Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Durova (talk | contribs) at 03:58, 30 March 2007 (→‎Please review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)



    Congrats to Theresa Knott

    I thought I'd flag up a good article published in yesterday's edition of The Observer which highlighted the work of Wikipedia's unsung heroes - the vandal fighters. It focuses on our own Theresa Knott, who "visits the site daily, often editing at 5.30am before she leaves for work as a London primary school teacher. Her efforts have been rewarded with regular abuse from vandals and kudos from her Wikipedia peers, who elected her to the position of administrator in 2003." It gives a pretty positive view of Wikipedia's anti-vandalism mechanisms and the people involved, focusing on Theresa's own contributions. It's well worth a look - see http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2042368,00.html . We need more articles like this! :-) -- ChrisO 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Very cool, much props. The article does kinda make it out like admins create, which isn't true, congrats to Theresa for the recognition of her work though. Wickethewok 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does "The article does kinda make it out like admins create, which isn't true" mean, exactly? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it says that vandalism is "whatever the administrators think it is at a given time", which isn't quite accurate. Vandalism is a thing that many editors take on, not just admins. Its really not a big deal, its just the article makes vandalism-fighting out to be more of an admin thing, when in fact, its something thats dealt with by the whole community. Just a minor thing with the article (shrug). Wickethewok 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree about the props. The article also did a great job of describing, simply and clearly, some of the ins and outs of WP. Anchoress 19:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    high school lameness

    any advice on how to handle this mess without attracting one dozen bored high school kids to my talk page? i have a pretty strong hunch that's what i'll be in for. i hate to be a coward exposed for the coward that i am, and if i don't hear from anyone soon i'll probably suck it up and nuke the last week's silliness myself, but if anyone's dealt with a group like this before, i'd be curious what they did. --barneca (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I just reverted, warned, and watchlisted. Metros232 03:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    High school vandalism happens all of the time. Most vandals don't attack the person who reverts it, so feel free to get rid of nonsense like that as soon as possible. If it persists on a page after multiple reverts, report the vandal to WP:AIV, or if it is attacked by a variety of IPs and users list the page on WP:RFP for semi-protection. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Revert, report, block. A nuisance, but no big deal. (Oh, and learn to use your "shift" key.) Raymond Arritt 03:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    normally reverting vandals doesn't scare me; i just saw an organized group and expected the worst. not sure what magic bullet i thought admin's might have. but apparently the answer is, indeed, to suck it up, revert, and (from a quick glance at metros' talk page) revert talk page vandalism 3-4 times a day. thanks and good luck. --barneca (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. what's a shift key?[reply]
    Seriously? "What's a shift key?" I don't know how other keyboards are set up, but my shift key is the one that turns lowercase letters into uppercase, located above each control key (in the lower left and right corners of the main grouping of keys). Xaxafrad 21:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Factual80man

    Factual80man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) consistently abuses other users and adds profane, insulting edit summaries. He's been given many warnings on his talk page over the last few days, but he has continued the personal attacks and inappropriate edit summaries, even after a level 4 warning. A quick look at his edit history clearly shows the pattern of behavior. Thanks. C thirty-three 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I left "an official" warning. Hopefully that will alter the behavior. If not, I'll block him. —Doug Bell talk 08:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For continuous vandals, consider leaving a note at WP:AIV. CattleGirl talk | sign! 08:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A cure for vandalism

    I have searched Wikipedia and this seems to be the best/only place for this message. I am in hopes someone in charge of Wikipedia will see this as I can not find a contact for any of the powers that be Wikipedia.

    Vandalism is out of control. Most editors already know this. I have only been here for one year, one month and I have seen it multiply upwards drastically. So much so that one by one I have had to "abandon" articles because I can no longer, nor wish to, keep up with the vandals. I ask myself, Why work so hard fixing the problems created by vandals when Wikipedia invites vandals in freely. On some articles vandalism is an hourly event. I have even seen vandals invite others to make an article into a "chat" room. This cannot be ignored any longer. My daughter's high school history teacher announced to his class some time back that he would no longer accept Wikipedia as a reliable source on their reports. I learned of this while helping my daughter with homework and in conversation told her to always question all information found on Wikipedia. That is a reputation Wikipedia cannot afford to get. Vandalism plays a major role in this. The Wiki process of "warning" vandals is fair but useless as there must be literally millions of acts perpetrated daily, if not hourly.

    One way to curtail the problem drastically is to allow only "logged-on" registered editors to edit an article. The extreme percentage of violators do not bother logging on. If they do, they learn quickly to log off before vandalizing. Wikipedia best act on this "easy fix" now as once the reputation goes sour you will never be able to repair it. Soapy 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This suggestion has been brought up before and has been rejected. You may wish to read m:Foundation issues and the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Abolish anonymous users for further information. mattbr 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a mistake. The current slow process of "warning" Vandals makes vandalism mathematically impossible to fix. I won't bother to take the time to read the reasons as to why Wikipedia rejects the solution as it won't help. I guess now is a good time to jump ship. Soapy 14:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we did not allow non-logged in editors we would not longer be Wikipedia, that is our thing. Also, vandalism is not out of control, we deal with it everyday just fine. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have stated before several times. Vandalism can always be reverted. The vandals hopes of runing the encylopedia dashed when they realize with the click of a button all of there work is gone. On the other hand, a curious anon editor, who decides not to waste his time when he is required to sign up and leaves cannot be fixed with a quick "revert". -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find the revert-and-warn system very effective if used promptly and correctly, as vandals soon realise that we don't and won't tolerate it and that their actions are quickly reverted, and if they don't, we block them. By shifting vandalism to accounts, the same process would still have to be gone through, plus it would be harder to spot. Many editors also start out as annons, then get hooked and sign up. We would loose this with no annon editing. mattbr 15:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I edit and fix vandalism hourly so please don't tell me it is not a problem and is an easy fix. Go ahead and continue to believe all is fine, but when high school teachers tell their classes not to trust Wikipedia information then I would say Wiki has a declining reputation. I deal with authors everyday and in my conversations not one has had a good thing to say about Wiki. I used to defend Wikipedia with these people. But now being that I see Wikipedia refuses to fix the ever growing problem I am only left to drastically dropping the number of my watches. I can easily predict that I will continue to drop watches as the problem worsens. Don't be fooled into thinking it will improve itself. Soapy 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, no one should fully trust Wiki-info ever, nor that of any encyclopedia. That's not the job of encyclopedias: encyclopedias exist to provide quick, easy reference, not to be absolutely perfect. And it is in the nature of wikis that there will be errors/vandalism: per WP:RS, wikis shouldn't be thought of as reliable sources, and this includes Wikipedia. Re vandalism, have you ever tried using rollback/warn/report scripts such as WP:TWINKLE? Makes playing whack-the-vandal a lot quicker and lot less stressful. Moreschi Request a recording?
    • No one should trust wikipedia to write a paper. If you do, it is your own fault for doing such. I used wikipedia to gather basic information, and often used it to develop an outline or a plan for papers, however the research came from books at the library and scholary documents. The fact is, even if wikipedias content could only be edited by registered users, or any other restrictions were imposed, it WOULD NOT make wikipedia a reliable source for papers. It is just not, and that is not what it is here for. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Encylopedias should -never- be used as a final source in a research paper. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Wikipedia is a great place to start and is a hugely valuable resource for that, but it isn't a scholarly journal, it isn't a book, and it isn't a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; instead of using Wikipedia as a source, why not use Wikipedia as a place that organizes other people's research and go from there? I am not surprised at all that your daughter's high school teacher said that it is no longer allowed as a source; I am, however, surprised that it was allowed in the first place. --Strangerer (Talk) 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Encylopedia n: course of general information: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge.

