like to do something with this article as it does no good idling in AfC. Zachlipton (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't know for sure if there is still NPOV issues, but what I can see is that some statements are still unsourced (from reliable third-party sources, that is), and thus I would err on the side of caution here as this is a potentially controversial BLP. My feeling is that the article definitely needs the attention of someone familiar both with wikipedia policy and with the subject. That said, if you think it's reasonable enough to move it to the mainspace, be bold and do it (I won't), at least it will move things forward. Cheers - [[CharlieEchoTango]] 01:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't know either, but given that the non third-party source is the subject's bio on his political party's own website and it's really being used for biographical information, I don't see that as the real problem. My concern is more with potential pro-Kashmiri bias. I also don't think AfC is really set up to handle this kind of issue once the article is to a certain baseline of quality, which I think we are now at. My main reason for acting here was that I saw tempers were getting out of control and I wanted to put a pause on the "rejected, rejected, rejected" cycle for a bit. However, I can't move the article to the mainspace (whether I would do so now or not is another question altogether), because the mainspace target was protected by User:JzG. I've just asked him to join this discussion.

In some ways, I feel that since "Joe Daly" (whoever that may be, an OTRS volunteer?) specifically invited this editor to submit a new article as a starting point to replace the old article (which was apparently offensive), we owe it to this author to take some kind of action in response to his work. From his perspective, we asked him to submit an article, he did so, we ran him ragged by rejecting it repeatedly (don't misunderstand me--there were many good reasons for rejection), he did his best to comply with policy and make improvements, and now we're twiddling our thumbs. At the same time, the overall "don't be a dick" policy and WP:BLP#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia don't override our need to ensure WP:NPOV and WP:V.

To cut this short, the question here is really "is the article good enough?" If so, an admin should move it to the mainspace. If not, let's improve it or find someone who can. Zachlipton (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am not confident that we can rely on this WP:SPA to provide verifiably neutral coverage of this controversial subject, which has caused complaints to the foundation via OTRS, any more than we could rely on the WP:SPAs who wrote the deleted version. Most of the sources about this subject are on-English and until we have a trusted long-term Wikipedian who can verify the weight given to various aspects of the subject I think we need to err on the side of caution. Google News turns up only three English language sources for this subject, all of which turn out to be the same story, and mention the subject only in passing. That's a red flag when one has a subject that someone seems desperate to include. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC closure

Talk:Jared Lee Loughner#Placement of Image

Would someone assess this and please close it, its open over 30 days with no comments for the last twenty four, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Any takers? The bots removed the RFC template now. Off2riorob (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC Closure

Would an uninvolved admin please look at this RfC. It had been closed controversially by a non-admin with much heat generated in consequence. --Snowded ^TALK 23:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

With all possible respect for Snowded (we both reverted User:Lionelt's repeated non-admin closure, once each) I don't think it's time to close this yet. We just saw another !vote a few hours ago, and discussion about whether to close is ongoing at Talk:Right-wing politics#Non-admin super-vote closure of RfC presently.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record I didn't ask for it to be closed, but for the controversial close by a non-admin to be reviewed. Given that I linked to this request on the talk page I'm surprised Lionelt separately posed to ANI but c'est la vie --Snowded ^TALK 08:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Just fyi: Lionelt took this to ANI a short while ago, and an admin there has volunteered to review the matter. Oh; it doesn't seem necessary in this case to specifically notify Lionelt, merely because I've mentioned him here. If I'm incorrect in that judgment, would someone please either tell me so, or just tell him directly? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Good reasons" and contributor attribution when supplying deleted material

I am an admin, but I'm a really new-mint one and can't figure out the answer to this myself. Seeking input from those whose mops have seen longer service. If this question would be better placed elsewhere, I apologise; please let me know.

An IP user has asked me to supply a copy of a deleted hoax page so its contents can be added to Uncyclopedia. I'm familiar with the requirements at Wikipedia:Delete#Access_to_deleted_pages, but have two questions:

• Is this a "good reason" to supply a copy of the deleted page? I know that much depends on the actual contents of the page, which I've so far been unable to identify: the user didn't tell me the title. What I don't know is whether, for example, we generally avoid supplying copies of deleted hoaxes.
• Assuming I could find the page, the contents were unproblematic, and all else was good to go, what attribution requirements apply when supplying deleted material for reproduction elsewhere? (I know Deletionpedia maintains page histories, for example; I assume that contributors' rights to be credited for their work don't disappear when Wikipedia deletes that work.) The user doesn't claim to have been the article's original author. So (assuming this were a "good reason") should I also copy the page history? Practically, how do admins handle this when emailing copies of deleted material?

Thanks chaps. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't even entertain this request, as it doesn't strike me as anywhere close to a good reason, taking trolling to post on a site full of trolling. Courcelles 22:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

On your second question — when I fulfill an undeletion request, I always move it to the userspace of the user that requested it. I always restore all diffs in the history, unless it was deleted multiple times and the request only applies to the content deleted once, in which case I'll restore everything before that deletion and after the previous deletion (hope this sentence makes sense; if not, tell me on my talk page!), so there's no problem with history. I assume that IPs can have subpages, although I'm not 100% sure, and I fear to do it because it might be inappropriate testing. WP:VP/T, here we come...Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is pretty funny. It's not nearly as trollish as Encyclopedia Dysfunctiona or whatever it's called. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be Encyclopedia Dramatica (although the initials do imply dysfunction); not for those who don't have a strong stomach. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 09:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Autoblock question

I received a message on my talk page from Liamtaylor007 (talk · contribs) explaining that he has been caught in an autoblock (details here) but according to this tool he isn't. After reading Wikipedia:Autoblock, I'm still unsure how to go about lifting the autoblock on Liamtaylor007, and would appreciate help. Nev1 (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe in this kind of case the best thing to do normally would be granting the "IP block exempt" user permission to the effected user. No comment on this specific case though. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. Nev1 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It should be okay to remove it again after 21:12 this evening ([45]), unless this becomes an ongoing problem. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Something I've wondered for a while — in a case like this, would it be appropriate to hardblock the user and immediately unblock him/her? Seems to me that removing a hardblock should get rid of any autoblocking issues. Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the correct way to remove an autoblock is to unblock the ID (in this case #232338859). You can get the ID by asking the user who was autoblocked (they should see it in the blocked message). Then simply go to Special:BlockList, type in the ID, and select to unblock. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this happened to me before...why does it let you edit user talk pages other than your own and not display an autoblock while not letting you edit articles and telling you are blocked. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

USAF seeks sockpuppet management software

Sheesh. Wikipedia is not mentioned but can't be far behind. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, a non-issue based on wild suppositions and interpretations. Not a sysop, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't belong here on this noticeboard, since no action is required/possible. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 08:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's just an item of possible interest. I'm not saying we're heading for the asockalypse immediately. The board for incidents needing action is WP:ANI. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I really doubt that the Air Force is going to spend time on Wikipedia just because a lot of the information is already here and propaganda would be blatently obvious. I mean I'm sure that new recruits research on Wikipedia but we give facts and history, not blatent propaganda. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Expand again

Okay, so this has been restored with a "this is deprecated" notice. However, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping clueless noobs from using it. Is there any way to stop this from getting out of hand? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There is anywhere from 500 to 750 (ain't countin' to see how many) instances of the {{expand}} template being used. Couldn't a bot go around and put the correct template in place and then an admin just quietly delete the {{expand}} template? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It had been deleted to prevent that, but someone undeleted it and put the "this is deprecated" placeholder in its place "for old article revisions". Apparently there's a pump discussion, which I didn't immediately discern from "VP". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Discusson was here. Seems quite pointless to me actually. Garion96 (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Number of current mainspace articles using {{expand}}: 0. Usefulness of not breaking old revisions, use in talkpage archives etc: YMMV. Rd232 ^talk 09:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What? Are we going to recreate every template which ever was used in mainspace? It doesn't seem to hurt, but I still don't think it is useful. Garion96 (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This new deprecation approach has only just been invented and tested; widespread usage is a different issue. Personally I'd envisaged using it for widely used templates deleted in future, but in theory it could be applied retrospectively. But that might raise unforeseen issues and should obviously be discussed first. Rd232 ^talk 11:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the link to the alleged clueless noob highlights another advantage of the deprecation approach I hadn't thought of before. See, that addition of {{expand}} is clearly not by a "clueless noob" (maybe we could not call newcomers that?) but by someone who remembers the template, probably having entered it before, and knows enough to add it manually from memory. They just hadn't got the deletion memo - and with the deprecation approach, instead of being presented with a headscratching redlink (did I remember that right? was it called something else? what's going on here?), the user gets an explanatory error message. On this occasion they didn't see it or didn't respond to it, but there are probably plenty of occasions where someone gets that message either in the Preview (leaving no trace) or after Saving (which in principle someone could hunt down if they really wanted). PS Instructions for this deprecation approach are at {{Deleted template}}. Rd232 ^talk 11:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is thank goodness someone eventually woke up and realised that templates that have been in long-standing use should be deprecated and not deleted. This should really have been done from the very beginning, but better late than never. Now, can we do this for images as well? Though the argument that old revisions should be faithful to what templates and images showed at the time doesn't really work for templates that undergo sustained editing and changes. It would also allow vandalism to be seen in old revisions. But I do like the idea that old revisions should actually show what people were seeing at the time, and not something completely different. Carcharoth (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

RM close at Beekman Tower (Gehry)

Would an admin take a look at closing this requested move? It's been open for 14 days, twice the required period, and the last comment was posted over a week ago. Consensus seems clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for protected page Acupressure

Resolved

Acupressure should be Redirected to Acupuncture#Closely_related_practices, not to Traditional Chinese medicine, since there are no RS connecting it to TCM (it may be part of TCM, but no one has sourced this). Content at TCM on Acupressure was thus moved to the proper section on the acupuncture page. PPdd (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Be bold. Redirect isn't protected, so you can do it yourself. -Atmoz (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Its unprotected again, now. PPdd (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Stalking

Hey

I'm having a dispute with one editor on a certain article over content, essential he sees the article as his and anything that doesn't agree with his POV he deletes. However now he's undoing my edits on every article, is that stalking? as to be honest, don't want start editing here if this is how newbies are treated.

I did read over the rules before i started, if i could have some advice i'd greatly appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.153.113 (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If this is referring to edit warring at Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig, it appears that several editors object to what you have inserted, not one. Tarc (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Or if it's referring to your edits at Portsmouth, it is also several editors. There are no editors in both disputes, either. Also, WP:ANI is that way. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hardly stalking by definition, but if you feel that you are being harassed, perhaps take a good look at what is being reverted and see if it can be improved upon. Then try and work out a consensus at each articles talk page.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Admin input sought about possible discretionary sanction

Mass killings under Communist regimes‎‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article with many "no consensus" AFDs and a long history of conflict, especially edit-warring, which an 1R/day restriction has so far failed to prevent. Following an AE request at WP:AE#Tentontunic, I imposed more stringent editing restrictions on the article as a discretionary sanction authorized by an arbitration decision. This sanction has been strongly criticized by several affected editors. Consequently, I am discussing an alternate sanction at User talk:Sandstein#Mass killings sanction. I'd appreciate the opinion of other admins about whether that sanction would be a good idea.  Sandstein  22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive notice

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March.

–MuZemike 17:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for my impatience...

But there is another flood leak on WP:PERM/R. Dokter Zombieman ^brains.../_{the infected} 15:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you by any chance related to the Dr. Zombieman who complained here and at the Help Desk about your request to be given "confirmed" status not being processed as promptly as you would like? Yes, thought so. Your request is just over one hour old, and none of the other requests is more than 24 hours old. Patience, please. Bencherlite^Talk 15:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You're an admin and your saying you don't want to do it? O_O... Dokter Zombieman ^brains.../_{the infected} 16:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying I don't want to do it. (1) All admins are volunteers, and don't have to do anything. (2) Different admins have their preferred area of operations, and WP:PERM isn't one of mine. (3) I suspect that few admins are going to take kindly to being hassled into doing you a favour. (4) FWIW, my personal view is that someone who's so desperate to be given rollback that he pings this noticeboard before the ink is hardly dry on his request is exactly the sort of person who should be made to wait before getting rollback, if indeed he is ever thought suitable to be given it. Rollback use requires judgment, after all. (5) The world will not end if you are not given rollback, or are only given it after a reasonable delay. Bencherlite^Talk 16:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Request denied. Have a nice day! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Account is 6 days old, don't we expect users to wait at least a week before getting rollback? :-) Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and rv is a little advanced language for a second edit. As I said earlier ... someone needs to do the laundry before the sock pile starts molding. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I'll come back later. Dokter Zombieman ^brains.../_{the infected} 19:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You can do that. But I recommend that you put several weeks of good, solid editing under your belt before requesting rollback again. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, after investigating, Dr. Zombieman is very likely User:Special Cases. You can read more about that user here. TNXMan 21:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Abortion Article Probation Proposal

Will an Admin evaluate consensus there and close it one way or the other? or Would that be something to post to the WP:CRAT board? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

threats of harm

Resolved

...editor blocked

AS per the norm when i see this i report them here as per Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Pls see (Do not edit that name you do it and I'll bash your head in!) by Bhind85 (talk · contribs)........Again thank you guys for you time.Moxy (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Archie Panjabi.jpg

Request for help: would an admin please delete the local file info page for this Commons image - I stupidly added a cat to the local page, rather than the Commons page. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, {{db-f2}} works. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly and for the {{db-f2}} tip, we live and learn. – ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - What is "protective" and what are we protecting?

I'm tired of vandals. In particular I'm tired of our policies towards IP vandals and our endless patience with these worthless "contributors". Not the ones with the odd dubious edit or edit warring, but the ones who have an obsession with a particular article or their "tag" and who have absolutely zero in the way of positive contribution. Yet at the same time, WP (speaking generally here) has a well-recgonised problem with its disregard for content creators and subject experts, who are by and large treated like dirt. In particular, editors with long and valuable (albeit hardly valued) contribution histories are treated as disposable.

This is mostly prompted by today's yet another dose of low-level trollery. 201.252.67.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) pops up from nowhere and starts dumping on an article. They're warned, they continue, they're logged at WP:AIV. Yet what is the reaction here? To log it as stale, with no action. So after not much more delay than the delay already at AIV, they're back and vandalising more articles. After that, we finally hit them with a pretty trivial 31 hour block. Rather than blocking them when we could already have recognised their absence of positive contribution, we sit on it until they happen to do it again when an admin is actually looking. More vandalism that could have been prevented entirely by doing the same action, just at the time it was called for rather than waiting.

Now I'm all in favour of blocks being preventive rather than punitive, but are we protecting enough here? Isn't it time we recognised the real cost of these fools, in terms of effort dumped onto other editors and wasted time for people who could have been doing something useful instead of mucking out the teenager pit?

Why do we care more about not hurting the possibility that an IP number might suddenly become useful, than we do about wasting the effort of real contributors?

Trivial vandalism is perhaps trivial, but it still takes time to clean it out, check the preceding edit to see if that's not a bad'un too. Even test editing or {{uw-self}} still takes as much (if not more) to check & clean than a simple page blanking.

This is of course a logical fallacy, an attempt to argue from the specific to the general case, and I expect to be shouted down on that basis. However it's not an isolated or unrepresentative case, and I'm sure that other editors with some mileage will recognise the pattern. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

So what do you propose? That we starting blocking IPs indef? The fact that most IPs are dynamic and constantly changing prevents us from doing that. We can never know who next could be behind an IP, it could be a very valuable contributor. -- œ^™ 19:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Delegate temp. semi-protection rights to trusted users. If they so much as use it for anything other than blatant vandalism, remove the right. Viriditas (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the "flagged revisions" system is in the shop for repairs, but once it's fixed, it may be appropriate to use it more extensively. Have a vandalism-removal action (such as a rollback, or action by the anti-vandalism bots) automatically put the article into flagged revision mode for a month or so. --John Nagle (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

@OE: Delegate semi-protection more widely, start blocking for 1st or 2nd instances of vandalism. That would help somewhat. NW (Talk) 19:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The original post has the premise that an IP address is somewhat associated with a particular person and vica versa. Such is generally not the case. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously not the general case, but it frequently is the case. Many vandals appear suddenly from nowhere on an IP, and make either the same edits, or make edits to the same article, for a sustained period with no other contributions that might be from other users. In these cases it's entirely appropriate (per WP:DUCK, if nothing else) to assume they're one person. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There's are big gaps between no action, a minimal 24 hours and the straw man of an indef block: we should make more use of this. In particular, we should apply any block as quickly as possible - this is most likely to meet our "protective" goal. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"behind an IP, it could be a very valuable contributor." I see this as the root of much of the problem. We prioritise these hypothetical "most valued IPs" over everything else, yet they're actually enormously rare. How many IPs can you think of that you've noted for their contributions? I can think of a couple of useful IPs, but none that I'd rank amongst the "most respected contributor" level, in terms of content addition. Yet IPs receive a number of benefits, including the regular Vandalism Allowance (five outright vandalisms a month before anyone touches them) and also the Inexhaustible Get Out Of Jail Free Card, where any truly heinous action can just be blamed on another editor.