    Knowledge IS the job of an encyclopedia and most people assume that knowledge implies correct information. Quick and Easy AND CORRECT information is the job of any encyclopedia. Yes, there will always be mistakes and I agree that everyone SHOULD question everything they read but most don't. Yes Wikipedia would still have some vandalism with enforced registration editing but the problem would be far drastically reduced. As far as vandalism then being harder to detect, I say that most editors check BOTH registered logged-in edits as well as ones not signed in so mathematically fewer would get through. Under the current methods, each vandal you are able to deter, ten more join in. I see with my own eyes what is happening on the pages I use to watch and am currently watching so please don't tell me things are fine. Soapy 16:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism is going to happen. I have spent months on rc patrol and it is no problem to revert several hundered acts of vandalism per hour, especially with the sophistacted vandal fighting tools that we have. You can get them set up, but vandalism is not seriously worse than it was a month ago, or 3 months ago. It is the same juvenile pranks that can be INSTANTLY reverted. It is not hard to fix vandalism. It is like saying that a kid writing a chalk board is graffiti vandalism, when in fact with a simple swipe of an eraser, there well thought out, juvenile contributions, are gone. If you dont like vandal fighting dont do it, leave it to somebody else. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The stupidly juvenile vandalism is not the real problem - it's generally easily reverted, although I've run across occasions where it's escaped notice for weeks. The real, darker problem is subtle factual vandalism, especially of biographies of living persons. If it doesn't look like obvious vandalism, it generally gets overlooked... and if you're smart, you can make all sorts of horribly despicable things look like perfectly good article content. FCYTravis 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Userpage vandalism

    An IP has taken to valdalizing my userpage, writing "YOUR IMAGES SUCK" under my images section. He appears to have done the same to that of IFCAR's. Who knows how many pages he hit. Can someone take care of this guy? Nothing makes me even more mad than someone who messes with my userpage. Karrmann 15:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a school's IP address, and they only edited those two pages today, nothing for the last hour. It's probably a kid editing between classes. We're discouraged from blocking schools indefinitely, so they may be back. By the way, your response could be considered a threat. I understand you were provoked, but do try to contain your fury, if for no other reason than that some vandals actually like that kind of attention, or may take it as a challenge. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. If I attack them, they may just want to valdalize my userpage more. Hmm, Well, it doesn't seem that they touched my page again yet, but I guess if they do become a problem, I can just have my page semi protected. Karrmann 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've semi-protected the page to prevent IP vandalism for a week, and I very strongly recommend you remove your age and photograph from the page. DurovaCharge! 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins editing protected pages

    I've seen a bunch of cases recently of administrators editing fully protected pages without first getting consensus on the Talk page. I don't want to start naming names yet and making people defensive, but this has to stop. (To be clear, this has been happening on multiple, unrelated pages.) Is it not obvious that editng a protected page without consensus is a use of admin powers to gain advantage in a content dispute? Kla'quot 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want us to do anything, you have to be specific. I know I've edited lots of protected pages per Template:Editprotected - but you must not mean that. I know a few times admins have claimed they've edited pages without noticing they were protected - but you must not mean that either. I know of a few other times ... let's just get back to the original point. Cite page and diff, please, if you want us to be able to do anything. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks AnonEMouse. I'm not asking non-guilty admins to be taking action against the guilty. I just want the guilty admins to read this, feel guilty, and stop the offending behaviour. The pages I'm referring to all had full, prominent Protection notices on them. Kla'quot 17:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Depending on circumstances, of course. A self-evident correction (grammar, typo) or somethign for WP:BLP concerns is unproblematic as long as a note is made somewhere. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removing BLP violations sure. As for "something for BLP concerns", I'm not sure what you are referring to. Kla'quot 04:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've seen a bunch of cases recently of users doing things I don't like without first taking the steps I feel are necessary. I don't want to start naming names yet and making people defensive, but this has to stop. (To be clear, this has happened many times, although I'm not specifying how many.) Is it not obvious that doing this is not appropriate and disruptive? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • You might want to re-phrase that, because it currently reads as your saying that other editors doing things that you yourself don't like is not appropriate, disruptive, and has to stop. Uncle G 01:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a question: Would you consider administrators making non-controversial edits on protected articles inappropriate? In this hypothetical world we can assume a non-controversial edit can be clearly defined and everyone agrees on the standard. --Deskana (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Call me a process wonk, but I personally think admins should use {{editprotected}} just like everyone else (We're not talking about WP:BIO or any other urgent stuff here, right?). It's always possible that the editing admin might perceive something as totally non-controversial, but that doesn't mean it actually is. Having another pair of eyes to look at the proposed edit reduces the risk of making potentially controversial edits greatly. --Conti|✉ 01:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrators are trusted by the community to receive those extra tools, right? Then they, just like everyone else, should be entitled to be bold when editing pages, even protected pages. If someone legitimately complains, then they should also seek discussion and form consensus about the issue. No need to go through process for the sake of process when we have policies and guidelines that suggest how we go about business. --Iamunknown 02:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. I wouldn't say that using {{editprotected}} should be a hard rule or anything, being bold is encouraged, of course. I just consider it to be an act of courtesy to go to the talk page and ask for consensus before making any kind of non-minor edit to a protected page. I don't think they should do that for process's sake, they should do it because when it comes to editing articles, admins are normal editors just like everyone else. They don't have any kind of special authority there, and every step we take away from that is a step in the wrong direction, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 02:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well-said. Kla'quot 04:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Iamunknown, WP policy is clear that Be bold does not apply to protected pages. See the last sentence of Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes. Kla'quot 04:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Read again. "Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless ... the change is unrelated to the dispute." >Radiant< 09:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well thats an error. Admins should not be editing pages that have been protected for reasons other than profile unless such edits are required by BLP. Admins should edit as editors not admins and a as a result protected pages are as off limit to admins as they are to everyone else.Geni 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That apparently was an error in the overhaul of the policy, that, as the edit summary implies, was not supposed to change the policy in any way. I've been bold and readded the lost sentence about being really really careful when editing protected pages. --Conti|✉ 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is something that i've recently been wondering about, after having a look at Atheism, where an admin behaving in good faith seemed to annoy a regular non-admin editor a bit - there's not a huge problem here, but perhaps some kind of guideline might help. When seeing an admin make various edits to a protected page, its one of the only times i feel like a 'non-allowed' editor, and I suppose this is bad (don't worry - i'll get over it!) - particularly when the protection has been there for more than a couple of days, and was put there by another admin. I guess I'd say that if an admin wanted to make uncontroversial edits; why not unprotect, make them, and see if the article is ok for a few minutes? - cheers, Petesmiles 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This type of thread needs specific examples or else it's worse than a waste of time. Go ahead: name names and provide diffs. Specific problems ought to be identified and addressed. If there's an accident or a misunderstanding it ought to get explained and resolved. Subjunctive mood threads achieve nothing but an atmosphere of suspicion. DurovaCharge! 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MfD for many of User:Da.Tomato.Dude's subpages