Yet at the same time, lesser infractions by registered editors are treated far more seriously. I can think of one editor, highly respected on one project and also involved in another "political" project where their understandable inability to remain perfectly calm under the usual provocation of such has led to past blocks. They're now being talked about in terms of indef blocks and bans because they've had "plenty of blocks already". A potential loss to the first project of a really useful contributor, for an edit history that would barely raise comment from an IP editor. We have our priorities wrong here. We're too busy pandering to the peanut gallery. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well.. we do have a case study [46][47] of an admin employing the gung-ho no-nonsense get-tough-on-IPs approach. Didn't turn out too well for him. -- œ^™ 21:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you're rejecting a need for a more rapid response to vandalism (and probably a day or two's block) on the basis that heavyweight blocks are excessive. That's not what anyone is calling for. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I think Andy's right. A three hour block for vandalism after one warning would probably save everyone a lot of effort. Vandals vandalise in sprees - they make bad edits until either they are blocked or mum says its time for bed. Why we insist that what is obviously the same guy adding 'penis' to multiple articles within the space of 20 minutes has to have four warnings, and can't be blocked if it's longer than 20 minutes since he edited (went to fetch a beer/glass of milk and a cookie), I do not know. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this last idea is an interesting one. In cases where the vandalism is unambiguous (it involves bad language, it talks about how person A loves person B, it says something like, "This is all a big lie", it involves random characters or pure nonsense), it would be eligible for an immediate 3 hour block. Anyone interested in making those types of edits would be unlikely to wait around for 3 hours to strike again. Of course, many can IP hop, but they can do that now, and at least this makes them work harder at it. The key would be that this could not be used on cases where the vandalism is at all ambiguous. For example, someone adding an unsourced personal opinion like "This band is awful" would not be eligible for such a block, because that could be a legitimate user who thinks that POV opinions are perfectly acceptable (as they are almost everywhere else that allows open editing on the Internet); similarly, we wouldn't use this tool for someone changing birthdays or album sales without sources, as there could be a legitimate misunderstanding about sources. If either of the two previous cases, or similar ones, were repeated the 4 standard times, then they could receive the standard vandal block.

However, the problem is that the insta-blocks can't work unless there is some sort of noticeboard that an admin is watching far more often than AIV; I've seen AIV reports acted on minutes, but I've also seen them wait for hours, in which case we've really gained no advantage over the current system. I'm highly reluctant to embrace the perennial proposal of spinning off this into a separate right. I could only really see that working if we were very strict on who got it (say, 5000+ anti-vandal edits with almost no false positives), and these blocks were logged specially and reviewed by an admin after the fact to ensure that no abuse is taking place. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree as well. The "four strikes and you're still not quite out" bit has always seemed a little silly to me, especially for those who are clearly intending to vandalize. Why not a three strike system, at least—initial notice, stern warning, block? If someone hasn't quit after receiving the L1, L2, and L3 warnings, do we really think receiving the L4 "We really MEAN it this time!" warning is going to change their mind? I am alright with shorter blocks for the first time around, as 95% of vandals will at this point get bored and go on to do stupid things elsewhere. But that remaining 5% is really a timesink. After the first few times around the block, we should be looking at block durations in the several months to a year range. For particularly bad offenders, who return even after the year is up (and yes, I've seen that happen), blocks of several years may be in order—and returning vandals at the same IP should receive considerably fewer than three "second" chances, down to and including none. I'm not for indef blocks of IPs, just because even a static IP can change hands over a period of years, but we shouldn't allow the few truly bad ones to be continuing time sinks on the off chance a potential good editor will be assigned that IP in the next couple months/years. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Andy's premise, and think the suggestions made above are worthwhile trying. It seems that in the course of trying to maintain the project's original "anyone can edit" ethos we have, in fact, penalized named accounts by allowing IPs editors to get away with behavior that we would get named accounts blocked. Another helpful step might be to disallow obviously static IP vandals from blanking their talk pages, making it easier for admins to see their warning history at a glance instead of having to trawl through the page's history. We should recognize long-time static IP editors, both productive and otherwise, as de facto accounts, and quit treating them with kids gloves, dealing with them as the equivalent of accounts for CU purposes, for example. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

But aren't named accounts also allowed to blank their talk pages, including the removal of warnings and even expired blocks? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The we must issue four warnings before blocking! meme is pernicious, but not actually based in real policy or even good practices. We have (up to) four separate warning templates not because four warnings are required before a block can be placed, but because different 'intensities' of warning are required for different types of harm. For a couple of years (up until about four months ago), the flaky and poorly monitored pages of the self-appointed Counter-Vandalism Unit explicitly instructed would-be patrollers to start at level one warnings and always issue four warnings before proceeding to WP:AIV to ask for a block. I gather that AIV also occasionally is visited by editors (and the odd newly-minted admin) who insisted on at least three (if not all four) warnings prior to seeking/endorsing/placing a block on even the most obvious vandals.

I strongly suspect that most of our more-experienced admins are quite prepared to block after one or two clearly-bad-faith edits; many (and I count myself among them) don't waste time on a warning template first. I suspect that we tend to keep quiet about it, because we risk a pile-on from the well-meaning but naive you-must-give-four-warnings crowd. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. And that's what I often go by when blocking. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the type of vandalism, and how much there is. A single minor piece of vandalism can de dealt with by revert and ignore. Several instances of vandalism can be dealt with by warning levels, including steaming straight in with a 4im if necessary. In some cases, it's block first, ask questions later. Mjroots (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I just made this edit to the vandalism policy, as I believe it reflects current thinking. NW (Talk) 15:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

CVU took a lot of flack for being too militant at one point. It's to be expected that they would react by favoring a non aggressive interpretation of policy.©Geni 00:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted it, with the edit summary "needs wider discussion." I have blocked a single instance of some forms of vandalism. I have to check, but I might even have blocked indefinitely. But this is the rare exception. My own experience is very strongly that a suitably worded personal non-templated warning can usually stop 90% of the people who commit the obnoxious sort of schoolboy vandalism, and teach a much stronger and a much better lesson: the human beings, not machines, are watching Wikipedia, and that you must take personal responsibility for what you do there. I suspect most vandals think they may well run into an more or less automatic process for stopping them. The knowledge that they will encounter individuals who will take note of what they do and respond as individuals is another matter entirely. Almost nobody commits vandalism anywhere if they know people are watching. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Test1 says "oy I saw that" and is surprisingly effective. test2 can be skipped. Test3 warns of blocking and there is no issue to to add further templates before blocking. So test 1,3, block is bulletproof policy wise. I always understood the point of the other templates was to allow non admins to threaten for longer before it became clear they couldn't directly do anything beyond reverting.©Geni 00:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we merge 1&2 and 3&4 and then make it clear that 4im is a separate sequence then? Because I think one reason Huggle patrollers go through this nonsense of 4 warnings and then AIV is because the 4 warnings exist in the first place. NW (Talk) 00:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Run into some of the blatant trolls (albeit many of them are frequently-returning serial/pathological vandals or those recruited from /b/ or similar) some of us run into, and then see if you're not compelled to block right away. Some people are out there for no good, period. –MuZemike 00:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh indeed in blatent cases blocking straight away has always been done. I'm sure there also used to be a 1 step warning template but I can't find it at Wikipedia:UTM.©Geni 01:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I have rarely seen in practice where an IP vandal who continues to vandalize actively past a warning doesn't end up being blocked. Obvious vandalism is obvious, and after being told to stop, if they don't, I block them. It's that simple. I don't look to see what level of warning they got, just that someone told them to stop (even a handwritten note that says "Stop vandalizing articles!" is sufficient). There's no need to go file the correct forms in triplicate for someone to be blocked, just that a) they have been told to stop and b) they have not stopped. The only thing an experienced admin looks for is if the person pushing the keys is the same person who was told to stop, and if they have not stopped. Part of being an good admin is being able to spot when it is one person or not, and knowing the effective response. Sometimes inexperienced vandal reverters will note that an IP address had been warned several times in the past, often missing the fact that these warnings have been spread out over years time, with no discernable pattern in the editing style. It's probably a central router in a wireless network or a internet cafe or something like that, such that it isn't the same person vandalizing. If someone is really on a vandalizing rampage, they almost always get shut down within minutes. I never mandate that the "standard templates" are all used in order before blocking myself, or even that they are used. Just that the person was given fair warning, and continued to vandalize after the warning. Most other experienced admins that I know work the same way. --Jayron32 01:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Historicaly the standard requirment was that they had recived a warning that mentioned blocking. Warning templates came later.©Geni 02:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I said above that I do not believe in blocking immediately but always warning unless the situation is truly harmful and malicious, not just foolishly playful, and I consider some of the possibilities Elen mentioned above, such as "A loves B" as playful. However, if someone continues after I warn them, yes, I see no need to follow the sequence, but will either skip to a level 4 or directly to a block, depending on the seriousness of the matter. I have never seen that short blocks have an effect of the malicious, & I block for a month or two to make sure they won't be coming right back again. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have issued blocks without warning. Before doing so I must first see strong indications of three characteristics: premeditation (the action required some level of planning or thought), malice (action intended to disrupt or cause some type of distress), and knowledge of Wikipedia. The classic example being a page move vandal who employs summaries containing profanity laced personal attacks against well-known Wikipedians. For accounts that do not display these three qualities I agree that an appropriate level warning is the best first move. --Allen3 ^talk 23:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Giga omorashi.jpg

This is an image composed of four screenshots from a Japanese fetish video, Giga Desperation Tournament, showing women peeing themselves. The video itself does not have an article in Wikipedia. I believe that use of this non-free image in the article Omorashi does not comply with WP:NFCC (fails criteria 1 and 8).

I tried to FfD the image, but the bot seems to be broken. Could an admin look into this? --JN466 00:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried listing the page manually for deletion? The template {{Ffd}} gives some instructions on how to go about doing this. TNXMan 01:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't. If it isn't a clearcut case, and you think it's advisable to have a full deletion discussion, I'll do that later. --JN466 01:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought you were asking how to nominate the image. I've deleted the image per the reasons you've listed, but welcome review, as image deletions are not one of my regular areas. TNXMan 03:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just become lazy. XfD (when it works) is so quick, while manual noms take ages. I'd have to re-read all the instructions first. Personally I think deletion was the right thing to do. Thanks for your help. --JN466 03:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about — do we really have a bot that helps to process nominations? Moreover, Jayen466, you never edited that page; did you try to make a nomination somewhere else? I'm just confused. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The user may be referring to WP:TWINKLE, which was is or was broken earlier today. (I don't know if it still is.) It's working now. --B (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please detele local copy

Please detele local copy of commons picture File:Alice Glass at Popped!, close.jpg--Musamies (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Done and note left for the uploader. TNXMan 17:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Gender issues

Should we have a noticeboard dedicated to gender issues? Or is Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts suitable for garden variety rudeness, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for bias issues, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for personal attacks and misogyny? User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there so many gender issues that arise that the existing noticeboards are being overrun? I've thought there were too many, not too few, noticeboards. --B (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment Note that there is an ongoing discussion of the same topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism#Gender_issues_noticeboard.3F. A suggestion that has been made at the Gendergap mailing list is to have a systemic bias noticeboard, which would look at gender issues as part of its remit. --JN466 23:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that this sort of thing is really more of a political issue then a logical/need issue. From a need point of view, I'm all but certain that there's no real call for a "gender issues noticeboard". As Jayden notes above, these sorts of issues could easily be handled by a more general noticeboard. However, there is a certain level of political "win" involved in setting up a noticeboard specifically for "gender issues". Wikipedia is very technocratic, for what seems to be obvious reasons to me, but I don't think that we need to... "wear blinders", so to speak, when it comes to more purely political matters such as this.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ohm's law, I'm a bit confused by your wording. Are you arguing that a dedicated noticeboard is a good idea or a bad idea, to be overly simplistic? --Danger (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That depends on your point of view, really. That you're asking this question makes me smile though, since it tells me that I'm dead on the target that I wanted to hit. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This should be taken to the Village Pump. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose a sexuality issues noticeboard (to determine what gay rumors we allow!), intelligence issues noticeboard (how fun!), and an ugly people noticeboard (like WQA but with pictures!). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

So, will the ugly people noticeboard have voting? Jtrainor (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Gender issues" would be too vague a category to be actionable. If people are being uncivil, there is a place for that. If articles are biased, there is a place for that. Different issues require different responses, so you're best off going to the appropriate noticeboard. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please delete local copy from commons picture

Please delete local copy from commons picture File:Cabotthreelevels.jpg--Musamies (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please delete local copy File:Cananea.jpg--Musamies (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, these images can be tagged with {{db-f8}}, which will automatically bring the picture to administrators' attention. TNXMan 19:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Now I add this template to my local workfile.--Musamies (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia files with no copyright tag as of unknown date 2011

I've just discovered this nonexistent category, which has many images that were tagged three weeks ago or more. Any idea why these images haven't been dated? I'd appreciate help getting rid of the ones that were tagged at least a week ago. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

They appear to have been added by User:Sfan00 IMG, who has just used the "untagged" template with no date parameter. I have left him a note asking him to use a subst nld template instead.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've think I've cleared out all the old ones with TW. I'll manually edit the others to add the correct date. Some of the untagged templates were added by FurMe - so I've left a note there as well  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

zzuuzz

I was 'dared' by zzuzz or whatever his name is to repeat what I wrote in an edit summary here, so here you go; Sergio Aguero's current club was changed from Atlético Madrid to Tottenham (vandalism) and then to 'Athletico' Madrid. The club's name is Atlético and has no 'H' in it, although there seem to be a large number of uneducated idiots who think otherwise... maybe you won't understand but this is EXTREMELY irritating so I wrote something about how the editor deserved to be shot in the face repeatedly. zzuzz can't seem to detect sarcasm and decided that it was one of the worst things he had ever seen in his incredibly important role as wikipedia admin...

So there you go, must say I am literally shitting myself for the stern response that inevitably awaits. I have seen some scary shit in my time but writing on the Wikipedia admin's noticeboard has to be BY FAR the most terrifying, seriously. thanks.

User:82.46.46.194 (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked IP for a week for vandalism and the above. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 00:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I appear to have confused this IP with another, regarding the vandalism. Blocked 72 hours for the above. lifebaka++ 00:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

....the hell did he say? Wow. Good block Lifebaka. Recommend have a CU check the range for any sleeper accounts that might come out of the woodwork. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"...so I wrote something about how the editor deserved to be shot in the face repeatedly." Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 00:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I have notified Zzuuzz of this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Context at User_talk:82.46.46.194#Edit_summary and the response User_talk:Zzuuzz#Haha. I get the impression this is an otherwise decent editor, who hasn't grasped our policies about shooting editors repeatedly in the face. I did try to explain. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a good set of diffs to use as examples at WP:BEANS. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's probably less "don't stuff beans up your nose dear son", and more "why don't you try these for size". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

ROTFL I've gotta ask: are you, or anyone else, seriously worried about "being shot in the face multiple times"? Really?

Just asking
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

ps: I'd like to quote the IP here: "this is the internet ffs, I couldn't care less what happens."

...Not that I really support what he said, but... I mean,comeon! A block? really?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because there can't be any battery doesn't mean that an assault should be ignored, and that was an assault. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, whatever. My level of caring about this is, in actuality, pretty much zilch. I just think that it's funny is all, observing the crass over-reaction which many sysops here tend to display. There are instances of great administrator actions as well, don't get me wrong, but on balance... ? I don't know, I tend to think that y'all over do it. You don't have to take the bait that's offered, every single time, you know. Then again, if you don't "take the bait", then another admin likely will. *shrug*
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:MERGE and closing discussion as no merge

Resolved

 – tags removed. Gold Hat (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello,
even after reading WP:MERGE I am still left wondering if unanimous opposition to a merge after one week of discussion is already grounds for closing the discussion? The guideline only asserts that unanimous support is satisfactory after one week, but makes no mention of objection. The debate in question is the merging of Smartphone to PDA. --hydrox (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD needs closing

Resolved

This AfD has been listed for over a week and needs a closing of some sort. —Farix (t | c) 12:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Closed & deleted as fancruft. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan protests article title

Hi folks,

Normally, I'm completely satisfied in letting these sorts of things move at there own pace, but I wanted to come here and mention this requested move for a few reasons, which I'll detail below:

1. What's occurring in Libya right now is obviously a very topical (and therefore somewhat time-sensitive) matter. Just about every local, national, and international news service is reporting on what's occurring there, at the moment. Indeed, for most news organizations, this is (at least) one of the top stories at the moment. Therefore, I think that "getting it right" is somewhat important for Wikiepdia.
2. There's been a bit of a deluge in "voting" over the last 12-24 hours, which indicates to me that something needs to happen. What people are saying indicates a certain level of frustration with the process wonkery involved in all of this, as well.
3. for whatever reason, WP:RM seems to be seriously backlogged at the moment (which reminds me that I should probably start contributing there again....). That being the case, I don't want to leave this up to the usual suspects involved with that process, since it's such a topical (read: somewhat urgent) issue at the moment.