    Given previous issues which have been discussed on WP:AN and WP:ANI regarding people who do not contribute to the encyclopedia part of Wikipedia, this is nomination of a deletion request I have filed. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Da.Tomato.Dude assorted usersubpages. Many of you, I'm sure, will wish to comment. --Deskana (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    IMHO (personal, not as an admin), what they have in their own userpages is their business as long as it's civil, not racist, doesn't attack someone, etc. Now let the fireworks begin.Rlevse 01:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP is not a free webhost. MySpace? That-a-way. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rlevse, please post that on the MfD page. This subheader was just intended as a notification. --Deskana (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mackan (talk · contribs)

    Hi, I'm wondering if anyone can assist here. There's a rather combative and rude user by the name of Mackan who's threatened to "report me" for "wikistalking"(apparently he did this last week as well), and is trying to get in edit wars with me on several articles. I was wondering if someone could help here, his edit summaries alone are proof enough that he's incredibly rude and dismissive of other users, something that should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Just H 11:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you provide links to what you are talking about? Thanks, --Tom 15:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, hold on a sec. Let me gather the diffs and edit summaries. Just H 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Examples

    He seems to have several edit wars going on at once with multiple people, largely due to overly aggressive and arrogant behavior.

    I'm beginning to fear that a request for comment is necessary for this user, although i'd prefer not to go down that route, even if some of these people are harrassing him as he claims, that does not give him the right to act in such a way. Just H 19:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mackan's Response

    • There is nothing arrogant or aggressive about the Brussels comment, and that was not an edit war, and if it was, it's one you started and one you but nobody else contributed to.
    • There might still be a dispute on the Kansai-ben article, but it's not over the factual accuracy, as the tag suggested. Again, this dispute is not with "multiple people" but me and two more editors disagreeing with you, and only you.
    • I "yelled" after having those tags removed several times without any explanation. See the talk page, the admin put the tags back. In the Kansai-ben article, other users removed your tags too.
    • The "Mister-Jones" talk page revert does in no way constitute a "threat".
    Additionally, I am, unfortunately, involved in a few edit wars, but most of them boil down to Japanese meatpuppetry, see Comfort women, Asahi Shimbun, Japan-Korea relations, Joji Obara. Mackan 19:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not "done this last week as well". The one who is trying to get into edit wars with somebody is you, with me. You ARE wikistalking me. Just H started posting on the Joji Obara talk page, after a content dispute we had on the Kansai-ben article. On the Joji Obara page, he sided with the editor opposing me, which he is perfectly free to do, and had it been only this article I wouldn't have minded at all. What freaks me out is when he starts reverting edits I make to other, completely unrelated articles, as well. For example, Brussels, an article he has not previously edited. My edit: [2] and Just H's revert [3]. Also, the Jafaican article: [4] and Just H's revert: [5]. Have I then done something inappropriate when I ask him to stop stalking me? Mackan 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At a casual glance, the diffs of his reverts seem like reasonable edits. He's allowed to edit the same pages as you. Stalking would involve an intent to harass or annoy. Is there any evidence of such an intent? I certainly don't see it in the diffs provided. Friday (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course he is allowed to edit any article he wants to, but doesn't the fact that he on all three articles either opposed me or reverted me say something about his intent? Also, how about the fact that he had never touched any of those articles before, but obviously found them by looking at my contributions list. Just H seems pissed off about the situation at Kansai-ben and allows this anger to spill over to other articles. Petty revenge is the motive, if you ask me. Mackan 19:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin attention overdue at Wikipedia:Consented blocks

    I spotted this at MfD and was alarmed that one of the block reviews is overdue and reference to the other is threatened by the page being deleted. Happy for the page to go if both blocks are reviewed. --Dweller 12:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Roitr

    It seems like we are witnessing a new rage of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr:

    88.152.98.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    88.153.55.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    88.155.107.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Clear connection connection with indefblocked Tryils (talk · contribs · block log), Mitryi (talk · contribs · block log), Csdak (talk · contribs · block log), Fsak (talk · contribs · block log) etc. engaged in the same activity.

    Comment I'm just tired of firing multiple detailed reports per day to WP:AIV and WP:RFP... It's sure a nice way to celebrate his more than 1 year of being indefblocked and a very recent community ban on top of that, but the question is, why is he still able to do this? :( What about a couple of rangeblocks over his IP range? --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 13:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Roitr is using Bezeq the main ISP in Israel. Apparently changing the IP there is as easy as pressing the reset button on the cable modem. The IPs are assigned randomly from the pool of their IP numbers. The only usable rangeblock on Roitr would block more than a half of Israeli users. Go figure. Please just give me his socks and I would block them Alex Bakharev 13:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Every sock is blocked, forks protect-redirected, images deleted, affected articles semiprotected Alex Bakharev 14:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just can't keep up - the moment I encounter one IP or username, he's already got himself a few more. Why not instate a block on 88.152.0.0/14 for the duration of his most active hours?!. Maybe some admins could watch Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr for new reports and act accordingly? --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AIV backlogged + ammusing tidbit

    I'm going to bed - someone else deal with it. However - I was ammused by this report. Somone want to poke him with a pointy stick? ViridaeTalk 14:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deathcamps nonsense

    Remember this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive219#141.157.161.15? The owner of deathcamps.org is being quite aggressive (not without reaosn) on OTRS; there are dozens of links to death-camps.org on other language projects, and several links to deathcamps.org have also been removed. I have requested blacklisting of both sites to contain the problem, but if speakers of other languages could help out it would be appreciated.