I'm rather involved in the article title debate itself, so I'm not asking for anyone in particular to come and take a look at this. I'll admit that I'm fairly confident about what will happen if an uninvolved admin decides to take a look and make a decision, however. I'd simply like to note that I'm not advocating any particular course of action here, other then for someone to come and make a decision.

Please see: Talk:2011 Libyan protests#Article title

Thank you!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding on, I want to note that the discussion has snowballed into a clear consensus for moving the page. Please address; thank you. --\/\/slack (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Things are moving quickly in Libya. The title of 2011 Libyan uprising is no longer accurate; it is a revolution which appears to have succeeded in large parts of the country. As a reminder, the page is move-protected. There is more discussion on the topic at Talk:2011 Libyan uprising. Sanpitch (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few news sources calling it revolution or revolt: Al Jazeera[48], MSNBC[49], CBC[50], the Telegraph[51], Tehran Times[52], NPR[53], Toronto Star[54]. I know that the article was just recently given its current title, but "Revolution" seems to be the word that is used most commonly in the mainstream media. We should do the same. Sanpitch (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I made an error

Hello, my name is User:Presidentman. When I put the WikiBreak Enforcer in my script page, I made an error, putting a 5 in instead of a 3. - 74.171.71.173 (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Already fixed at ANI. TNXMan 12:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Cecil Taylor Biography

Hello....

We are a board of administrators at the Cecil Taylor Art Foundation--We have tried to edit his biography and delete the stupid comments about his private life..

Since when the sexual tendencies of a person became a deal on wikipedia...Please delete his personal life comments. its ludicrous , we will persist until we see a proper page which talks about who he really is and what is his personal life.

Wikipedia should be ashamed to allow that kind of comments get public...particularly when we talk about a music legend.

how many of your contributors ar gay or lesbians or whatever? why you don't display comments on them too?

thanks

representing Maestro Cecil Taylor

Dr. Ana Isabel Ordonez www-ceciltaylor-art.com www.rubyflower-records.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrdonezDr (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you email the open ticket request system or discuss this on the article's talk page. Continually attempting to change the article's text, without discussion, will probably only result in the page being protected from editing, likely in the version you object to. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the section as it was a mess. I've left a note on the talk page and at WP:BLPN. Fences&Windows 00:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ban discussion re. Sol Goldstone on ANI

• See WP:ANI#Community ban on Sol Goldstone?

Pursuant to Alison's post on ANI regarding e-mail hacking, outing, and proxy-aided socking by Sol Goldstone (talk · contribs), I have proposed to ban Sol Goldstone from Wikipedia; see here for a direct link to the ban discussion, which is a sub-thread of Alison's post. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 00:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. Cunard (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

MfD is backlogged

Would several admins close the discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion? There is a two week backlog, with some discussions nearly a month old. Cunard (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, JohnCD (talk · contribs), Ruslik0 (talk · contribs), Scientizzle (talk · contribs), Skier Dude (talk · contribs), and others for clearing the backlog. Cunard (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please delete

File:Shakibkhan.gif, see pictures history and edit-war.--Musamies (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Already deleted by Spartaz. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 07:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

SpeakFree

I did paint myself in a corner when I declared my absense on NL:WP. But I continued under my IP address. And made the mistake of registering under the account name JosefK. But is a year-long ban appropriate for that?? I can't help thinking that my listing of Soviet leaders under the Dutch category Dictators helped precipitate this year-long ban. And I couldn't contact the moderator MoiraMoira who enforced the ban in any way after it had occurred (I mailed Dutch WP but didn't get a response). 82.170.244.87 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't seek to be restored anymore. Once again cowards use my absense to delete my contributions. Goodbye! 82.170.244.87 (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

@ to my en-wiki colleague admins: Concerns a blocked sockpuppeteer/pov pusher/falsificator active on en-wiki as well. Has been blocked indef on nl-wiki indeed after continued sockpuppetry abuse despite earlier leeway given. The results of checkusers and description in english can be found here. I leave it up to you to deal with is according to your local policies. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

MoiraMoira, not quite sure of the situation here. Understand that a sockpuppeteer (SpeakFree (talk · contribs) ?) was blocked on nl-wiki. What happens on nl-wiki generally should not impact on an editor's contributions on en-wiki, with the possible exception that known socks should be blocked whether or not they have been used. As to the main account, any action taken against that should solely be as a result of editing on en-wiki, and nowhere else. If the editor is not causing a problem on en-wiki, the fact that they are blocked elsewhere is immaterial. It has been the case in the past that editors blocked on en-wiki have worked elsewhere (simple, commons) and shown over a period of time that they have learnt from the blocks, such evidence being used to support an unblock request at a later date.

If you have evidence that the editor in question is causing problems on en-wiki, then please show it. Mjroots (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure MoiraMoira was asking for a block or any form of action specifically, just giving context to this editors post. FWIW I agree, if there is no wrongdoing here (and the account is not globally banned) then there is no reason to take specific action. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Enforced Wikibreak

Resolved

I accidentally set my enforced wikibreak too long (like above) and can you remove it? The page is here. Thanks. --173.49.140.141 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Done by ErrantX. HeyMid (contribs) 15:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK backlog

DYK has a backlog; there is only one more queue available, and there are also a couple of articles in the 1 March holding area that haven't been used yet (today is 1 March). --JN466 17:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Capitalistmaniac

We don't ban people lightly, and this isn't going to reach consensus for a ban. BencherliteTalk 01:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Capitalistmaniac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote "Go ban me. I have proxies anyway. This is the reason I laugh at the donation ads." in this edit. I propose that we ban that user.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Agree Does not edit constructively. TFD (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose Needs indef block could be empty threat. Banning require some major disruption not threat of disruption. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk | contribs) 04:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Weak oppose He seems to have made constructive contributions. Just because a user says things like "go ban me" doesn't mean they need to be banned. However, on his userpage it says that he is a vandal but mostly make constructive contributions. He is probably an inexperienced editor. So I'll keep it as weak oppose for now. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 08:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Neutral Pardon my French, but maybe we should just refer to Capitalistmaniac with a stress on the last syllable... in the future... like Capitalistmaniàc. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) Oppose Problem is that the context of the comment makes clear that this is not nearly as bad as the accuser seems to imply. Second, the user is still a new user on WP. Third, the "Tucson shooting" incident is not purely of US concern (which is what all of this boils down to - not anything about the editor). When The Times mentions a current event in more than fifty articles, it gets coverage in Deutsche Welle, Le Monde, Japan Times etc. it is quite possible that the news is of more than parochial interest. This noticeboard, moreover, is the precise worst place to seek to discipline an editor over a content issue. Collect (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose. You warned him for "vandalism" that wasn't vandalism a whole month after his edit at 2011, and now you want him banned despite him never having received a serious warning, let alone a block? Give over. Fences&Windows 23:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC) I hope this was a joke. MonoALT (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Intersecting contributions

I'm looking for the link that displays intersecting contributions. Two editors, User:Diversity8 and User:Jarednette have been creating new articles at a daunting pace. Both of their pages are becoming overwhelmed with speedy deletion notices and on the surface I can see there are some related articles. The intesecting contributions tool will help me determine how much overlay there is between their contributions. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I know of http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/User_compare.htm , but you need an access key to use it. I'm not sure if there's another one available. —Soap— 01:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There's one (perhaps via mediawiki?) that I've used numerous times, but I don't have it bookmarked on this computer. No biggie, I'm just trying to determine how intertwined these two editors' contributions are. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Try Wikistalk. Graham87 02:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Intersect Contribs. Deor (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That's it! It can search within any specified Wikimedia and works like a dream. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 02:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Did I get this right :)

So, as a pretty new admin I've been relatively cautious over use of the tools... tonight I just deleted "Students_Health_Home" as a copyvio from http://shhnorthhooghly.blogspot.com/ The article had been prodded and AFD'd with the author (now blocked for these actions) removing all notices without discussion. Someone on the AFD pointed out that there was a copyvio issue so I G12 speedied the article, told the author and closed the AFD.

My question is; is this an OK approach? Technically it is out of process, but it seemed the sensible, non drama thing to do :) My long term impression is that copyvio's like this are best just deleted without prejudice, but I would like to be sure before the problem comes up again :) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion you did exactly what you should have done. In some cases, I feel that it's better to let an Afd run its course when it's already at Afd and is tagged with a speedy—especially when the AfD is already a few days in with multiple !votes. This is because you do not get the benefit of G4 if it's speedied (which is why your statement that the closing was "without prejudice" was superfluous by the way). But that consideration is only valid when there is not a compelling reason for immediate deletion, and there is such a compelling reason when articles are copyvios or are defamatory. I don't agree with you that it was out of process. It is actually a proper application of one process, that affected another process and it is also common practice. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, that was pretty much my thinking too (COPYVIO over AFD) but it is always good to be sure. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 00:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If you ever discovor (or are informed) that an article is a copyvio, feel free to delete it regardless of any AfD where the article is being discussed - in fact, this is the one major excption to the rule against speedy deleting articles which have survived an AfD discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin needed to go through and close enforcement

I opened an enforcement about User:Jiujitsuguy here.

Admin Sandstein who has looked at it is now on a wikibreak and admin Slp1 said on his talkpage: "I did not bring this case to AE; somebody else did for much broader reasons than problems with sourcing. I have no idea whether there is substance to the other allegations, and frankly I don't have time or the interest to examine them all.". He only commented on a very small part of the enforcement and is not going to go trough the rest of it or close it.

Some admin is now needed to go through this enforcement and close it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing other users' comments in discussion of an unblock request

While not particularly an administrators' issue, this does pertain to handling unblock requests: Wikipedia talk:User pages#Is it ok to remove other users' discussion about an unblock request from one's own talk page? Any input would be appreciated, rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Unclosed AFDs from 12 February

Resolved

 – AFDs now closed. January (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There are several overdue AFDs on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 12, starting with Airport chair. (These would have been hidden at the time by a stray <noinclude> tag on one of the transcluded AFDs, which has been fixed.) January (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

After some messing around I have concluded that this started when I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marine Software Engineering which was the AFD with the stray tag. It seems that when you close an AFD with a "noinclude" tag, the "afdbottom" tag is is not transcluded and this makes every AFD on the log following it to look like one big closed AFD. Another question is "why does twinkle have a check box for adding the "noinclude tag when using it to nominate articles"? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this wouldn't have happened if the closing </noinclude> tag weren't accidentally removed by this edit. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on several of these; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rewilding (Carnivores) is not one of them. It looks like a damn trainwreck, though there are relatively few players involved - so I'm punting. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take Rewilding, then. lifebaka++ 18:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. I also added the 12th to WP:AFD/O to make sure that they get seen. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 18:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

An uncompleted page should be deleted because there already are many other completed pages on the same subject

I would suggest that you: either refer to the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c

or delete this incomplete page so that readers can go directly to the various Thich Quang Duc complete pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeDefender (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you delete this incomplete page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thích_Quảng_Đức because there are already many other complete pages on the same subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeDefender (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume that you mean Thích Quảng Đức is the completed page? I can't make out your other link, which links to a page that has never existed, so you'll need to provide a working link so the administrators can see what you mean. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

New Accounts all creating the same page

It seems we have very many new accounts registering this morning and creating the same userpage (you can see an example here). My initial guess is that this is a school project. Does anyone have more info? TNXMan 16:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That was my guess too. I've been keeping an eye on a few of them, and haven't seen either vandal edits nor edits to some school project page yet. Syrthiss (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep an eye on them, but let's not do anything drastic. –xeno^talk 16:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose that you try something new, radical and untried - talking to them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to imply these accounts are doing anything "wrong" - I was just curious and wanted to know if anyone had more information about what was going on. In a lot of cases, projects like this are listed at Wikipedia:School and university projects, but I didn't see a listing. TNXMan 17:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

They may not know about that page, or about WP:Ambassadors either. DuncanHill (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Message left. Let's see how it goes, I suppose. TNXMan 17:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Admins actually left a sensible message to the relevant accounts instead of stomping in their heads and driving away a whole classroom away from wikipedia. It brings a tear of joy to my eye. Damn, I am a sentimental. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes up; this is (assumably) a school we're talking about... HalfShadow 18:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you cry at the end of Old Yeller too?  ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What is going on with new user's user pages?

Of late, I've been patrolling the user creation log, looking for vandalism and conflict of interest accounts. I've noticed a change recently, in that it appears that if a new user creates an account, and then attempts to create their userpage, it's automatically replaced with some introductory help content. Example: User:Alvaradohector. This makes it rather difficult to target newly created vandal accounts using the user creation log. What's going on with this? What's the change? Anyone know where this was discussed? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not automatically placed, rather the accounts are the ones placing it there. See a couple sections up, although no one seems to know who/what it is. TNXMan 19:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like maybe it's sockpuppets. An admin is blocking the accounts now. Here are possibly related accounts: User:Eastleigh 9 and User:Doctorgeo. These could be sleeper accounts, made to look inconspicuous by using boilerplate user pages, and then used later on. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Which ones have been blocked? TNXMan 21:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The first account I mentioned. It looks like that's the only one the admin has blocked for now, but if you link to the other accounts that you said you've seen with this template on their user page, then it may reveal more sockpuppets. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just come across one of these myself: User:Jtobben. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the purpose of the accounts, the ones I have come across are not editing constructively - another example: User:AndersJepson. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

All signs are pointing to sockpuppets, considering the speedy deletion templates on these account's talk pages. This is probably how most sockpuppet farms are born. Here are a few more: User:Coacocoa, User:MarkAnchorAlbert, User:Pathboard, User:Tina Richter, User:Kirbyolson2, User:Kimsession, User:JohnHultgren, User:ScottsRun, User:Anubhavawasthy, User:Caseynyt, User:Lonimeier, User:Kstrongh, User:Stjago, User:Akmalzhon, User:DCFC109, User:Seaninmcc, User:Jessica T Ortiz, User:Momo8520, User:Berubetiffany, User:JasonBoy123. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think they are socks. Also, the sheer number of accounts (10+ in the last thirty minutes and many, many more earlier) is a scope far beyond anything done by a vandal/troll (in my experience) before. I think this is a software thing. Would someone be willing to create a new account to give it a whirl? TNXMan 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

10+ in thirty minutes isn't very much. Someone could create dozens in a minute if they wanted to. These boilerplate user pages are only on about 5% of the most recent new users. If it was a software thing, then 100% of new users would have the template. I'm not saying for sure that these are sockpuppets. For instance, perhaps there's a website that's promoting Wikipedia editing to their own visitors by asking their visitors to register on Wikipedia, copy some text to their user page to help them get started, and then contribute to Wikipedia by editing around. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I found User:Adebed, who made this edit which could shed some light on who these guys are. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, three randomly selected accounts from the group you mention geolocate to cities thousands of miles apart. To me, this points to another cause. I did initially think, however, this was a coordinated spamming effort, as you say above. TNXMan 21:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps just a coordinated attack on a forum. This user bothered to edit their user page so perhaps they are human after all, rather than created by a bot. Another edit. And another, UK-related, which seems to be a theme. In any case, everything we've mentioned are just possibilities until we know more. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a software feature, please AGF

Just created an alternate account, User:DuncanHillTestAccount. On creation, the first thing you are presented with is a big button saying "now create your userpage". Click it, and it opens the edit box ready filled in with the intro stuff we are seeing on these new userpages. DuncanHill (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay that's good, I guess that's new. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I wish, though, someone would have mentioned it - the feature seems like it was just turned on today and I don't remember seeing an announcement anywhere. TNXMan 21:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was just turned on today. Found it! Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so is the blocked account going to be unblocked with an apology then? Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If that is going to happen with all new users, then the welcome message templates need changing so they don't duplicate the user page. Nice idea but it has its downside as spotting new users/possible vandals becomes more difficult. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Only a small number of new users have that template user page (something like 5% of new users). I'd figure the talk page welcome template is sufficient, especially since it shows the "You've got new messages" banner to draw the user's attention. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an outreach thing. The actual template is here. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The blocked accounts were based on their edits and not on their possible connection with previously blocked sockpuppets, so I don't think they will be unblocked. It's up to the blocking admin though, ultimately, who was not involved in this discussion that's going on right now. Their block was a separate matter. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(reply to Mjroots) The only blocked account of which I'm aware is User:Eastleigh 9, which is a  Confirmed sock of User:Crouch, Swale. If there are other accounts, however, they should be unblocked (if the reason for the block was the userpage creation). This is exactly the problem Dougweller points out - spotting vandals becomes slightly more difficult with this feature enabled. TNXMan 21:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I just got the impression that an editor had been blocked for creating the user page with the new feature. If a sock has done that, it's still a sock. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• It appears the announcement was made. I've suggested that future changes like this be announced in a more visible forum. TNXMan 22:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not making this announcement more visible. As a relative newcomer to English Wikipedia (I have edited Swedish Wikipedia since 2005), I have done my best to announce as widely as I knew how:

• on wikien-l
• on foundation-l
• on the community portal
• on the MediaWiki messages page

But now you know about it, I hope that we will see some very interesting results from these tests. There are a couple of different confirmation pages we will test. You can see them all here before they are launched. And please, take this opportunity to add your own suggestions by creating a version of any of the pages yourself.

If you have any questions about the tests, don't hesitate to contact me.

Best wishes//SvHannibal (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's worse than useless, and it will make newpage patrol in userspace (where there is a shitload of spam, defamation, and children spewing information about themselves) MUCH more difficult. Get rid of it. I know you meant well, but it's not helpful at all. DS (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Echoing DragonflySixtySeven, whilst we appreciate your innovation and hard work this is just simply a total hinderance - at least on en.wikipedia. The minor, minor, minor positives are far outwayed by the negatives detailed above during new page patrol. Let's get rid of it - quickly please. Pedro :  Chat  23:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a total (or indeed any) hindrance. Vandals can be recognised by their edits, not the colour of the userpage link. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What about people who post spam in their userspace? What about people who post horrible defamatory garbage about their school friends in their userspace? What about young children who say MY NAME IS JOEY MCPSEUDONYM, I AM TEN YEARS OLD AND MY PHONE NUMBER IS 555-1212, I GO TO HYPOTHETICAL ELEMENTARY in their userspace? These are needles in haystacks. This change enables greatly-increased hay production. DS (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree vandals are recognised by their edits, but blatant spam in userspace (which is far more relevant here), simple 4chan trolls and foolish socks are often neatly identified via the user creation log and promptly blue user page. Let me use the expression "low hanging fruit"....The facts are simple. Rapidly blue linked userpages are often a likely cause for concern and I'm yet to see a convincing argument as to how this "create your userpage" button helps new users. Pedro :  Chat  —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

It helps them by pointing them to useful information about how to contribute positively and find help. It does lack the warning we should give to all new editors - "As a new editor, you will be regarded with fear and suspicion by many editors". DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It does nothing the welcome template doesn't already do.©Geni 23:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It does, because new editors are highly unlikely to be able to find any of the welcome templates by themselves. DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is why it'd dropped on their talk page. Something which could be done by bot since it appears we are no longer worried about appearing impersonal.©Geni 23:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Except for many users it isn't put on their talk page. Even editors who manage to find the help desk often go unwelcomed. DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats because we've history felt that automated systems are impersonal. If we are withdrawing from that position we can automatate the welcome template.©Geni 00:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

On some non-English Wikipedias you get an automatic message on your user talk page the first time that you visit as a logged in user, whether or not you make an edit. This happened to me at the Latvian, Malayalam and Ukrainian Wikipedias. Perhaps our message would be better in user talk space, not user space. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This also happens at commons. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If this system can add Template:Your user page to the new user's page, surely it can be adjusted to add it to the new user's talk page instead?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverted

I've BOLDly reverted the change, at least for now, because it's quite problematic in terms of patrolling new userpages. I've notified SvHannibal: User_talk:SvHannibal#MediaWiki:Welcomecreation. In short, I realise that while he's doing a WMF project, a change of this scale really should be discussed with those who are patrolling new userpages for very problematic content, so that a mutually acceptable position could be reached. Maxim_(talk) 00:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why NPP should have a special status in any consultation. If it is to be discussed it needs to be with anyone interested, not just with your special interest group. DuncanHill (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Maxim wasn't implying that new page patrollers should get some kind of special status when making decisions about this feature. He's simply saying that since it is effecting them a lot more than most other areas of Wikipedia, that it's important they be made aware of the issue. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Because they patrol WP for libel, spam, defamation, minors posting all their personal info that they can think of, et cetera,... If you cannot see why it is important to remove such content, I really can't help you further. Maxim_(talk) 00:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I never suggested that it wasn't important to remove such content, I have no idea why you suggested I did. DuncanHill (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that the reversion might be a good idea - more discussion is often a good thing. However, I think it's important to note that while the new page patrol project is undoubtedly important, making the argument that it is more important than Foundation trials to increase user participation in the project to such an extent that such trials should not take place requires rather more than one or two unhappy patrollers, in my honest opinion. Ale_Jrb^talk 00:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

My argument--and that of DragonflySixtyseven for instance--is more that the expedient removal of libel, spam, personal information of minors, etc., shouldn't be compromised by a test. Maxim_(talk) 00:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is more difficult to find when there are lots of edits made compared to when there are few, but having more edits is nevertheless beneficial and should be encouraged - regardless of the possible inconvenience to those who choose to spend their time patrolling recent changes. I think that this may hold true here as well. It's perfectly plausible that making it easy for new users to create userpages with boilerplate, useful information won't increase user retention at all... but then, that's why they were trying to run a trial. If it turns out that it does increase user retention, and increases contributions, then it is beneficial for us - even if it means that people who choose to patrol new user pages have to do more. Ale_Jrb^talk 00:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Your reason falls down when it fails to address why we should trial this possibility over any other.©Geni 01:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

My reason doesn't fall down because your statement is generally irrelevant. The point being queried is the effect of any trial or system on the work of NPP - which is a reasonable discussion. However, my argument asserted that the outcome of this trial may be more important than its affect on NPP; the specific nature of the trial possibility being run, or the potential existance of alternatives, is beside the point.

Further, I'll point out that in practise, in order to determine the best way of doing something, it is usual to test several methods and choose the best one; that is the definition of a trial. In order to receive good data, this also involves trialling methods one at a time. We should trial this method over any other, because it was chosen first, and other trials cannot be run simultaneously. I believe the original announcement contained a place where they'd love to hear about your thoughts on other possibilities. Ale_Jrb^talk 01:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is it any easier for a new user to find the button for their user page instead of the button for the help page? I support outreach, but if people are having trouble finding help, let's deal with the root issue. If we are forced to auto-create userpages, at least set the edit summary to some standard template thing for all trials to make NPP slightly easier. Unfortunately, we then need to instead patrol user space RCs for new users. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative approach

This sounds like a bot job. A bot could be set up to add the {{Welcome}} to the talk pages of new accounts, leaving the user page alone. At the same time, a message could also be placed on the talk page giving details of how to create a user page and what may and may not be there, along with details of what may be added but needs careful consideration as to its implications if it is added. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment from SvHannibal

I am sorry for any inconvenience I have put anyone through here. And I am perfectly fine with the revert, as long as we can find a way to solve the question that we are wrestling with: how to get the people that create accounts to become active editors. Do you have any thoughts about this? Any thoughts that we can put on Mediawiki:Welcomecreation? One suggestion that builds on Mjroots suggestion above is to forgo the template page (which was inspired by the Polish Wikipedia, where they have seen an increase in new accounts becoming active after implementing this feature) - and instead have all that information as "editintro" (the text that you see above the edit box). Another is to point the new users to articles they are interested in. A third is to point them to some very easy edits (what would that be? Patroling new articles? The wishlists? What else?).

I know that many of us have difficulties leaving our home wiki - in this case English Wikipedia. But it would help a lot if we try to be even bolder than reverting the Mediawiki:Welcomecreation and together sketch out a few solutions - on the Outreach wiki. Put up your proposals here.

On that page you can also see the next page that we intend to test and give comments and edit that page so that we test something that will not make things worse. One way or another, we should find a way to increase the number of edits that newcomers make.

Thanks, and again, I am sorry. Best wishes//SvHannibal (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

since the pages appear to be exclusively in english and refer only to wikipedia is there any reason not to have this work done on en?©Geni 20:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we will roll this out globally. We have just not started translating yet, but we will in the week to come. The results may vary on different language versions (on some newcomers may be welcomed personally because that is what works in that culture, and in another that would be awkward or impractical, for instance). But keeping the results in one place makes it easier to get an overview of what works on the most language versions.//SvHannibal (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? While results can be recorded on a centeral page it makes little odds if the links between the various approaches are interpage of interwiki. In fact trying to do things as a part of a centeral wiki has some massive downsides. You lock out anyone who doesn't have at least a passing grasp of the english language. You take the project away from the people who work on their wiki on a day to basis and instead end up with the rather smaller subset who get involved with foundation side stuff. You create yet another "us" which means from everyone elses POV you are a "them" which is not great if you actualy want people to work together.

But even if we were to accept your position that there are advantages to keeping the whole program in one place the fact is you have not yet moved beyond the english wikipedia and the english wikipedia has an export function which can be used to move stuff offwiki when the time arrives.©Geni 20:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If that is the only obstacle, go ahead. The main focus should not be "where should we have this?" but "how should we solve this question?", right? As long as we link to places where I can find it for when we are trying to make these tests globally, I am happy. Do you have any suggestions?//SvHannibal (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

thats not actualy a coherent responce to what I wrote.©Geni 20:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In what respect do you feel I have missed your point? You suggested that we keep this on English Wikipedia and I said "okay, as long as we keep the discussions linked and focused on finding a solution to the problem at hand". What I could have included is a "good point", but it's because English is not my first language.

My main question now is: Where should we plan other pages that are non-destructive, on-target and potentially effective? Here? On MediaWiki_talk:Welcomecreation? On this subpage to my user page? Where else? I am open to suggestions.//SvHannibal (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A more central location on this Wiki would indeed be helpful. Just looked at the welcome message. "If other people haven't yet covered a topic, then we probably shouldn't either.". We do want users to still create articles right?? Garion96 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, here on en.wiki, it depends on who you ask. There seems to be a rather sizable sub-set of editors who feel that new articles are not needed here, now. go figure.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Other people is Code for WP:RS. If you want to sneak something in without people noticing the mediawiki talk pages are good (except sightnotice and watchlist details people actualy watch those). Otherwise WP:VP/PR and poke the signpost.©Geni 21:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's very difficult to predict all the side effects of a change. I do NPP sometimes, and I also knew about the trial from the mailing lists -- and then actually went and looked at the proposed changes, but I did not guess the problematic interaction. I think everyone proposing changes of this nature know there is generally an advantage in trialing on a smaller wiki first, but this was trialed on a smaller wiki and for whatever reason did not produce the problem there. But we caught this here pretty early on, as we should have. Now that SvH knows where we announce things, the subsequent trials will go better, but some things not visible on the most careful checking will nonetheless produce problems in actual use. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG, for that summation. To start a workspace here on enwp, I offer this subpage to my user page. Anyone may move it to another place, but please notify if you do so I can make new links on the Outreach wiki and elsewhere. I have also written to the Signpost about this.//SvHannibal (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• And now test nr 3 is up and running. I will try to monitoring the situation, so let me know if anything odd happens. As you can see there is a button to create a user page, but it doesn't preload the page with anything, so perhaps fewer new users will create user pages just because they have the content for them already there.//SvHannibal (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to encourage new users to make userpages, can we please at the same time explain to them briefly what user pages are not for? I am worried by the number of new users who set up User:XYZCompany and copy onto the user page the promotional spiel from their company website, and by people who think this is LinkedIn and put up a long autobiography and CV. A sentence or two on the lines of

Please note that the userpage policy says that "you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website". You should use it to say a little about yourself, if you wish, to help communication with the other volunteers who are here to help build the encyclopedia. It is not a place to post a full autobiography or CV, or to use for any kind of promotion.

would save them from unnecessary frustration and disappointment. JohnCD (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• And now test nr 4 is up and running. This is more or less the same as test 3, but with a video, which we hope will inspire new users to become a part of the Wikimedia community, and start editing. Let me know if there are any problems, and do consider adding your own version here//SvHannibal (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of scope userpage

Resolved

Out of scope userpage User:Copperbottom82?.--Musamies (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User page moved, new user page created. Mjroots (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Note, the moved userpage is now at WP:MFD#User:Copperbottom82/The Palpitations. Comments welcome there. Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Contents navigation

Is there any way to get off the dime on this: "Adding topical links to contents pages navigational headers and footers"? - -- RichardF (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Question on Naming

What would be correct here: Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC or Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. Federal Communications Commission? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather say use the full form rather than acronym. The acronym should be only used as a redirect. But could you tell us what article you are creating about? And by the way this question is to be asked on the reference desk rather than here. GL. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 04:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not an article I am going to be creating, it is an article that a student in the Online Ambassadorship Program will be creating. I am just trying to get the correct name before creation begins. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter too much either way; which name is it referred to most commonly in sources? Also, remember the ndash (–) for Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod! :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The help desk would be a better place to ask this question than the reference desk. Graham87 06:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Old RfC needs closing

Resolved

An RfC about use of rRevDel criterion 3 was created on January 19th, has no comments since February 18th, and hasn't been closed yet. Can someone please deal with it? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Closed & summarised it. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Old RfC needs closing

Resolved

An RfC about use of rRevDel criterion 3 was created on January 19th, has no comments since February 18th, and hasn't been closed yet. Can someone please deal with it? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Closed & summarised it. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring over external sites on Site enhancement oil

Apparently if you look through the history page of the article, one registered user and several anons are undoing each other over what appears to be insertion of particular external links like legalsteroidsreview.com and syntholmuscle.com, and all of them only have edits specific to that one page and no other topics or areas. In this diff for example, an IP is claiming to "remove advertisement" from the article, yet this editor inserts his/her own site (swesspharma.com) in the very next diff. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, we could blacklist all three sites, which would put a stop to the nonsense. Mjroots (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've written a sourced section about using injections of oil into muscle in bodybuilding in Bodybuilding#Non muscle-developing methods and I've redirected the article there. The phrase "site enhancement oil" is barely used in reliable sources and it is best dealt with as a small part of the main article. Fences&Windows 00:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked 68.114.135.75 for persistent linkspam. Fences&Windows 15:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A notice about a speedy deletion backlog at the Commons

This note is for users and administrators who are administrators on the Wikimedia Commons. There is a huge backlog at the Wikimedia Commons' copyright violation speedy deletion category that has over 200 tagged files and pages that need examination and deletion. Jesse Viviano (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons is full of backlogs. With only a couple hundred sysops, I don't know how anything gets done ... I would put my self up there but I doubt I would pass. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Expand template yet again

In the past week, I've removed 10 transclusions of the deprecated "expand" template from articles, and I'm sure others have removed more of the same. It's a placeholder in big red letters, and yet people are still acting as if it were never deprecated. Is there a way to keep it from popping up on articles, or are we just going to keep playing whack-a-mole with it forever? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Were the editors adding the tags manually, or using some kind of semi-automated script? –xeno^talk 18:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Manually. See this egregious misuse as just one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

One's "egregious misuse" is another person's "oops, wasn't paying attention." Is it so hard to just drop a talk page note and nicely educate someone? A little less belligerence and a little more help spread the word, please. Keegan (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be an extreme solution, but perhaps we should create an edit filter temporarily just to warn people that the {{expand}} template should not be used? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, didn't learn until now that the template was deprecated. --Rschen7754 00:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new computer overlords. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

User page

Resolved

 – Deleted, blocked —GƒoleyFour— 18:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please check user page User:ThePeopleGroupIreland--Musamies (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I CSD'd it --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

User page

please check user page User:Restaurantandre, same text in page Andre Chiang--Musamies (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

User page

please check uswer page User:AWARDCHESS--Musamies (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 7 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 23:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

•  Note: The application period will close in just over 24 hours. –xeno^talk 22:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Could somecoy take care of cheking

Could somecoy take care of cheking show contributions of new accounts only of userpages, there seems to be promotional userpages and out of scope user pages and user pages that shall be move to sub-page. It's more easy way to clean up those pages than study me to mark right way. Thanks for co-opeartion--Musamies (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the problem is. If you want it deleted, use CSD. If you want it moved into a subpage, be bold and do it yourself (and tell the user why!). If you aren't sure, ignore it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

User page

Please check user page User:Alexander "The Great" Talkington--Musamies (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Checked. Looks to me like it would need some pretty serious editing to become a Wikipedia article.  Frank  |  talk  18:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This user page of a minor should be deleted per Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy#Current practice. Would an admin delete this page? Cunard (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll purge the identifying information. The rest should be okay. Dcoetzee 10:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Help

General call for help at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. This thing is like a Hydra. Polls keep popping up in what is supposed to be a discussion, attempts to steer or target discussion have failed. Admins or really anyone who thinks they can help rope this in and keep it on point, please jump right on in. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It ain't gonna happen. Once upon a time there were a number of Wikipedians who were willing to consider Pending Changes objectively -- if someone could provide things like proof that it works, in what situations, & how it should be to best implemented. But no one did: the "experiment" turned out to be a Trojan horse for turning it on permanently, & those of us who didn't have a strong opinion about it either way left to do more rewarding things. All who are left arguing about it are the true believers on either side who are willing to continue until their death -- or they are banned from Wikipedia. I, for one, don't want anything to do with this: IMNSHO, all of you deserve each other, & I hope this debate goes on inconclusively forever & the rest of us can enjoy contributing to Wikipedia in relative peace & quiet. -- llywrch (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a half-formed notion of a way out; noting that this is a very rough pre-alpha-pre-discussion-vague-thoughts-draft, see here. Could something like that, possibly, work? I could probably use help with it, if proposing it; my thought was to first come up with something like that, then post it on the RFC talk-page (not the RfC itself), and see if we could form consensus to at least put it forward. I'm totally against any further poll, but if necessary we could perhaps make such a proposal and insist upon "support" or "oppose" with brief comments (limited to, say, 300 characters or something) and we could move anything longer into a 'discussion' section.