    Plenty more where they came from, I'm sure. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blacklisting is definitely in order! Give us a break already. Good on you for spotting the extended nature of this JzG. (→Netscott) 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. Blacklist both. We don't need this crap, even if the material they supply is useful; they need to work out their differences and not bring their battle to Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good call on the blacklisting request. I know that sometime in the past I was involved in a situation where some editor was going through pages and replacing one version of the URLs with the other, along with not so veiled legal threats. IMO the benefit of these as external links is outweighed by the headache of having to deal with something that is essentially not our problem.--Isotope23 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    fr: is done, unless my edits get reverted. Jkelly 20:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, all links should be removed? I can do it on nl., but where can I point to in order to explain that mass removal of links? --Edokter (Talk) 23:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Argh, don't they understand that complaining to Wikipedia will get them nowhere? They should instead seek dispute resolution off-wiki. I'll chime my support at the spam backlist; hopefully it remain, unlikely most conversations at the spamk backlist, a small unheated conversation. --Iamunknown 03:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have started removing the links at German Wikipedia. Hope I don't get blocked! I have two questions: One — should I also remove them from discussion pages? Two — what should I do when they are not just given as external links, but given as a footnote to source a particular claim being made? See, for example, Footnote 3 in this article. I know that claims have to be sourced in Wikipedia articles, and my German isn't good enough to enable me to rewrite an article taking that bit out. It might leave a gap in the sense if I just removed the sentence that is sourced, and I wouldn't be able to explain myself on the talk page either. (In fact, I got my edit summary from a German Wikipedians who has edited some of the articles I was editing here.) Is it enough if I just nowiki the link? ElinorD (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think they're too happy with me at German Wikipedia. It's being discussed at the admin noticeboard. See here. I removed all the "death-camp" links (over fifty) from articles, but there are still some left on talk pages and project space.[16] (Nobody answered my question above.) I removed a very small number of the "deathcamps" links, but there are more than a hundred left.[17] I'm stopping for the moment, because they don't like what I'm doing, and anyway, I have to go out. I'd be prepared to continue with the "deathcamps" links later, if somebody okays it. Someone at German Wikipedia has also just told me that it would be better to comment them out instead of removing them. ElinorD (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a note there, but if any enWP admins speak German perhaps they could go over and make nice. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The messages at my German talk page are here. ElinorD (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, thanks for your information on our noticeboard. We will discuss this issue and let you know about the outcome for german wikipedia. Please refrain from removing or changing those links for the time being. Of course if those sites get on the blacklist there wont be anything to discuss. --TaxmandeTalk (de) 11:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: the above user is not User:Taxman from en, but is Benutzer:Taxman from de, who has an account here as User:(Taxman) de. He may modify his signature above, as the enwiki Taxman has pointed out that it links to the enwiki Taxman's userpage, but in case he doesn't (he doesn't come to this wiki very much), I thought I'd point it out. ElinorD (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Elinor, in response to your question, I guess just refrain from removing the links until further information comes in from de. --Iamunknown 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. There were 68 links to death-camps, and I got it down to 14 (leaving only discussion pages and project space), but I've been reverted, and it's now back at 29.[18] There are 137 links to deathcamps; I had only removed a few when I was challenged.[19] I'm not going to do anything more until some kind of decision has been made by the people who are supposed to make these decisions. ElinorD (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Would anybody be so kind to explain, why this link should`nt be used on wikipediapages? What is the meaning of ORTS ? Why is the deadcamp.org on a blacklist? What are the reasons of the owner? Bodoklecksel 12:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OTRS is the e-mail system that any e-mail to addresses AT wikimedia DOT com go into. The two domains are in some kind of battle (c.f. WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND), took it on wiki (c.f. archive), and now the one that got blocked is being belligerent on OTRS. As a result of the whole bitter imbroglio, we removed all of the links from all articles on the English-language Wikipedia. They apparently didn't think that was enough and are now on OTRS complaining that links can be added back in / links can be added to other Wikimedia projects. In an effort to stop the whole battle, some (including myself) are asking that both domains be blacklisted at the meta:Spam blacklist so that no Wikimedia project may use them. I don't really know (as I am not an OTRS member) and am unsure that I care the exact reasons of the respective domain owners for this particular battle. It is really a moot point and it should be taken off-wiki. I have my opinions but refrain from repeating them because, when I did elsewhere earlier, my intentions were bitterly and baselessly attacked and misrepresented by one of the domain owners. I don't particularly care for anymore nonsense. --Iamunknown 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In case you guys haven't been watching meta:Talk:Spam blacklist, I'm not sure the links are going to be blacklisted. I continue to hope that they are but, in the event that they are not, what should be our next course of action? And Guy, can we get an update from the OTRS side of it? --Iamunknown 16:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • deathcamps.org is a valuable source for articles about the Holocaust and deathcamps in particular. We see from archive.org that the site exists since November 25, 2002. It is the original. We learn from whois.net and the information on the website itself that it is runned and responded by Chris Webb from Cranleigh, UK, as ARC Secretary & Trustee. According to the notice the site's last update was in July 2006. The team is no longer accepting donations. There was a vandalism in October 2006 and the pages were restored in December 2006.
    • death-camps.org seems to be a plagiarism. This information dated October 2006 says: "Every donation or contribution will help us maintain this website." The website does not name a resonsible person. whois.net says it was registered by Stephan Thier from Vienna, on October 17, 2006.
    • I suggest to restore the weblinks for deathcamps.org -- Simplicius, German user, 21:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank for your analysis. Unfortunately, and I speak only for myself and have no authority in the matter, I do not care anymore which domain was established when and by whom. The prior discussion took up 37 kilobytes in less than 24 hours, people affiliated with the domains keep trying to import their bitter imbroglio onto Wikipedia, OTRS is (as I understand, I am not on the OTRS team) the next battlefield, and I personally have been rather viciously attacked elsewhere for expressing what I thought might be the motivation for this particular battle. I would prefer formally forbidding any links to either website permanently, or at least until this mix up is sorted out off wiki. --Iamunknown 21:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A meta administrator added the sites to the blacklist a few hours ago, and then apparently changed his mind.[20], [21], [22], [23] ElinorD (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Boba...

    RFCU's a mess right now, and I've got something to do later, so I'm notifying everyone that Bobabobabo is back, and I have blocked the following as sockpuppets.

    I have also blocked the following two ranges as belonging to hosting companies and as a result the host of open proxies.