A very important point, I think, is that the RfC is generally getting decent discussion - so let's not mix up length problems with drama. Yes, it is long, and yes, it's been going on for a few weeks now - but PC is a complicated issue, and potentially (depending on deployment, scope, etc) quite fundamental to Wikipedia core values of open editing.

So in other words - Llywrch - I personally think that it can reach consensus. Not easy, but I think it can...eventually. Maybe I'm naive, idealistic and overly optimistic - but I can live with that.  Chzz  ►  20:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone help out with edits to animation pages

This was posted on my user page after a report at AIV. Unfortunately I know nothing about this subject so don't know how to verify. If TServo2050 is correct these IP edits will need to be mass reverted and possibly blocked. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

78.155.239.29 and 24.218.241.94 - vandalism

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about with this 78.155.239.29, the diff page for an edit to Gerald Potterton that I removed.

Gerald Potterton never worked at Disney. This can easily be verified by his IMDB page.

I first noticed this person because of very, very similar false information being added to IMDB.

Another person to watch out for is 24.218.241.94. For example, look at this diff - this guy added a bunch of names of Disney crew members who absolutely did not work on "Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends". This diff also adds false information claiming that this person worked on the same show, also mentioning a Disney animator who never worked on "Foster's" either. And he adds mention of the same "Destination: Imagination" title to the biography of Eric Larson in this diff - Eric Larson died in 1988, two decades before, so he couldn't have worked on it no matter what.

This is just really frustrating for me, but I don't have the time to go back and remove all the false info added by these people.--TServo2050 (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation mentioning this thread.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have thought to do that myself. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 21:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox pages

I would like to have these sandbox pages which i had previously gotten deleted brought back, together with their talk pages. I wish to work on certain potential articles, and bringing back the pages would save me quite some time and effort.

• User:Joyson Noel/Luis de Menezes Bragança
• User:Joyson Noel/Francisco Luís Gomes
• User:Joyson Noel/Joaquim Heliodoró da Cunha Rivara
• User:Joyson Noel/Sebastião Rodolfo Dalgado

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 19:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

All restored. Courcelles 20:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Tobby100

Should these edits be rollbacked? They generally contain links to hedgepedia.com, which is unreliable as a source because it is an open wiki with various mistakes or lacking editorial oversight and useless as an external source because it is inaccurate and incomplete, as per its general disclaimer page. Should this site be blacklisted as well? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• hedgepedia.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.hedgepedia.com

Domains added by Tobby100: hedgepedia.com (33).

Looks like WP:REFSPAM. MER-C 09:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Roll back. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I rolled back ~20 top edits, all referencing the site and adding no other content. I undid several others that were no longer top edits. — Scientizzle 18:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, removed all links from the LinkSearch so far (save this page). He also seems to be editing from his IP, 70.31.247.188, according to the LinkReport. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tobby100 I have read your arguments regarding the hedgepedia postings. Here are some responses to your concerns:

(1) With regards to the site’s disclaimer - Given that the site provides financial information, a disclaimer regarding to the accuracy of the data is common practice. Please have a look at the disclaimers of well established sites in the same field, such as hedgefund.net disclaimer, or absolutreturn-alpha disclaimer sited on Wikipedia

(2) With regards to the quality of the information - the source of the information is a respected in the industry, quoted on the page of the article and verifiable for those who have access to the 2009 Top 100 hedge funds report.

(3) With regards to the relevance of the information - The information provided relates to the ranking of each hedge funds by AUM. A fund's AUM is a key measure of comparison between funds in the industry and should be relevant to any the reader who takes interest in the industry.

For those reasons, I believe that those additions made are relevant and if no further objection, should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobby100 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Why have you "cited" only hedgepedia.com? MER-C 04:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Because that page contains the 2009 list of the largest 100 hedge fund ranked by AUM. It therefore applies to numerous funds with a page on Wikipedia and I have cited their specific ranking on their respective pages.--Tobby100 (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

...and why do all of your edits to Wikipedia involve inserting citations to this site? (Apologies, on reflection this is what I should have asked in the first place.) MER-C 03:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have read your link about SPA and understand where your concern comes from. However, do you feel it makes the information posted any less valid or relevant? It is not redundant with any of the information already posted on the pages, it is unbiased relative to those hedge funds, and offers the reader with the key mesure of the relative importance of each hedge fund.--Tobby100 (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ebionites 2

Per an interim motion:

The request for arbitration is accepted (titled Ebionites 2). However, the case will be held in abeyance for four weeks to allow mediation to proceed. After four weeks, or earlier if the mediation is closed as unsuccessful, the Committee will reexamine the situation to determine whether the case will proceed or be dismissed.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Edit Request for Special:Newpages

The Twinkle feature that marks new pages patrolled when tagging them is currently down. Would an admin please add the following to the instructions:

"The Twinkle feature that automatically marks pages patrolled is currently down. New Page Patrollers, please mark pages patrolled manually before tagging them with Twinkle."

Thank you. N419BH 01:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean on MediaWiki:Newpages-summary? Also, any idea on how long it will be down? If it's just temporary, I don't think a note is really needed, but if it's a few days, sure. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wherever the directions are edited is where I mean...and I'm not sure where that is. And it's already been down for several days. I have no idea how long it will continue. The twinkle bug report page doesn't indicate any timeframe for bug resolution. N419BH 02:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It will be down until the rewrite is complete, which will be several weeks. —UncleDouggie (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A question for Administrators (and others interested)

I am considering advancing a proposal. Because it might increase the admin workload and perhaps create a new notice board similar to AIV and UAA I would like to first ask for some opinions here. If this is not appropriate, accept my apologies and remove the thread as misplaced. I think there should be a direct option, at some appropriate screen, perhaps the one when selecting (cur | prev), to request RevDel, for certain egregious examples which qualify for redaction. I would propose that when a user, presses Revdel, the edit is reverted as in rollback, and a report filed to a notice board for admin consideration. Of course the decision to redact would rest where it properly exists now, and abusive reporting should be discouraged, and carry consequences. But for the most blatantly obvious, which fit the criteria a mechanism for reporting could increase use of this perhaps underused resource. I would anticipate it as a good fit to bundle as a Rollbacker user right. Thank you and please comment regarding the merits of such a proposal. My76Strat 10:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea. There would have to be a confirmation dialog though, to avoid accidental requests. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): It is a good idea, but there is a possibility of misuse. I think a better way is to have a link that allows for easy access reporting to RFO for RevDel and Oversight. Instead of having to go to WP:RFO, click the link, fill out the email with the links, wait for a reply, rinse, repeat. Just a button for reporting, or something like that in TWINKLE or HUGGLE. Putting it in Rollbackers access would be bad. RevDel should only be for admins. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 10:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My76Strat wasn't saying that revdelete powers should be given to rollbackers, but rather that rollbackers should have access to a link that makes it easy to request an admin revdelete something. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha! My goof. :S Then this is a definite good idea. Should be put into the other links we already have. The link should just forward the information to the RFO email address, with a checkbox for RevDel or Oversight to make it easier on the admins. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 10:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and to clarify I do not suggest rollbackers be able to RevDel, Only that perhaps the one button report should be part of their user right. Or as you stated it could be part of twinkle and available to a wider user base if that is deemed appropriate. Just like AIV and UAA, the action must be accomplished by an admin. I only suggest a streamlined mechanism to initiate the report. Thanks for your interest and response. My76Strat 10:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused: how would this work technically? Or are you saying that you'd like to gauge interest and then find out if it would work technically? The idea sounds very good; my only hesitation is on the actual implementation side. Nyttend (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I am really gauging for the opinion of the user group most impacted by the possibility of an increased workload. I think the technical aspects are less daunting, but could be wrong. And the important considerations are likely to be highlighted from a discussion here. For example I hadn't considered, but acknowledge the importance of a multifaceted tool. One which could append the majority of reports to a noticeboard while allowing the necessary ability to divert some of the more sensitive reports through oversight. And the benefit of a redundant confirmation to reduce false reporting and accidental clicks. So yes, all of this seems within reasonable reach and I do appreciate every response. I know there is likely to be some valid opposition and I eagerly anticipate that as well. My76Strat 13:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted a question to the techs on the IRC and this response seems to corroborate my assumptions: "It could be implemented in the software, but it shouldn't be too hard to do it in JavaScript, or even as a new feature in something like Twinkle". My76Strat 13:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a very good idea to me. Decreasing the visibility of RevDel requests would be a good thing; the current practice of posting them on a widely-read noticeboard is less than ideal for obvious reasons. Could all the requests appear on a Special: page that only admins could see? That would seem preferable to a public queue, if it's possible to implement it that way. 28bytes (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You could simply have twinkle send a report to AIV marked with !! or something similar. No separate noticeboard needed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral on the noticeboard issue but adding an extra link to Twinkle when viewing diffs (next to the current rollback/revert links in red/green/whatever) seems reasonable. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox page

Resolved

Please bring back the following sub-page, which i had previously gotten deleted:

• User:Joyson Noel/José Gerson da Cunha

Thanks. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 16:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done - in future you can ask for a WP:REFUND. –xeno^talk 16:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Promotional userpage

Promotional userpage User:Maudimaadil--Musamies (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, but, in future, try not to bring routine requests here. Just tag the page with {{db-spam}} and an admin will deal with it soon enough. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not according to my experience. My experience has been that users are allowed to have spam in their User space, and my MfD was rejected because it was a potential article. Corvus cornix_talk 22:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I do that all the time, at least once a day; you aren't allowed to advertise a business anywhere. That's why it's G11, not A11. The restrictions in userspace are somewhat looser, but that doesn't mean all bets are off. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Chasetwomey/Zoro_Tools. Corvus cornix_talk 19:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What is not allowed in user space is blatant advertisement - anything that meets WP:CSD#G11 ";Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Just being about company does not make an article, or a draft, an advertisement. We want users to develop articles in user space rather than put them prematurely in mainspace and get them speedied. This one, as you can see, is purely descriptive, but it was speedy-tagged two minutes after first input. That is quite inappropriate for a userspace draft; the speedy was properly declined, and the MfD also declined to delete. It may well not be notable, but we do not need to decide that before the author posts it in the main space. JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So, as I've been told repeatedly in the discussion concerning this page, spam is allowed in User space, which is what I said above. Corvus cornix_talk 20:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --Floquensock (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Look at the definition of WP:CSD#G11: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." and WP:SPAM: "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." The draft considered here is not spam. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And regardless of that (which is all quite true), it is not appropriate to come asking here, when you've been told elsewhere what was wrong with the deletion requests.  Chzz  ►  20:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There was something seriously wrong with the !voting in that MfD, when editors argued to keep a draft for which no reliable sources can be found. That's totally perverse. Fences&Windows 23:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you will look again, you will see that I did not being this discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 00:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Fences and windows, a draft does not need RS.  Chzz  ►  07:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Whatever you do (I really recommend just tagging the pages), don't make a new section with an identical title in a general noticeboard. That's a nuisance for anyone who edits on a mobile device and relies on the TOC for navigation. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Informational post re: McDonald's & corporate communications

I don't think there's any admin action required here, but this is something I thought would be of interest to admins -- if true, it's certainly a new take on how corporate communications departments might deal effectively with Wikipedia.

An editor claiming to be part of McDonald's "communications team" - User:Egerstea - has in the last three months contacted three editors to thank them for their work on the McDonald's article, and to offer themselves as a resource should any information be needed. The comments are boilerplate - here's the first one.

As you can see there's no request for any specific edits to be made, information to be added or deleted, it just looks like "bridge building". The only pitfall I can see is that any information coming directly from the McDonald's corporate communications people should probably be in the form of pointers to already published information, rather than stuff released specifically for use on Wikipedia - although, if they were to seperately publish any new information provided to us in a press release, that could alleviate that concern. In any event, I would think that anything coming directly from McD's should be clearly labelled as such, and, if possible, verified with third-party reliable sources, just to make sure that they're not shaping data in a way that's advantageous to their public image.

I would never want Wikipedia to be an appendage of the corporate world, but it would be nice to be able to get information directly from companies when it's necessary to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Corporate publicity isn't something I know a lot about, but when I did have limited contact with public relations firms about ten years ago, some of the main services they provided was indeed collecting and organising pointers to already-published information about their client organisations. So there is more potential for this to be useful from a Wikipedia perspective than might initially be imagined - the sort of information that these people would collect pointers to, would quite often be exactly the sort of reliable sources that Wikipedia articles need. (With a little bit of natural bias thrown in, of course.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. PR people are not inherently evil; in fact, they can be great resources and pointing people towards good sources is a key part of the job for many of them. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Beyond My Ken, for notifying me of this discussion and giving me the chance to weigh in. I completely understand your point about maintaining editorial balance and not letting any bias effect the validity and trust that Wikipedia has worked so hard to build.

As was mentioned by User:Demiurge1000 and User:Tony Fox, I wanted to provide editors with a resource that might be helpful in sharing reliable information that might not otherwise be available to the public. I respect the fact that Wikipedia is written, edited and managed by the public and not by corporations trying to shape their brand, which is why I refer to it almost every day on a personal and professional basis. To that point, in no way do I want to shape the image of our brand through Wikipedia, but rather keep the information shared about our brand on Wikipedia accurate, up-to-date and with as much detail as the editors responsible see fit.

I hope that my explanation above alleviates any concern you might have had about my motives, and I hope that the editors will consider the option of reaching out to me as a resource for McDonald’s, keeping in mind the fact that I am also a user seeking unbiased information. Egerstea (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Egerstea

Closer of merge concerning Creativity Alliance article

One week ago, I proposed a merge of Creativity Alliance into Creativity (religion). Because there was no discussion, I want to be bold and merge the articles myself, but decided to ask an administrator to formally close the discussion before I proceed or, if I should withhold merging the articles, to offer advice on how to stimulate discussion of the proposed merge. --SCochran4 (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no formality required. Go have a ball. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to attract outside input for a controversial requested move?

There is currently a hotly contested requested move (lodged by myself) going on at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states. This request is the latest installment of a long-standing debate which has gone on for months to years at this point. The talkpage is "run" by a handful of "regulars" (myself included), who have taken sides and set up their respective barricades long ago (if you'll excuse the WP:BATTLEGROUND analogy). This environment is not particularly conducive to civility, and allegations of user misconduct have been raised in a recent ANI thread, which passed largely unnoticed and was summarily archived (a total of 27 threads at ANI have dealt with issues surrounding this controversial topic). Good faith and assumptions thereof often run dry here, making it exceedingly difficult to form a satisfactory consensus.

I submitted an RfC not too long ago in an effort to break the deadlock one way or another. However, due to the apparently poor visibility of the RfC process across the project, my request attracted very few responses, and was soon taken over by us "regulars" and driven into yet another wall. Demonstrating the hostile and mistrustful environment of the talkpage, another user even questioned my intent in lodging the request, believing that it was an attempt to rig the vote in some way.

Another user recently sought the personal opinion of a notable scholar in the area on the matter. This did not change the opinions of those involved much, and the discussion quickly disintegrated into debates over various interpretations of this opinion. Neither side has shown particularly willing to give up much ground.

I wish to attract sufficient outside input from uninvolved editors so as to provide the most satisfactory end to the debate possible, without giving the impression of canvassing. I would like to make it clear up front that I have certainly contributed to the problems in this debate, and I accept full responsibility for my actions. My desire here is not to enforce my own POV, but to reach an acceptable consensus on the matter. Since the topic matter falls within the bounds of such cases as WP:DIGWUREN, it is necessary to exercise a certain deal of caution in dealing with this. The move request was an effort on my part to induce some kind of focused debate; what I believe to be necessary now is to involve people other than the regulars so that accusations of collusion or partisanship do not stick, whichever way the request goes.