    I blocked both of these through edits I found on IPs within them, but the proxy (and range) used by Momamomamo may not be blocked (the register occured prior to the block on the other range).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as I was about to go, this one showed up.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Next step after a page blanking

    Yesterday, Princess56499 created Karina Garcia, a hoax bio copied from Allyson Swan. The user then vandalized Allyson Swan, as well as the related article Miss Idaho USA to mislead and refer to information in the hoax article. Essentially, the effect of the vandalism was to replace one person with another. I reverted the edits to Allyson Swan and Miss Idaho USA and issued a warning to the user. I also prod'ed Karina Garcia, as well as Julie Wingens which appears to be a hoax created by (and only edited by) the same user. The user has since blanked my warning, which I have no real problem with since it is still in the history and the user obviously got the message, and also blanked the Karina Garcia which I had prod'ed (note, I don't mean they removed the prod, I mean they blanked the page). At this point should the prod just be restored or should the article be deleted per G7, and should any other actions be taken explicitly, or just let the other prod take its course and keep an eye on the user for future activity? --After Midnight 0001 23:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A prod isn't going to do much if there are no people to discuss it on the talk page. Just speedy it under G7. I've already placed a tag. --Edokter (Talk) 23:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire

    Is broken. I dont know how to repair it. It shows {hidden begin |ta1=left |extra1=padding-left:0.25em; padding-bottom:2px; font-size:100%; title=}. --131.188.24.10 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    An IP editor mucked up Template:History of Iran. Fixed now. Thatcher131 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

    This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The indefinite community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine for tendentious editing, personal attacks, block evasion and disruption is endorsed. The ban also applies to User:DeanHinnen and all other proxies or sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine. User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is banned from Wikipedia for one year. The articles Free Republic and Democratic Underground are placed on article probation. It is expected that these articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. Either article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user, and users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist

    Should we utilize this? According to Special:Version it's enabled here. See mw:Extension:Username Blacklist for more info. —METS501 (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It would have to be used very sparingly. I can just imagine someone trying to block swear words, only to accidentally block "EmbarassedMonkey" because it matches "ass". I would say only vandal memes that will not be construed in any other way. -Amarkov moo! 02:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible to block certain phrases from being in names, such as "on wheels!" and "is communism," or does it have to be a complete name? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it can block phases. I'm not quite sure why something that required complete names would be any use; why not just create the accounts and block them? -Amarkov moo! 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I'm stupid. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Except creating every possible permutation of "on wheels!" would be so time consuming as to be ridiculous. I agree with the point about accidental swearwords, or whatever you want to call that. Natalie 04:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can the servers be said to suffer from apophenia in such cases? :-) Chris cheese whine 04:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been messing around with it and can't get it to work. I'm deleting the page, but other admins are welcome to look at what I tried. alphachimp 05:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait, don't. Comment out the first line using #. GracenotesT § 05:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, too late. Anyway, if you want to recreate it, start it like:
     #<pre>
#Administrators: Add regular expressions to this page to block them from creation in usernames.
*Stuff
*Middle stuff
*End stuff
#</pre>
    GracenotesT § 05:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, the <<pre> is just for readability, and probably not needed. It's been removed, which works. GracenotesT § 05:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried that and I'm not having much luck. I'll leave the page there for another admin with a little more mediawiki expertise to mess around with. It shouldn't do any harm in its current form. alphachimp 05:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whenever an admin comes around, make sure to put something in MediaWiki:Blacklistedusernametext and MediaWiki:Blacklistedusername; right now, it's defaulting to a complaint that the account is already in use. -Amarkov moo! 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I tested it on my personal wiki... apparently, comments are not allowed, not even starting with #. I just had a file that said
    *Stuff
    and I couldn't create the account. I just assumed that comments were part of the syntax. Sorry for the running back and forth, and thanks for your patience, Penisfuck123, or shall I say alphachimp. GracenotesT § 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gracenotes, have you seen mw:Extension:Usernameblacklist? It appears to only accept bulleted regular expressions. Try that on your wiki. --Iamunknown 05:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it should "Ignore non-list lines when generating blacklist," which means you should be able to write a note without # or * or // or whatever else. --Iamunknown 05:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ← When I said that I create a file, I meant that I created that mediawiki page. When I created it with the above content, I could not register a user with the username "Stuff". However, when I added this: 

    * Other 
my wiki stuff

    I could create a username called "Other". Then I tried: 

    * Hey
#my wiki stuff

    And it still created the account called "Hey". So if we don't insert comments, we'll be fine. GracenotesT § 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • We could add ".com" and such to the list. I understand that ampersands are already blocked? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radiant! (talk • contribs) 12:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    I see a problem with "crat" being used-we actually have a user already that goes by "autocrat", and I could see other users using "Democrat" or the like in a username that would be appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, good news; I tried to create an account called "123456aTEST cache cleared maybe", and it failed. (Failing == good, eh.) GracenotesT § 13:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    HEY! There's currently a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Usernameblacklist about what to include. Please join it if you wish. GracenotesT § 19:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ¡Muy excelente! I will be there later today. --Iamunknown 20:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Need a free admin to handle an issue

    I need an admin to check Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. A user is "moving" (though not with the move tab but instead copying the content) to Mario&Sonic at the Olympic Games because of the game typography, splitting the history between two pages. I recommend converting one into a redirect and fully protecting it until the dispute is over. I would do it, but there may be a conflict of interest by now (as I am trying to calm this user down). Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 04:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I have protected all three pages (Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games, Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games, Mario&Sonic at the Olympic Games. Please resolve the issue at the relevant talk pages. Thanks. --Ragib 04:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone tackle the histmerge that needs doing here please? This needs to happen before any attempt at discussing the content and location of the article can go ahead. Chris cheese whine 05:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's currently a double redirect. JuJube 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed the double redirect, and unprotected it. Since the history merge has been done, I removed the protection in case we decide to move it there. -- ReyBrujo 19:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I did the history merge and left the merged version at Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. If a diferent title is prefered, it can be moved to the appropriate location. All pages currently unprotected. WjBscribe 02:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliva's eye

    Resolved
     – per Woohookitty

    The article in question now qualifies for speedy deletion. Could someone please close the discussion and proceed with deletion?--Ng.j 08:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimbo Wales's requested poll nearly done - please see

    Jimbo Wales requested a poll to gauge community thoughts on the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. A poll for this is being crafted, and is somewhat close to done. Concensus for the past 24 hours (with the occasional dissenting voice of course) that the thing is close to done. Only the main question is still heavily debated. A pre-poll straw poll is here:

    Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Q1_Straw_poll_duration

    To sort that out. Accepted group concensus seems to be to pre-poll to 4/1/07 22:00 and then launch a site-wide poll (again, as implied/requested by Jimbo) at 4/2/07 00:00. Please help hash out the wording for that last quesion. - Denny 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not nearly done. This is coming across as underhanded, Denny. El_C 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How many people oppose it? There is hardly a concensus to not do it, and every time I throw out the suggestion there is no opposition. I've had that idea posted at the top of one of the most advertised pages in apparently a long time, and not one person before you, Radiant, and WAS with his inappropriate comments blew in and opposed it. You, Radiant and WAS aren't concenus or overrule concenus, and your voices have equal weight to everyone else--no more, no less. Work with others. :) - Denny 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not me, I oppose the questionable attempt to limit the poll's scope, and to rush this to conclusion. El_C 13:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop spreading some kind of disinformation smear tactic or whatever this is! As I explained in extreme length on the talk page, there is NO attempt to limit anything. Anyone can add ANYTHING that is SUPPORTED by concensus to the poll. If one guy wants a drastic change added with no support, why add it? Because they scream loudest? No. - Denny 14:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not also that every change you made was reverted out by others (and I think your changing of the supported/agreed upon transclusion for some reason was a revert but I won't file a 3rr on you). - Denny 14:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Disinformation smear tactic?" What are you talking about? I take exception as to how your presentation comes across. El_C 14:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your extremely disruptive tone on the poll talk page is quite the opposite of opposing my presentation. If you have a problem with the Poll, don't edit war. MfD it, and put up or stop being disruptive. Or, work with everyone as I've asked repeatedly. - Denny 14:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing how my tone is disruptive, not to mention "extermely. Anyway, I self-reverted, just in case. El_C 14:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why won't you discuss your changes as I have repeatedly asked on the talk page? You edit warred instead and posted endlessly and emptily about why the whole affair was bad. In other words, you warred, and added nothing to move forward. Why? - Denny 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have discussed my changes throughout. Please stop misusing the noticeboard. El_C 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1) I posted an announcement. Nothing more. 2) Your discussion is edit war inappropriately, then agree to talk when everyone shut you down. Good day. - Denny 15:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's clearly untrue. Stop misusing this noticeboard. El_C 17:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) That is a misrepresentation, El C. You posted, to voice your unhappiness, and in two edits undid 40+ edits by myself, Jossi, Picaroon9288, Marskell, Conti, Kim Bruning, SmCandlish, WAS, SlimVirgin, Pmanderson, David Levy, Crum375, and Armedblowfish. Removing 40+ edits by 13 editors is disruptive. Stop misusing this noticeboard, please. Regardless of how you spin this, unless someone deletes or edits the page history... it is there for all to see in the edit history. I don't know what you are hoping to accomplish by attacking me here. El_C, why are you deceiving/spinning? What do you hope to gain in calling me a liar? - Denny 18:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not decieving nor am I calling anyone a liar. Stop mischaractarizing my comments. El_C 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I wished to clear up the mispresentation that I was misusing this board. Happy editing. - Denny 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's amazing how such a tiny number of editors wish to introduce a site-wide poll within a day or two considering the changes to the structure of the poll over the last day alone. That, in itself, deserves closer administrative attention. El_C 18:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    El_C, the poll so far is by concensus. See here:

    Front of poll: 

    number of edits	586
number of minor edits	206 (35.2%)
first edit	03/20/2007 21:37 (Picaroon9288)
most recent edit	03/29/2007 14:16 (El C)
mean time between edits	21:15 m
unique editors	43 (0 IP addresses)
average number of edits per user	13.6
number of edits within last day	26
number of edits within last week	410
number of edits within last month	586
number of edits within last year	586

    This talk page: 

    number of edits	1689
number of minor edits	334 (19.8%)
first edit	03/20/2007 21:54 (Picaroon9288)
most recent edit	03/29/2007 18:31 (El C)
mean time between edits	7:31 m
unique editors	58 (0 IP addresses)
average number of edits per user	29.1
number of edits within last day	346
number of edits within last week	1528
number of edits within last month	1689
number of edits within last year	1689

    Its been here since 3/20/07. Your first edit was 03/27/2007 21:19 to the poll, your first talk page edit here was 03/29/2007 10:12. It was advertised heavily on ALL Watchlists starting 3/24/07. I believe you were editing on 3/24? Thanks, - Denny 18:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: El_C attempted to erase my demonstration that he insulted me, failed to AGF, and so on. All I would like is an apology to his misrepresentations about the work we did, and calling me out in his original response. - Denny 18:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I did no such thing. El_C 19:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith -- ReyBrujo 19:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. "This is coming across as underhanded, Denny. El_C 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)". - Denny 19:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Give it a rest. El_C 19:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Denny, El C, it might be helpful if you each posted a short (<100 word) summary of (1) what you think the current dispute about the WP:ATT poll is and (2) how you think additional input might help resolve that dispute, and then let it go. I've given my opinion and reasoning in the metapoll, but am not sure if there's any other way I can help. Thanks, TheronJ 14:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My sole concern is that concensus for days on the talk page has been to resolve this, and people coming in and deciding that "they are above" the agreed upon concensus system disrupts everything. - Denny 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How about in 50 words or less. El_C 14:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dudes, we need to slow down a bit for a moment. We're seriously not ready to run a poll right now. --Kim Bruning 14:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kim, I seriously appreciate your desire to help mediate. Seriously, you're the only person to simply say that. Is your concern over concensus of what will be IN the poll? Because that is being hashed out now. Or is it something else? - Denny 14:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not ready, it's not nearly done. Claims of consensus are premature. Discussion is that-a-way. El_C 14:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Denny, I left a message on your talk page. I think the energy you're putting into this is tremendous, and it's really appreciated. At the same time, you're leaving a bit of a wake behind you, you see (the number of people we seem to need to mediate between is expanding quite rapidly). So hmm, maybe you don't even need to slow down, just help us mediator-type-people deal with the wake for a bit. :-) --Kim Bruning 14:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not gonna respond to this thread any further, lest Denny would choose to duplicate lengthy comments from the poll's talk page. Ciao. El_C 19:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The poll is not near consensus. There are six options for what the first question is to be, four of which can claim reasonable support, as I write.
    • It has not been conducted civilly or with decency.
    • It is not nearly done. Even if consensus on Q1 emerges, the result will still require tweaking if we don't want editors deprecating the poll as biased. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates

    An editor has challenged an AFD decision of mine at Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/Jalabi99 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I'm thoroughly unamused by this turn of events, as it seeks to personalise an administrative issue and avoids the correct forum (WP:DRV). Furthermore, I was not notified of this "case" (I found it when looking at "what links here" for my user page), and the "advocates" dealing with it have responded to the "case" as though they are lawyers who have already judged me "guilty" (User talk:Jalabi99).

    Whether or not my closure was proper or improper isn't the point (I have no problem with a DRV and always respect its outcome). The incident does, however, lead me to question the role of Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates and whether "advocacy" is good for the encyclopedia. Personally I see WP:ARBCOM as necessary, but any further attempts at bringing quasi-legal organisations to Wikipedia as undesirable and something to be resisted. --kingboyk 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I started questioning the role of that particular project a while ago. I used to be a member, but I left it, because that's what I saw happening to it. Awesome, isn't it. --Deskana (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that is funny. DRV is not a legal process, and treating it as one is utterly stupid. -Amarkov moo! 14:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not a legal process, it's WP Policy, and the original request to AMA is an attempt to do an end run around it, in my opinion. SirFozzie 15:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, the point of WP:AMA is to help people deal with policy, and consensus in general, so going to AMA first is actually a really good idea. The AMA people should then be able to explain what needs to be done next, and help folks do that.