My question is, how can I involve neutral editors in reaching a final decision here? Do I file another RfC? Do I seek higher arbitration/mediation? Or do I simply continue with the move request and hope for the best?

Thanks in advance for any help,

Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears the dispute is going in circles. You could submit a request for mediation, or I could offer to step in as mediator. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there is already a discussion in motion, I feel that it is too late for the former. In retrospect, going to WP:MEDCAB is what should have been done instead of hastily submitting a move request; I fear this may only be feeding the flames, for the only "new" editors commenting at the moment have not improved the rhetoric and general atmosphere at the page. Both are presumably Russian and seem to have a friendly history with one another, which may draw claims of bias from some users. One of them has a history of less-than-pleasant interactions with several of the "regulars" and has been placed under WP:DIGWUREN restrictions in the past.

However, I think that it would be immensely helpful if you were to provide some mediation services. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to mediate. It seems we have a number of editors who desire moving an article contrary to Wikipedia policy. They are saying we should ignore WP:TITLE's direction to survey a wide variety of sources and instead rely upon the opinion of one single scholar in finding a common name, and to ignore WP:TITLE's direction to consider only English-language sources but instead also to consider the POV of Russian-language sources (though no one has actually furnished such a source). --Martin (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin, though I certainly respect your opinion, you must recognise that the way things are going, there is not going to be a satisfactory outcome for all parties involved. We have been see-sawing back and forth for months now without any resolution of conflict; something needs to be done. Since neither side trusts the other, and since nobody can seem to agree on the interpretation of WP policy, we require outside intervention. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well mediation may work, but even if consensus was achieved by a small group of editors on an article talk page in this particular case, it cannot override the wider community consensus on policy. --Martin (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The debate at the talkpage indicates that there are different interpretations of this "consensus". When such a dispute exists, it is best for it to be mediated by an impartial individual or group. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You could consider listing the move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. However, it could be that the topic holds little interest for other editors, the issues are too complex, it takes too long to read the discussion and editors may not wish to become involved in a highly controversial subject about which they do not hold strong opinions. However this is not the correct forum for this discussion - but then I do not know what forum is. TFD (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, if you request a move, then it is automatically listed at WP:requested moves. Check the log for March 6 if you don't believe me.

Re "this is not the correct forum for this discussion": I never intended for this discussion to be moved here – y'all just decided to follow me here and turn what was meant to be a request for advice into another battleground. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

To several above, the additional input of a noted scholar has not helped because the various parties interpret that source to suit their position, e.g., one editor states the scholar says Soviet "intervention" not occupation, while the scholar writes that the USSR "crushed" the Baltic states and occupied them. Or editors are focusing on the finer points of the Soviet annexation and making more far reaching contentions which are not fundamentally supported. The bottom line regarding the article in question is that it is a summary of a continuous period of three contiguous occupations by two invading foreign powers, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, focused on the policies and actions of both of those powers with regard to the rights and lives of the Baltic nationals (ethno-agnostic) subjugated under said foreign powers.

IMHO, some editors appear hell-bent on expunging "occupation" wherever it touches upon the portrayal of the Soviet legacy under the false mantle of "NPOV" ("occupation" implies something "bad" happened, "bad" is judgemental, etc., etc., etc.). My perception only, of course.

Regardless, there is nothing wrong with the title or article content or scope. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please save this for the talkpage, Pēters. I did not intend for this to turn into another forum. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the move is "controversial" because it is solving a problem which does not exist. We might consider some non-article specific forum for addressing these sort of endemic disputes so we don't recreate the same tedious argument at the ever-rotating well-trodden collection of articles "in scope." The current "dispute" has nothing to do with the specific article, the article is just a venue for rehashing the same old specious argumentation about Soviet occupation or not or to what degree of the Baltics. I would suggest a "Soviet legacy taskforce" to at least least keep it to a single conversation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I recognise this, Pēters, and I am now regretting making such a proposal to begin with. My intent was to give some focus and a goal to the debate, which had been going nowhere for quite some time. However, it is becoming clear that the RM has fallen short of what I had hoped for. I can hardly withdraw the request at this juncture; quite a few people would be upset and Igny would probably accuse me of nonexistent EEML connections or some other nonsense, which would open a whole new can of worms. I am going to let the move request go through as planned, but we are probably going to have to seek higher mediation soon afterwards to settle things once and for all. I'd like for someone to provide informal mediation services now while the debate still rages, but it seems admins have lost interest in this thread, so my hopes are not particularly high... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

QuackGuru again - what do I do now?

Ok, I'm at a loss. A while back I asked for a site ban on QuackGuru (talk · contribs) for deeply tendentious editing practices, which you guys saw fit to deny (that's fine, I bow to your judgement on that), but now I have no idea how to deal with him. The current issue - which is another manifestation of the behavioral problems I had with QG previously - is at the pseudoscience article. There is an ongoing tussle over the removal of a paragraph (you can see the RfC statement here, which contains links to the paragraph in question and the abstract of the source involved). The removal of the paragraph and source is a bit contentious, for reasons I have a hard time understanding, but I seem to be getting the basic point across to most people, slowly and painfully. However, I keep running into the following issues with QG:

• He continually harps on wp:V and wp:RS, even though no one is arguing that there is a problem with the reliability or verification of the source.
• He never addresses the issues of wp:WEIGHT and wp:SYN that are the core of the problem with the paragraph, despite the fact that I and others have stated numerous times that that is where the issue lies
• He continually makes claims in the vein "...no editor has given justification for deleting text...", when in fact two or three threads on the talk page are filled with reasoned justifications for removing the text
• He constantly accuses me or others of OR or other policy violations in edit summaries and text: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]

I can handle the content dispute perfectly well, for the most part - that's just a matter of walking people through the logic of it enough times so that they see the sense of the removal - but there is no way to handle someone who simple refuses to address (or is incapable of addressing, maybe) the pertinent issues. His attitude (as far as I can tell from his monomaniacal focus on wp:V) is that he is going to defend the use of this quote come hell or high water, completely ignoring any assertions that the quote is being misused, that the author is being misrepresented, that the source is being taken out of context... It's like being trapped in one of those funky, depressing existentialist plays where the meaning of language itself is denied.

So, you guys want to keep QuackGuru around as an editor - okayfine. Now, tell me how to get him to use even a modicum of common sense and reason so that we can have a proper discussion on the page. (Personal attack removed) --Ludwigs2 19:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors have repeatedly added/restored OR to the article while deleting source text and I have addressed the context issue. What are editors supposed to do when Ludwigs2 and other editors continue to restore text that failed V and delete text that is well sourced. Ludwigs2 and other editors are unable to provide WP:V when asked to provide V. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Given how the last discussion of this type ended (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive220#Community ban for User:QuackGuru) I think the best thing we can hope for is that some of those who at the time were against a ban get involved at WP:Pseudoscience to get some first hand experience with QG's behaviour. Hans Adler 20:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler, you blindly restored OR after it was discussed on the talk page and in my edit summary. Your controversial edit is being discussed on the talk page. Do you agree you won't restore the text that failed verifaction when you are unable to provide V. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of any problem with QG, L2 should be banned from any discussion which involves interpretation of policies and guidelines. I admit I've crossed paths with him, before, but he has a — interesting — interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) QG, I don't think it's a good strategy for you to ignore my detailed explanation after you responded to it.

Also, since when do you refer to yourself in the third person? [60] How many accounts do you have? Hans Adler 21:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You cannot explain away the OR and blindly ignoring my edit summary. But you can stop doing what other editors are doing. I asked here if you agree to stop restoring OR but you did not give a specific answer here. I don't think it is good strategy for any editor to continue to restore OR. Do you agree with any of my comments. QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No substantive new material means this complaint is not going to get anywhere very fast at all. Like or hate QG's queries, the response to a question about whether precise wording is found in a cite is a matter of providing the precise wording found in the cite. Collect (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a clear and logical way of dealing with the situation, and as such violates long-standing community norms. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this is basically a content dispute about whether a particular paragraph is WP:OR etc., and as such it does not need admin attention. Please use dispute resolution, for which this board is not a venue.

But I am concerned about the following statement by Ludwigs2 above: "I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly." That sounds like a threat to me. Threats are not an acceptable mode of dispute resolution. Ludwigs2 has previously been warned that they may be subject to discretionary sanctions if they violate community norms in the pseudoscience topic area. I therefore invite Ludwigs2 to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for making threats against others.  Sandstein  21:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that there is a festering problem with QuackGuru's editing. He is delaying the development of the pseudoscience article by repetitious insistence on irrelevant trivialities. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC).

If there is a persistent problem with this editor's editing then the correct place to raise it would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru or, in this topic area, WP:AE (but only with solid evidence).  Sandstein  22:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that thread. It seems that QG has been generating concern in more areas than this one. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC).

Looking at the talk page it appears the foxes are trying to take over custody of the henhouse. Thanks to Ludwigs2 for bringing the situation to wider attention. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Any chance of us ever making pseudoscience advocacy a blockable offense in and of itself? That would do the most to calm these contentious areas down.—Kww(talk) 22:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Arbcom once passed this, but present-generation Arbcom has increasingly distanced itself from that view. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Boris: hunh?

@ Sandstein: with respect to this being a content dispute: no, this is a behavioral issue. The content dispute can be handled properly if QG can be convinced to discuss the matter rather that simply obstruct the discussion. However, If you you really think this is the wrong venue, say so and I will close this thread and move it to arbitration enforcement. I think I can reasonably ask for a topic ban for QG under the pseudoscience arbitration ruling.

With respect to your other point: hunh? what are you talking about?

@ kww: are you referring to me as a 'pseudoscience advocate' because I'm trying to remove synthesis from an article?

@ everyone: please note that QG started right in here (at this thread) doing exactly what I'm complaining about: focusing on V and RS, ignoring other editor's comments, accusing people of policy violations. All I can do is thank him for the examples. --Ludwigs2 22:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocking for pseudoscience advocacy would potentially mean anyone proposing edits in any article that even looks like they think the subject is real could be blocked if enough anti-whatever editors are involved. That would be the last nail in the balance coffin. Why not look at the fact that QG is not willing to negotiate his position. Tom Butler (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tom, they are not being serious. they are just trying to insult/intimidate me in the hopes that I will react badly. this is a standard tactic (one I experience all the time from these editors), so don't give it too much thought. --Ludwigs2 23:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Ludwig, I am quite serious. This particular event is a symptom, not the disease. QG does seem to be acting out of frustration, which never leads to good results. I simply believe that removing the source of the frustration is the best solution. To Tom: balance doesn't include treating pseudoscience as real. Never has, never will, and editors that believe that presenting pseudoscience in a favorable light is necessary to achieving balance don't have sufficient competence to edit.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. The source of the disruption is QuackGuru's incompetence. If you find a way of removing that I will be most obliged. Hans Adler 00:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

More seriously, it's not Ludwigs2's fault, or at least only to a small extent, when editors fantasise that the removal of nonsensical claims that amount to saying that astrology and creationism are quackery and a threat to public health is "presenting pseudoscience in a favorable light". If you don't like pseudoscience, you shouldn't support pseudoscientific methods such as taking statements of academic sources out of context and make them appear to say things that are clearly absurd and were never intended by the authors. The real way to make pseudoscience appear in a favourable light is by turning the pseudoscience article into something that looks as if written by a kook. Hans Adler 00:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not withdrawn or addressed the threat with respect to another editor referred to above ("I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly"). Considering their block log, in order to prevent such conduct from reocurring, in application and enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions, I am blocking Ludwigs2 for 72 hours.

Everybody else, please remember that WP:AN is not a dispute resolution forum. Please take your concerns to the appropriate venues per WP:DR.  Sandstein  23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

On Hans' comment @ 20:52 about people who opposed a ban:

I asked most of them for help with QuackGuru at a different page last month, and the response was underwhelming, with all but two editors refusing to lift a finger. It left me with the sour impression that a majority of people opposed to a ban don't care how much QuackGuru hurts Wikipedia, so long as it doesn't inconvenience them personally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that Sandstein has decided to shoot the messenger, at least part of this mess is going to be looked at by Arbcom. Probably a good occasion to spend the effort necessary for solving the problem once and for all. Hans Adler 00:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sandstein, I hope you'll consider unblocking Ludwigs. Our failure to ban QuackGuru is an example of AGF extended to the point of a suicide pact, but then the people who say no to the ban move on; they don't stick around to help deal with his edits. So Ludwigs brings it here, and ends up blocked because his language was a little aggressive. That seems unjust. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin, without yet commenting on the block/unblock of Ludwigs, you seem to be unable to comprehend why the Community refused to ban the editor (even though it said so quite explicitly, and repeatedly in the failed ban proposal of December 2010). I will note it again in case you missed the message back then: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru 2 is still a red link. If (1) someone involved (who has tried to resolve the dispute) can provide evidence to support the allegations that are being made, and (2) they can provide the evidence/allegations in a way which is comprehensible to everyone, and (3) there is no improvement, then there will be no shortage of support for an appropriate user-based remedy, including a site ban. The same goes for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ludwigs2 and allegations that have been made by other users about this editors behavior. In the absence of either "side" making any effort to use WP:DR appropriately, it is little wonder both sides feel nothing has changed; unreceptiveness to Community feedback generally accomplishes that result. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Ncmv: Allow me to point out the QG has been through RFC/U once already (not to mention numerous AN and ANI threads) - he declined to participate in that RFC/U, and it died a quiet death. I could do the second, if you like - how many RFC/Us will be started and ignored before some other approach can be tried? three? four? six? Let me know so that I can schedule them in over the next couple of years, because you know this problem is not going away of its own accord. regardless, I wasn't actually asking for any sanctions here - I assumed that there was no consensus for sanctioning QG, and I was really hoping that that if I brought the issue up here one of those people who support him would see fit to take him by the ear and get him to start behaving properly. Yes, I'm naive that way. but, whatever. --Ludwigs2 05:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Ludwigs, how successful have your attempts been at resolving this dispute? Totally unsuccessful. So listen to the advice your unblocking admin provided; listen to the advice of the Community; use dispute resolution as you have been requested to. We are in 2011, not all the way back in 2007; an RfC/U focusing on problems within the last year would be of assistance to the Community (if you feel there is a problem which should be addressed by the Community). About "get him to start behaving properly", that's why I said "if...(3) there is no improvement" - because it gives him opportunity to start behaving properly if he has been behaving improperly - sanctions are only after that point. At this point, whether he participates or not is something you need to give him the opportunity to decide; predetermining it through your own assumption has not accomplished anything useful for you, has it? The only thing you should be worrying about, in my opinion, is particularly where I said "(2)...provide the evidence/allegations in a way which is comprehensible to everyone" - because the threads you've presented at AN/ANi have not really managed to address that point successfully so far. That's where someone, who understands what you are trying to present, may be able to assist with the drafting - be it SlimVirgin or someone else. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
        • If that's the way you think this should go, I'm happy to do that (I'll confess to being cynical about the outcome, but let that be). as far as 'providing evidence and allegations': I'll confess I thought I did that here and in the earlier request. I have no clear idea what I could do otherwise, since the the problem (from my perspective), is that whatever evidence/allegations I present are almost immediately ignored in preference to commentary about what a horrible person I am. Everyone seems to be aware of the issues with QG's editing style - at least, no one has ever actually disputed the claims that I've made and even many of his supporters acknowledge the difficulty. people just seem not to want to discuss his behavior, to the point where it is apparently irrelevant how clear I am in laying the issue out. But if you or SlimVirgin or anyone wants to give me advice in my talk on how I could better present the problem I'm seeing, I'd welcome it.
        • at any rate, shall we close this thread now so that I can shift focus over to RFC/U? --Ludwigs2 06:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Both QG and Ludwigs2 can be, for lack of a more discreet term, serious pains in the ass. (As can I.) But the block is totally disproportionate and Sandstein should be censured for such a hamfisted move. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Request unblock