    The big problem that AMA (and several other projects just like it) faces these days is that they cannot recruit skilled people straight off of Requests for Adminship anymore. They have to train newbies from scratch, and this makes the quality of their work a bit variable at the moment. It's still better than nothing, but they could use a lot more help from experienced people!

    --Kim Bruning 15:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm happy to criticize AMA when it deserves it, but this seems like a basically good advocacy. The original user was frustrated by a deletion, and the advocates informed him/her of the options of (1) DRV; (2) getting the deleted content restored to a userpage for use off-wiki; or (3) letting it go. See the mediation page. I can see Kingboyk's frustration that he/she wasn't notified earlier, but the AMA seems to have accurately fullfilled the function of advising novice users of Wiki norms and procedures. It also looks like the AMA has resolved the issue.[24] -- all in all, this looks like a positive result, if a little clumsy. TheronJ 15:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can see the positive side of it when you put it like that. Thanks. --kingboyk 15:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone provide me one example of the AMA actually doing something good? As far as I can see it's bad idea, period, because the trolls get a support network, and a walking disaster when it comes to Arbitration, and I think most of the Arbitrators would agree with me there. 90 per cent of the iniquitous wikilawyering we get around here comes from the AMA, most of the people at which haven't got much of a clue either. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. All I ever hear of the AMA is a litany of complaints from hard-working administrators and abitrators and I know for a fact that some people I wouldn't trust to know their arse from their elbow act as Advocates. After that blunt message Raul654 issued them with they seem to have tried their hand at reform but it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. An MfD may be on the cards. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)I really didn't see any evidence of trolling here, just that the user was frustrated and really didn't know what to do next. I had an advocate myself when I was new here and was involved for the first time on a content dispute, and the process was very helpful. The only reason I hadn't talked to Kingboyk sooner was that I hadn't determined for myself what was going on, in hindsight, it probably would've been a better idea to do so sooner. A lot of the time, though, newer users can become frustrated when they don't know the processes and policies as well as the experienced users they may be dealing with. In many cases, it can be helpful to have someone there to say "Hey, here's what your options are," and to provide some advice if they're not sure if something is acceptable or not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since at the end of the day this seems to have turned out to be a successful advocacy, I don't think an MFD is in the cards at this point in time. :-) --Kim Bruning 15:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)Dev920, Moreschi, I actually think that this case is exactly what the AMA is best at. A novice user was frustrated by a deletion. AMA explained his options, and he cooled down and solved his problem. AMA is at its best when a frustrated user has someone "on his side" explain that the best way to solve his problem is to cool down, and explaining the Wiki policies and procedures that are in place. You might be able to achieve something similar with a Help desk-style group question and answer session, but I think it would take more thought than MfD is likely to bring to the problem. TheronJ 15:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's something the help desk could have done, and in the end I was my own "advocate" really as I had to chase around to find out what the hell was going on. Not a particularly satisfying experience, even if some good came out of it :). (The "good" being I userfied a crappy list ;)). It would nonetheless be interesting to hear about any truly useful work this group have done (not a loaded request - surprise me!) --kingboyk 15:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, you should be looking forward to an MfD, because no one writes those nominations like Dev. Remember the thunderous, majestic poetry that spelled doom for Esperanza? At any rate, this sort of comment makes me want to retch. I mean, really... "The goal of advocacy is not to set the user straight, but to help them acheive a good outcome from the DR process."? WTF? Moreschi Request a recording? 15:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Or we could look at fixing the system. Unlike Esperanza, AMA *does* potentially fulfill a useful role. I'm dreadfully overextended at the moment. I wonder if I can find someone to send to take a look. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Well, I did another quite lengthy case with User:Futurebird, who was involved in the Race and intelligence article and getting quite frustrated with a content dispute there. That's now cooled off by quite a few degrees and is in mediation. I already mentioned the case I was on the other end of, where I got quite a bit of help and good advice. In this case, yes, the request could've probably been handled just fine by the help desk, but some of them are a bit more complex, and a one-on-one discussion as the situation evolves is more helpful than repeated requests to the help desk where the person answering today may not have any idea what the situation was yesterday, or has to go look back through the whole thing. I think it also is helpful to develop a one-on-one relationship in such cases, so that if you tell someone "Look, that really would be a bad idea", they'll probably listen. I don't disagree that problems exist or reform is needed, but I think it certainly has the potential to be useful and helpful, and in many cases has been. (Remember also selection bias in reporting-it'll be the bad cases that tend to get reported, the ones that end well are likely to also end quietly.) And in reply to Moreschi, I've more than once set a user straight-that should be part of the process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This statement: Advocates are the closest thing to lawyers on Wikipedia... is a little disturbing to me. Even though they make some effort to reduce editors coming to the page looking for wikilawyers it's all a little legal eagle for me. Seems like all this can be done via help desk and mediation, without the coordinators, deputy coordinators, filings and refilings. Seems a little Concordia/Esperanza-like to me...a self governed sub-group working within Wikipedia replicating functions already in place. And: The AMA is an independent association and is not subject to any committees or other external controls?? RxS 15:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Kim is right in that AMA has the potential to fulfil a need on Wikipedia that requires slightly more thought and attention than the Help desk, but it seems to be miring itself in it's own self-importance and a sense of wikilawyering, not to mention bureaucracy. Why, for example, does every request for assistance require a page and form to be filled out? What's wrong with a single page to list requests like the WP:LoCE? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I've seen many things that are farther away from producing reliable content (our only goal) than the wikilawyering that goes on there. MFD away. Please. Let's get back to what we are here for. - Taxman Talk 16:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (reduce indent) Agree, I believe MFD is overdue. This particular program, by its nature, is divisive to the project. We have an entire community willing to assist new users in the areas within the scope of AMA, I do not believe a program dedicated to this is needed or healthy. Navou banter / contribs 16:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Oh heck, do whatever you like, as long as you come up with a replacement system that does what AMA promises better than AMA does that itself (which is to help people figure out the current policy morass on wikipedia). --Kim Bruning 17:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think we actually have a problem with a morass of policies. The five pillars pretty much sum it all up, and anyone who can't grasp the importance of verifiability, neutrality, free content, civility and that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy with a few minutes of reading shouldn't try to write an encyclopaedia. If there is a morass which requires experience to navigate, it's the numerous organisations and pages which have grown up around them. For example, Esperanza, Concordia, the personal attack intervention noticeboard, and, yes, the AMA itself. The AMA is part of the problem, and shutting it down, just as the three I just mentioned were shut down, is part of the solution. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MfD/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates

    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. Please don't hesitate to comment there. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Which has been closed. I was under the impression that anything can be sent to MFD provided it's a good faith nomination; if folks want it tagged "historical" (rather than deleted or kept as is) they can say so there. Is my impression incorrect? --kingboyk 17:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm aware. WP:EA and WP:CONCORD were both shut down in that way: ditto for plenty of useless wikiprojects. Moreschi Request a recording? 17:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to keep away from MFD. If people were really being that silly, I might need to start patrolling. <sigh> I do know about the Esperanza MFDs. In the end the Esperanza people themselves pulled the trigger, so I couldn't do much about that one. But it's still silly, you can just freely apply historic and rejected without using an MFD. If you think AMA is dead, apply the relevant tags there now! :-) --Kim Bruning 17:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That is indeed incorrect. MFD is for deleting pages. Systems like AMA have a very long history, and if discontinued, they should not be deleted, but rather marked as historical, as a matter of policy and expedience (this is not something you can vote for). The MFDs for esperanza were very flawed indeed, and in fact didn't lead to the outcomes most people desired, because they didn't understand this.