User:Ludwigs2 was blocked for his comments at ANI, "I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly".[61] However, despite the administrator saying that he would block Ludwigs2 is he "decline[d] to respond to this concern if you do not do so within two hours of your next", he blocked him forty minutes later after he requested the administrator explain what comments he was referring to. Ludwigs2 has offered to redact his comments.[62] Therefore request unblock. TFD (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The words he used about shouting down another editor etc. (to wit: " if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly.") violates every principle on civility ever enunciated by ArbCom. His responses that he would seek desysopping of Sandstein was extraordinarily ill-advised. He appeared, at best, to be using a complaint about an editor when the issue was clearly one of a content dispute, and seeking action against Quackguru was inapt at best. I suspect that he will, indeed, not be unblocked, and may actually have his block extended. Collect (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm With your comment you gave the signal for the mob against Ludwigs2 to form. Don't you think it's about time for you now to acquaint yourself with the actual background? Quackguru's failure to communicate in a meaningful way is hardly a content dispute. He has even demonstrated his behaviour here at AN. Hans Adler 01:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As I read the entire article talk page, and so indicated previously, I find your apparent assertion to be substantially ill-formed and ill-informed. What is clear is that all of this boils down to a content dispute which L2 ought not have brought up here in the first place. QG's faults and virtues have noting to do with L2's words and deeds. Collect (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG strikes again. I've got the article watchlisted and will keep an eye on it. N419BH 01:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That is the appropriate way to handle the situation: get more eyes on the article. Not with trying to get people sanctioned or making disproportionate responses to bluster. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't expect editors to cause disruption in order to get their way, no matter how nefarious the opponent is alleged to be. Protonk (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully advise administrators to reduce block to time served. Penalty was disproportionate. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

Considering the user's statement that he will redact the comments that the blocking admin found to be a threat, adding that he didn't mean the comments to be a threat of disruption, the comments here by editors who support unblocking, and the fact that this block is a long stretch of the ArbCom pseduoscience restrictions, I'm going to unblock Ludwigs2. At this point, the block is punative, not preventive. Dreadstar ☥ 02:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sandstein correctly identified a threat to cause diaruption and acted on it as an AE measure, which allows braod discretion. They asked for a response from Ludwigs2 within a time frame and the response was "what exactly are you referring to?" and "hunh? what are you talking about?". Since the subject under discussion was abundantly clear, this could be either complete failure to grasp the point, or wiki-play to make someone else do more work. Either are grounds to proceed in areas covered by AE special discretion. However, S set a timeframe of 2 hours to respond adequately and blocked well before then. In addition, the "warning" cited by S [63] was actually a "notification". It explicitly says that normally there will be another warning, except in cases of "serious disruption". I see no such case here. The discretionary sanctions allow wide latitude, so I can't support an unblock. I'd urge Sandstein though to re-examine the duration with a view to unblocking if Ludwigs2 will retract the statement and also agree not to carry through with the threat and pursue avenues of dispute resolution. Franamax (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• I have granted the unblock request by this user. Dreadstar ☥ 02:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that was a seriously bad move. Can you show evidence of your discussion with the admin who blocked under AE remit? Or consensus of uninvolved admins or even all editors for that matter that overriding a discretionary block was warranted? Franamax (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The show must go on, I guess. Protonk (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This was an extremely inappropriate unblock. Here[64] is the motion by arbcom regarding the undoing of discretionary sanction blocks. I see neither written authorization from arbcom nor a significant consensus of uninvolved editors to unblock. Furthermore, the unblock was done by an admin who has advocated fringe topics and has had significant content disputes revolving around pseudoscience. Skinwalker (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There was consensus for an unblock, and AE allows unblocks in those cases. Also, I'm not sure Sandstein should have blocked under AE in the first place, because it was clear the block was going to be contentious, and it was made in response to Ludwig's request for help here, not for behavior on the article or talk page. SlimVirgin II (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree there was consensus for an unblock. This is not (or at least shouldn't be) a race to see who can shout the loudest the quickest, and pick the first five. Which editors commenting here are uninvolved in previous discussions? (Not discounting myself as uninvolved either) Franamax (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever agreed that the consensus has to be from uninvolved people only; that would often be hard to arrange. We ought to apply some common sense here. If you read Ludwig's comment, he was saying the only way to deal with QuackGuru is to start shouting at him, so please help him avoid that. It wasn't block worthy, though he ought to express himself differently in future. I've dealt with QuackGuru too, and you need the patience of a saint. He once started posting on NOR talk that I had a COI in real life that prevented me from editing the NOR policy. If I wasn't careful, he would post what my COI was. No, really, he was about to post it. When pressed by several editors to say what he meant or shut up, he started writing backwards about me in edit summaries on his talk page. Shouting and tearing hair out starts to feel like a reasonable response. :) Struck part of my comment that isn't really appropriate. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

well, let it go. We don't need to discuss this further here. Within the next day or so I will be bringing this up for clarification at arbcom - I am concerned by the possibility that I was blocked in an effort to protect editorial synthesis from being removed from the pseudoscience article, and the generally high level of obstruction that I have encountered from various editors and admins in the course of what ought to have been a clear and simple WEIGHT discussion makes me think we may need to revisit the pseudoscience/fringe issue at the arbitration level. I am frankly tired of this nonsense, and tired of having every minor change I suggest dragged out into endless, irrational obfuscation, so I will see what feedback I can get from the arbs and decide where to go with this from there. --Ludwigs2 05:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(e/c with above, reply to SV only) Please don't for a minute think I'm not seeing problems on the "other side", I've eye-glazed through this sort of incomprehensibility before as ragards both protagonists, but stuck through it right to the end of each thread. Yes, there are problems, big problems. But there is absolutely no prospect that these problems can be solved by admins coming along to overturn sanctions made by admins acting under the remit of ArbCom dicretionary remedies. Let's appeal the remedies or appeal the individual sanctions or seek wider and truer consensus instead. There seems to be a behavioural problem with another editor, but it's external to this specific unblocking issue. I'll never buy into "the other guy made me do it". And here, a discretiuonary sanction has been applied and no clear consensus was apparent to unblock. I'll certainly disavow construal of my own comments as countenancing an unblock, to me just now, it looks like grounds for de-sysopping. Franamax (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the best course of action that will avoid escalation? We started with a simple situation: an editor asking here for help. That has turned into a block and unblock, and now an admin being criticized. Franamax, what do you see as the most reasonable way to proceed now? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

For Ludwigs2, cxessation of argument from the POV that they are solely in possession of grasp of the one true way and that all others are recacitrant children who need to be patiently but sometimes severely guided to the one true way; for QuackGuru, stop wikilinking policy and guideline as though it was some sort of god dictating whatever you say god agrees with today and engage meaningfully in discussion, at risk of sanctions; for the article, sort out the preferred presentation on the talk page, I would say following MathSci's comments which seem to show a good reason for inclusion, not in the lede, not with any of the wordings I saw on the talk page, but somewhere; for you, I think you've acknowledged now where yuou stand so that's fine. But at heart, this particular section is about unblocking Ludwigs2, I've expressed my opinion at the unblocking admin's TP, re-block, talk to Sandstein, work through AE. Franamax (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've advised the unblocking admin to avoid reblocking for the reason stated there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, Franamax, though reblocking for the sake of process could lead to more trouble than it's worth. Perhaps we should wait to hear from Sandstein, and whether he strongly disagrees with the unblock, because if he's fine with Ludwigs2 withdrawing the comment, that would resolve things. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

More escalation, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Dreadstar, which is unfortunate. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I don't think that it is necessary to reblock Ludwigs2 at this time, given that he has redacted the problematic text, even though I am not sure that he understands now that threatening others, even if they are at fault, is unacceptable especially in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. But I very strongly disagree with the unilateral reversion of an arbitration enforcement action, and so have asked ArbCom to examine the matter.  Sandstein  06:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It does appear dreadstar is involved in wheel-waring. One should not revert another admins block without discussing it with them first or at least obtaining consensus at AN. The comments by Ludwig2 where uncivil and do not improve the atmosphere of editing in this difficult area. Sandsteins block was not unreasonable given the comments. I am sure all Ludwig2 would have had to have done was simply acknowledge that a) what was said was inappropriate and b) agree to remove it and he would have gotten unblocked. Having another admin come in a revert things especially one who is favorable towards pseudoscience was not appropriate.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As a point of fact, after being blocked, Ludwig2 seems to have submitted an appeal on the basis that Sandstein (1) failed to clarify which specific remark(s) were problematic, and (2) thereby failed to provide an opportunity for him to redact those remarks. It was only after Ludwig2 showed he was more than willing to reconsider and redact any problematic comments that Dreadstar granted the unblock. Ludwig2 then redacted the comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File mover bit

There is now a new permission that administrators can grant to suitable users that would know what they are doing, to permit them to rename a file. See Wikipedia:File mover for information. Or bugzilla 27927 for what turned it on. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is good news. Jafeluv (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

New Twinkle blacklist proposal

We are currently embarked on a large rewrite of Twinkle. The current method of blocking users from using Twinkle is difficult to use, prone to breaking Twinkle for everyone if an admin makes a mistake, prone to being bypassed by slightly savvy users, and changes may not take effect for weeks due to caching. The new Twinkle offers the possibility to implement blocking in a different way as a byproduct of the transition to using the MediaWiki API exclusively. One approach is that to block a user from performing Twinkle functions, an admin would create a subpage in the userspace of the blocked user of the form User:UncleDouggie/No Twinkle and apply protection to the page so that it cannot be moved. This page could have any contents desired or even be blank. We can setup Twinkle to immediately disable all functions upon detection of this page. Deleting the page would immediately restore Twinkle functions. The performance impact would be minor because Twinkle would only query the page when actually performing an edit. The query would be embedded within other API calls that are already being centrally performed for all modules in the new version. In most cases, there wouldn't even be an extra API call made. The technique can even be sufficiently embedded into the regular processing so that only an expert user would be able to bypass it. A blocked user would still be able to bring up the Twinkle user interface, but all edits would fail with a technobabble error message. If we are to make this change, it would be easiest to do it now while the patient is still in the middle of open-heart surgery, so to speak, and before testing has started.

Another alternative would be a central page containing a list of blocked users. However, this would have a minor performance impact and would be easier to bypass, although still not as easy as the current method. Yet another approach would be a protected tree at WP:Twinkle/blocks with one subpage for each blocked user.

There are currently 28 users blocked from using Twinkle. I don't know if the low number is partially due to the difficulty of properly performing a block, or if abuse just isn't that much of a problem. We could also implement selective blocking for only the more advanced Twinkle functions, while still allowing users to issue warnings and use Friendly. I'm hesitant to go there now because I'd really like a decision within the next two days while the surgery on the impacted code is still in progress. To be clear, there is no problem with retaining the current blocking method if that is the desired approach.

I'm raising this issue here instead of on Wikipedia talk:Twinkle because admins are the ones charged with controlling access to Twinkle. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

From a transparency standpoint, the central page would seem to be the best one (possibly a central list + subsidiary tree if that is more efficient). It'll certainly be interesting to see if taking permissions away becomes more common once it's easier to do - I strongly suspect that it will. Shimgray | talk | 11:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would favour User:UncleDouggie/No Twinkle. This seems far simpler to implement for checking than the central page (we will check far more often than we change) and has all the decentralised benefits of robustness. It relies on user subpage protection being simple and robust, which I understand to be the case. A central tree would have these advantages too, but it's just creating a new root to duplicate something we already have from the user: namespace. It also scales well for many blocked users and expands nicely for introducing per-feature access control to Twinkle, by embedding markup onto the control pages. If per-feature control becomes useful, that would drive a massive expansion of this feature as the multitude of unblocked users also had such a page. For that reason it should probably be labelled and discussed as "Twinkle access control" rather than "Twinkle block". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the User:UncleDouggie/No Twinkle option, it seems a lot more open to abuse. From what I understand, I could create say User:Andy Dingley/No Twinkle (hope you don't mind me picking on you Andy!) - which would disable your Twinkle access. It doesn't sound like something that would be noticed to fix. Although, could the page be "noTwinkle.js" instead? Therefore only an admin or the user could create it. On balance, a centralised protected list seems like a much safer solution. Worm^TT 12:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a very good point. A user could obviously fix such a problem by moving the page, but that's not a good way to go. Switching to User:UncleDouggie/No Twinkle.js would fix the problem, assuming that admins remember to put on the .js. Then again, we could just create a new Twinkle function that would automatically create the proper page for an admin. I think this vulnerability makes the WP:Twinkle/blocks approach unusable because we don't have any equivalent way to provide protection like we do in userspace. —UncleDouggie (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure we do, just fully protect it like we do with AWB at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Approved_users.  -- Lear's Fool 13:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We can do that, but then the contents of that page will need to be retrieved before a Twinkle edit is performed, which might slow things down a little. It also might not be as expandable to a finer grain access control mechanism.

Huggle does a similar thing using User:UncleDouggie/huggle.css. We could say for now that the existence of User:UncleDouggie/twinkle limits.css will block all access and in the future expand this to a finer grain control if it's needed. —UncleDouggie (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of a centralized twinkle access control. If you centralized the twinkle page with subpages you could use the title blacklist to keep non-admins from editing or moving the pages. It seems to work well for Editnotices. User subpages are harder to keep track of and it would be difficult to see which users have access revoked. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A user actively bypassing a Twinkle blacklisting hasn't been a problem in the past, as far as I'm aware; if a user were ever found to actively avoid the blacklist and thus typically community consensus that his use of scripts in editing Wikipedia is disruptive, said user can and should simply be blocked.
As you said, it has popped up from time to time that a user was blacklisted, but could continue to use Twinkle since he still had the old version of the script cached. It would be nice to decouple the blacklist from the base script to only allow a very brief cache time (down to zero, if so desired, performance impact would probably be negligible).
If you're reworking the blacklist format I suggest adding fields/columns to note the date of blacklisting, a suggested date to lift the blacklisting, a permalink to the discussion leading to the blacklisting (if any), and a comment.
But changing the mechanism isn't really that important, IMO. It's rare that an editor is abusing Twinkle to the point of blacklisting and can't be reasoned with, but is otherwise constructive. Amalthea 16:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd certainly favor a central blacklisting mechanism, either as one list (as long as it can be kept short, which should be the norm) or as subpages of one central page. Amalthea 16:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

With apologies for sounding negative: I am not convinced the complication is worthwhile. I am aware of one user who circumvented a "twinkle block" (Amalthea - so yes, it does happen)...however...Twinkle does nothing that the user cannot do otherwise; it doesn't confer any rights. It makes things simpler, sure; but really saying "you cannot use Twinkle" is a bit of a false restriction. Twinkle (for non-admins) just undoes edits, puts messages/warnings on user talks, and reports them to boards. Users are responsible for all their edits, whether using tools or not. If a user is issuing inappropriate warnings, undoing good edits, or inappropriately reporting to boards - then surely that can be dealt with in the normal manner?

Mostly, I'm worried about WP:CREEP - and people wondering what on Earth this protected page is all about. If it must be done, I'd certainly say centralise it, not put it in a user subpage - because that at least avoids the user or others wondering what the subpage is. Also concerned about help requests, "Why isn't Twinkle working?" and a quite complex extra thing to have to trace and debug. And, without getting into BEANS, if a user has worked out how to circumvent the current restriction method, it won't take much more for them to circumvent this new method.

But, overall, I'd say it is an unnecessary added complication to our already over-complicated wiki. There's many many other tools...are they all going to start having custom config files and restrictions? If a user is doing things wrong, then surely normal warnings/blocks are fine?  Chzz  ►  17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Small technical point - users with "Account Creator" can also bypass the title blacklist.  Chzz  ►  17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well considering there are only a handful of them, I don't think that's likely to be much of a problem. Certainly any account creator who used the permission to get round a Twinkle block wouldn't have it for much longer.

Twinkle allows editors to edit at a rate that is much quicker than it would be if they were doing everything manually and, in my experience, the reasons for blacklisting are typically a faster rate of editing combined by a lack of thought as to what they're doing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

ACC - agreed; as I said, "small technical point", I was just correcting it.

Twinkle does not allow editors to edit faster. It simplifies things. A clueful editor could just as easily script a tonne of API calls, and edit faster than Twinkle. Chzz  ►  17:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• First, a centralized system is definitely much better, since it is easier to track and manage. Isolated user subpages are virtually impossible to track. Second, I agree with Amalthea that we need not worry too much about circumvention. Anyone who is found to be doing that will likely get a swift block - or, if we are feeling particularly lenient, we can blank and protect all of their skin js files. T. Canens (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

But is it worth the hassle? Adding this check (to see if a page exists) will presumably add *some* tiny amount of time to every single use of Twinkle - and although I suck at maths, I do know that "tiny" times "lots" can be "quite a bit". Of those 28 users currently excluded, 6 are indefinitely blocked, and 4 haven't edited since 2009. Yes, I'm sure admins would add more people if it was easier...but is that a Good Thing? If they're being disruptive, can't we just ask 'em to please stop it? And if they don't, block - as per every other type of thing?Is this really worth the added complexity?  Chzz  ►  19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We can take out the blocking ability entirely if the admins don't see a need for it. The functionality is there currently, so I assume it was considered valuable at some point. An extra user was also recently blocked. The bypass issue is secondary to the other three shortcomings with the current method. We could greatly reduce extra queries to a centralized page by suppressing such checks for admins, account creators and rollbackers. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Would adding a category to the userpage help with the centralization concerns? Shell ^babelfish 20:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be a little bit aggressive (labelling the editor for a quite specific 'restriction' - and this is kinda what bothers me about this in general...making it a "big deal"), or even a bit of a troll-feed; I can picture a userbox now; "This user is not allowed to play with Twinkle!"  Chzz  ►  20:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is worth the hassle however if there remain <100 users blocked from twinkle then I am also of the opinion that any solution which garners a performance benefit and doesn't threaten transparency is perfectly ok. I'm willing to endorse whatever the folks working to improve twinkle want to do. Protonk (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this just another example of administrators trying to exert their authority where no authority needs to be exerted? How can anyone abuse their use of Twinkle without also falling foul of one or other of wikipedia's policies? A blocked user can't use Twinkle. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that's presumably partly why there are so few people currently banned from using Twinkle. But it makes sense that there are occasionally cases where a block would be unduly heavy-handed, but a user is just too eager to click the "rollback [vandalism]" button (or whatever) where it's not entirely warranted. Being able to deal with that without needing to block them seems a useful option to have (and exists already, just not in a very easy to use way.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I just don't get that at all. There's nothing that Twinkle allows a regular editor to do that they couldn't equally well do with a few more mouse clicks. It's easy to "rollback" just by editing an old version of the page, for instance. I find Twinkle useful for issuing vandalism warnings and initiating CSDs or AFDs, but it's just useful, not necessary. So what would denying access to it achieve? Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle isn't crack, users can just stop using it. I would have thought that just telling otherwise good faith editors to stop using Twinkle if its a problem, plus Wikipedia:People who are not currently allowed to use Twinkle tucked away somewhere would be sufficient. If someone has been asked to stop and carries on, just block them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Popups can be equally abused and despite a warning of the nasty things that will befall an abuser, I don't see any actual blacklist code in the popups script. One could always turn it off in the user's skin.js and then protect it, but that seems extreme. HJ Mitchell is the only admin who has indicated a strong preference for keeping the capability in Twinkle. Several others have said that if we keep it, the blocking should be controlled through a centralized list with more details about the block. I think the only possible case to be made for restrictions is on reverts and rollbacks. If the other functions are being abused, the user probably needs a real block. I propose that we remove the current blacklist in the rewrite and if it becomes necessary to restrict access to revert and rollback, we then add in restrictions on those functions only controlled by a centralized list. —UncleDouggie (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Spot on. Maintaining a blacklist is yet more unnecessary busywork. Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Complaint about the Greek Wikipedia

Resolved

 – We can't do anything about the Greek Wikipedia.  Sandstein  23:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Title changed from BAN FROM MEROLIPTIC ADMINISTRATORS IN GREEK WIKIPEDIA ALSO BAN FOR SUPPOSED MULTIACCOUNTS

Dear Sirs we are sorry to send this protest. We have been trying to change an article written for a writer Mr.Liakopoulos This article is published in the greek wikipedia link: http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%83%CE%B8%CE%AD%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%82_%CE%9B%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%82

The article is libellous against living person. If no changes can be done this article must be removed because it is openly slanderous and sycophantic.

The greek admins replied if the insults are published by media (newspaper widely accepted etc) then it is a third source and it cannot be removed.

Mr.Liakopoulos has published several books. He has some new conspiracy theories. The problem is the greek admins accept articles with no documentation and post theories and phrases that are just lies and Mr.Liakopoulos never said or wrote in his books.

When we replied that since his books are read by hundreds of thousands people then we should at least write correct what his theories are. Posting wrong views by authors that never read his books is misleading and slanderous.

We know that you avoid to accept the own writers books as a source. But what can be done if noone posts his theories? The only posts that are written in the article are the ones with slanderous accusations.

After several discussion we did not change anything regarding slanderous accusations like stupid or such. We will though insist on changing that in the future.

We decided to simply add phrases from media published articles. I personally started adding these phrases with all the needed third sources. After some time today. Some ΙΡ 79.107.178.77 starting deleting the whole article and putting in place the old article without the third sources I added. No notification was added in the discussion for the article. I simply copy pasted my added third sources again and restored the article with my added third sources included. After a few minutes the same ip deleted them without any comment. I then went to the greek noticeboard reported the incident and asked for a admin to act against the deletions. I left a comment also to the discussion. Then i proceeded to restoring the article once again including the the additional sources. This happened once again the same ip did the same act .. and i restored the deleted third sources.

Then an admin called MARKELLOS came in without any notification or comment. Deleted my third sources. Locked the article indefinitely. I made a comment asking MARKELLOS what happened and why he deleted my third source adds.

Imagine no reply so far by no admin!

After a few mins i (Belisarios) was banned and also the users Logikosnous, Halaros, Vivianna, Elapollon, Neeskens100, Alisa We are all different users ! And admin Geraki banned them all as if it was one user !!! I dont know all users but I know Logikosnous, Halaros, Vivianna, Neeskens100 and Alisa are friends from a forum from liakopoulos!

We are totally different users the only thing we share is that we have read some books of Liakopoulos and we simply wanted to put an end to injustice in the article about Liakopoulos at the link : http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%83%CE%B8%CE%AD%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%82_%CE%9B%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%82

Please check the data the admins of the greek wikipedia are offensive take fully wrong acts and ban people for ridiculous reasons. They do not stand neutral and criticize only views that dont fit their own beliefs.

Please check this out this admins are expose the greek wikipedia and contradict with the term free encyclopedia. If no changes can be done this article must be removed because it is openly slanderous and sycophantic.

Thank in advance for your actions to restore the incredible injustice.

DrBelisarios — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBelisarios (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your cause, we have no authority over the Greek Wikipedia; almost none of us speak Greek or have any presence on the Greek Wikipedia at all. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

---

.... You are saying that there is noone we can protest and complain ? Only way then is legal steps ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBelisarios (talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to take legal action? We'll happily block your account until the matter is resolved, then. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, recruitment of friends from online forums is considered meatpuppetry here at the English Wikipedia, and as most policies are similar in different language editions of Wikipedia, I suspect from your description that you were violating their policies as well. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Lemme see if I can't simply things for you here: You have a problem on the Greek Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia. Greek. English. Greek. English. Can you see the difference? HalfShadow 23:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

---

From the answers I see it seems there is no point to get a solution here. It was worth trying though since you use the term free encyclopedia and I mistakenly thought that someone would help at least understanding why noone cares. I am glad to have spoken to you. Thanks for your kind words and explaining me the difference between greek and english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBelisarios (talk • contribs) 23:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia is independent from the others, and policies (and enforcement of policies) will vary from one to the other. That's all folks here are trying to tell. It doesn't matter if we want to help or not, there's nothing that editors here can do other than act as a regular editor over there. And since most of us probably don't speak Greek, that won't help much at all. (Plus, see the comments about meatpuppetry). I suggest waiting for a bit, to let everything calm down, then see if there's an admin over there you can talk to about this. If you can find one, work on what they viewed as wrong behavior on your part, then shift to working on the article disputes. Know the policies in effect over there, and work within those to make changes. Good luck. Ravensfire (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If Liakopoulos receives significant coverage in independent secondary sources then maybe you should create an article about him here on the English Wikipedia - there doesn't seem to be one at the moment. The English Wikipedia has far more readers than the Greek Wikipedia, and of course everyone here is very reasonable and only rarely engages in incredible injustice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

We might already have one: Dimitri Liakopoulos. Goodvac (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No I think that's a different person with the same surname (but who is also on television quite a lot). The first name of the person being discussed here is Demosthenes, not Dimitri. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, transliteration issue - English Wikipedia's article was previously at Dimosthenis Liakopoulos. Having read the deletion log for that article, maybe my suggestion wasn't such a good idea after all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody check next picture

Could somebody check next picture File:Templeton Screenwriter.jpg, somekind of template, no source, no permission--Musamies (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

removed that infobox as it was clearly mislocated, and tagged the image {{di-no source no license}} Courcelles 12:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC close

Hi all, Could we get an uninvolved admin to close [65]? There is a long discussion which started well above the RfC and continues quite a bit after the section ends. It's been up for more than 30 days and discussion has largely died down. Have fun! Hobit (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Herostratus is in the process. S/he is a former admin, also, an admin isn't a requirement to close. CTJF83 21:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the case, in fact I got drawn into this discussion because I was considering closing it a couple weeks back and realized A) it was to early and B) I had a strong opinion on the issue. Thanks for noting he was planning on closing it, I'd not seen anything to that effect. Hobit (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, working on it. I'm going through all the arguments in great detail and will have a close with detailed rationale and exposition, ready in a couple of days. Herostratus (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I was also considering closing it, but was hoping someone else would step in! (I instigated the RfC but remain strictly neutral.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Unusual pagemove

For some reason, User:MoonLichen has moved their talk page to User talk:MoonLichen/MoonLichen. I have no idea why they did this; perhaps because it keeps the "you have new messages" tab from showing up? Can someone please set this situation right, maybe by histmerging User talk:MoonLichen and User talk:MoonLichen/MoonLichen? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I'm... baffled. Why does this require Adminstrator intervention? --MoonLichen (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem if Moon wants to have their talk page on another page. Admins do it all the time with seperate talkpages. I do understand the need for histmerging, but otherwise, I see no problem. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 04:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hammer, it's just someone doing something after being rebuffed for redirecting their talk page to Fuck off. You're not dealing with someone who appreciates the cooperative nature of our project; best to ignore it. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If anyone would like a little more history on this topic, see this section of my talk page. MoonLichen should be prepared to have anyone who wants to make sure he/she gets the message to post on the normal page. Oh well. LadyofShalott 16:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Something smells fishy (or foot-odory) to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

SPI Backlog

If anyone has a moment, there are several checked SPI pages that needs administrator attention. There are administrator instructions if necessary, but it's pretty basic. Just review the checkuser findings and determine if there has been a violation of the socking policy. If so, you can block as deemed appropriate. I'm also available to answer any questions. Thanks! TNXMan 17:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I went through some and blocked a few users; is a clerk supposed to archive it? I'm not sure how that part works. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Just change the {{SPI case status}} from "checked" to "close". I can go through and do some archiving later today. Thanks! TNXMan 18:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible compromised account - definite WP:COMPETENT issues

Having read through the myriad warnings for copyright violations, improper article creation and lengthy requests to stop, I believe it may be time for a WP:COMPETENCE block for User:Saudahmed66. They have been blocked three times for various issues, but truly do not seem to understand what the problem is with their editing. I'm also concerned with their recent note that they believe their account has been compromised. This is an excuse that they have used previously in an unblock request as well. As a relatively new admin I would appreciate additional input prior to blocking. I will notify them of this discussion now. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously if they've been compromised, someone should have immediately blocked. However, as that didn't happen, I do indeed see a competence issue or simply failure to understand what is acceptable and not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As a personal opinion I don't really buy the excuse that their account was compromised (and didn't notice it before now), but I also don't see any copyvio issues since my block of them at the end of last year. While creating A7-worthy articles may not be a terribly productive thing to do I don't see a need for a block unless they become disruptive again. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Accounts

I am about to register for the first time, after which I will make a few edits and vote in a few discussions/threads etc. After I have voiced my opinions, I intend to log out then create another account, which I will use to back up my original arguments. I intend to repeat this process as much as possible until my opinions are recognised as majority consensus. Just see if you can stop me, ha! 109.170.172.231 (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Clear threat to disrupt the project, blocked for 31 hours. Courcelles 13:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Watermarked picture

Please check watermarked picture File:Cebu city.jpg, own work by uploader, thanks--Musamies (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The image has a speedy deletion tag on it. Unless copyright information can be provided, the image will be deleted March 18. —GƒoleyFour— 13:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Korczak in Krupski Oleg (Request for renaming user)

Please, rename my account "User:Korczak" in "User:Krupski Oleg" in en.wikipedia respectively my IP. The reason - for a global account, I did not get access in pl.wikipedia.org, why there has been "User:Korczak". I am therefore obliged to address separately (in each section) to local bureaucrats (or administrators), to save my data. Regards Krupski Oleg (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

URGENT: Wikimedia Strategy Planning vandalism

The template reflist at Wikimedia Strategy Planning is being obscenely vandalized. I don't know who to notify so I thought I would post here. This template needs to be locked and the vandalizer needs to be banned immediately! I can only keep reverting it for so long... –Dream out loud (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:Fr33kman protected it. —GƒoleyFour— 21:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Protector of Wiki unblock request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is oppose to unblock  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Protector of Wiki (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Protector of Wiki requests unblocking at their talk page. The last unblock request ended as no consensus on this page at [66] on 15th October 2010  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Support for unblock. When I read the unblock request, my initial reaction was "Why not? We can always reblock if they backslide". After reading the section regarding the email to the blocking admin, I suspect that the backslide may be more likely than not. However, why not unblock them and get it over with? Perhaps they will confound my expectations? So, on that basis... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'm trying to AGF here by my spidey-sense is telling me this is going to be a waste of time. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock – Protector of Wiki has made many made good contributions and strictly follows our content policies, including recently creating two articles from WP:AFC on their talk page. The problem has been in getting along with the community, which is clearly essential. As one of Protector of Wiki's two mentors, I've observed a dramatic improvement in this regard recently, which seems to be driven by a high motivation to contribute. I don't know if this motivation will be sufficient in the long-term to maintain good relations with other editors. Protector of Wiki has been putting into practice many of the anti-frustration techniques that I've suggested. The only way to determine how well it will work is to unblock. If things go bad, it's easy to reblock and the project will at least have gained some valuable contributions in the meantime. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - The username really is misleading as a position of Wiki Authority, so under WP:U it should have probably been blocked. However, if the user has made good faith contributions, then maybe requesting a username change before being unblocked, would be better fitting. IMHO. Who (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - For what admins granteth, admins may taketh away. Mjroots (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• I think any unblock should be conditional on a namechange and a prolonged period of supervision under strict terms which would result in an immediate, unconditional indef block (with the standard offer available) if violated. I still hold concerns from the last unblock request but admit to not having too closely followed his actions since then so if his mentor thinks he's ready, then I'll buy into that. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 05:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC) What Nick-D has so eloquently described below leads me to now believe POW should remain blocked. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 11:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The discussion at User talk:Protector of Wiki#My email to PeterSymonds from a few days ago is highly troubling. In it Protector of the Wiki appears to either be playing a semantic game with PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) (who was the blocking admin) by pretending to not understand his responses or is genuinely unable to comprehend Peter's clear posts. The thread finishes up with this attack on Peter which seems to me to be entirely unjustified as his responses were clear, polite and helpful and two other editors had pointed out that Peter's responses were fine. Rather worryingly, Protector of Wiki gave this thread as an example of 'good intentions' in their latest unblock request. Whatever's going on here, I think that this indicates that Protector of Wiki is not about to start editing collaboratively and the block should remain in place. Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Definitely not. This kind of attitude and battleground mentality does not belong on Wikipedia and is not welcome nor ever will be. Reading over this user's talk page only convinces me of that. -- œ^™ 06:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• I recommend that the unblock request be declined because it does not address the problematic behavior that caused the block (notably, the ALL-CAPS SHOUTING) and so does not convince me that it will not reoccur. In an older section on their talk page, the user states: "I think that everyone knows I've stopped using caps for emphasis and have adopted italics and bold, though I sometimes falter since it is a habit hard to break". This does not fill me with confidence, and neither does the user's generally confrontative approach to editing that is evident from the talk page and even the unblock request.  Sandstein  08:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Nick D pretty much sums up my opinions on the matter. -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose That recent debate (about email) does not indicate a willingness for collegiate editing. I suggest any request should go to BASC.  Chzz  ►  17:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, and remove talk page access while we are at it. T. Canens (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for what it's worth. Reading between the lines a bit, arrogance and condescension don't just drop from that unblock request, they practically gush. Tarc (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The purpose of a block is the prevent disruptive editing. Editor has declared that he will be better in the future, and AGF tells me that he should be taken at his word. Better to unblock this account so his edits can be monitored, as the other choice is to deny his unblock request which will only serve to drive this editor underground. Onthegogo (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support and blocking someone for using ALL CAPS and "kinda-sorta" sounding confrontational? Are you shitting me? Blocks are a last resort, not a tool for suggestive speech reform. -- Ned Scott 02:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Read a bit more about the issues, then. The all-caps bit was just the start of the problems. The block came from a stubborn refusal to be civil with other editors when they offered advice or corrections. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support It's been five months and it's not like he's been sockpuppeting to get around his block. If he starts up again, block him and throw away the key; I'm sure more than enough people will be keeping an eye on him. HalfShadow 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The diff provided by Nick-D is extremely troubling. PoW retains a rather bad attitude and should not be rewarded with an unblock. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Nick D and the fact that this person has wasted an inordinate amount of time of editors on multiple wikis. His statements about Peter Symonds do not give me confidence that he will suddenly stop making personal attacks like he has in the past. Kansan (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Let's unblock and see what happens. If he falls back into the same attitude then he can be reblocked. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.