    --Kim Bruning 17:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We tag pages historical at MfD all the time. --tjstrf talk 17:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's silly then, because you don't need MFD to tag historical. If you want to actually mark something historical or rejected, just do so. --Kim Bruning 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Silly or not, MfD is currently the correct location for gathering consensus on historical tagging of maybe-useful projects. (This is as opposed to policy proposals, where it takes place on the talk page.) --tjstrf talk 17:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's silly, and an end run around normal policy process besides. *sigh*... I thought that on setup, we explicitly decided Not To Do That (tm). So alright, how long has this been going on now then? --Kim Bruning 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At least since Esperanza, maybe even before that. Although I think in the case of Esperanza, deletion really was being sought, and Messedrocker came up with the historical etc. solution in the middle. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just from my watchlist, I see Esperanza, Concordia, WP:PAIN, and several minor pages nobody used anymore. (Messedrocker didn't invent the Historify solution either, he just publicized it and gave it an oddly catchy name.) --tjstrf talk 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. But that's entirely silly then. Since you don't need to historify. You can just mark as historic directly, with no MFD inbetween.
    At any rate, taking things to the talk page of a broken project gives you much more elbow-room to get consensus to either tidy up their act or wrap them up entirely. I'd reccomend everyone who wants to see AMA closed go to the ama talk pages, and push for closure there. Hey, who knows, it might even work, eh? :-) --Kim Bruning 18:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I could end up getting very bold on it, and end up reworking the problems I see. Though, that may involve stepping on a few toes. I'm still thinking about it, though. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The location to continue discussion would then be WT:AMA. Straightforward, really. --Kim Bruning 18:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I still do not think that MfD is an inappropriate place for this; sufficient amounts of people desired that MfD, and do indeed want to see this killed outright. There is als nothing saying that an XfD can't result in anything other than deletion. And an XfD will garner more community attention than a discussion on the talk page. As well, see this. 18:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


    I disagree on both points. An XFD that does not end in deletion doesn't need to run at all, because all other actions can be done by non-admins based on plain consensus. Using XFD for other reasons is fairly disempowering, since people can't use the full spectrum of consensus based solutions there. And there's simply no need to do that. --Kim Bruning 18:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • AMA is an admirable aim, atrociously badly implemented. And that really is no disrespect to the people who have tried hard to make it not suck, but in the end it's a place where disgruntled trolls, POV-pushers and other assorted ne'er-do-well's, along of course with the occasional bitten newbie, go to find allies. Every single time AMA has become involved in a case where I have had any kind of involvement at all, it has been an unmitigated disaster. The least problematic was the advocate who took the case and then did nothing for months, leaving the argument on slow burn on the AMA request until it was finally closed as a waste of time. Another case saw a troll given help and support in his trolling, to the point where a deleted article was restored to his userspace, to much crowing and glee, where it then sat untouched for months before being quietly deleted again as an end-run around deletion policy. ArbCom have commented that AMA have actively hindered people's attempts to get cases reviewed. I have seen users whose advocates were so obnoxious that the review was immediately closed and a ban not lifted or softened to an editing restriction, when that would almost certainly have been acceptable to all parties in the original dispute. AMA sucks. Well-meaning people have expended much effort to make it not suck, b ut still it sucks. My especial commiserations to Kim, who I hold in high regard, but really we need to think of a better idea than this. Too bureaucratic, too much inclined to encourage Wikilawyering, not least through its name, too little genuine oversight and input from others (that's us, by the way) because the users who end up there are almost always the people we would not consider much of a loss. Please, please expend some of our creative energies coming up with a better system for helping bitten newbies, people who come to OTRS, the webmaster of deathcamps.org and so many others whose first foray into Wikipedia quickly ends up with escalating blocks and bans. We need a system which would have helped Ilena avoid a ban. We need a system which would have actually helped Nobs01 rather than resulting in his band being extended by another year (not sure if that was AMA, but we need a system). Something different, lighter, clueful. Something Jeff Raymond can help out with. A place where we can be kind but firm in educating people who have not yet got the plot. Sorry, I do feel a bit strongly about this one. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an excellent opinion. Would you be willing to try to design such a system? --Kim Bruning 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Side note to JzG - to be fair to Peter, I'm not sure anyone or anything could have stopped Ilena getting banned. Agreed with the rest, though. Such a system that actually works can't be so hard to make. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be completely clear, I have no problem at all with any of the people who have given time, energy and thought to the AMA. I have said all along, it is an entirely worthy idea, it just... doesn't work, often through no fault of the AMA members.
    Design a system? That will take many people a long time. Here are some of the features I think a good replacement would have:
    • The right name. The name should imply that it is a help function, there to help people resolve a problem or understand this confusing new place. A lot like adopt-a-member.
    • A bar to entry, and coaching / mentoring for new starts.
    • The right culture. A culture where CyclePat can actually help rather than charging around like a bull in a china shop making a bad situation worse. So: jobs for enthusiastic people to do, jobs for calm and thoughtful people to do, and a group of people imbued with the elusive Clue to match requests to skills.
    • The willingess to tell people that the problem is them, not The System. When an article has been deleted five times and reviewed to the far side of the galaxy and back, the very last thing we need is another venue for the terminally quixotic to get their hopes up.
    • A complete absence of people who are joining up in the hope of changing The System. Some projects attract malcontents looking to kick back. They have no part of the process of helping people with problems.
    • Plenty of peer-review. The admin noticeboard works well because people bring things here for review, even quite uncontroversial things. Problems happen when people work in isolation.
    I'm sure there's more. I liked the feedback collection on AMA, by the way. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, no more bureaucracy. Our support network is big enough as it is to the point where we're finally managing to prune it down after several years where we had no real way of dealing with exponentially breeding process. We should be focused on getting rid of the excess mini-bureaucracies, and have the guts to realise that doing so is a success, instead of acting like being unable to replace them with a different bureaucracy is a failure. Users seeking help have the Help Desk, the Village Pump, here, and probably a few other relevant pages, and it comes down to the fact that there is only so much help you can give people before you realise that material added to the encyclopaedia should stand up on its own merits as verified and neutral - which means that an organisation which is designed to take the side of someone adding material which doesn't stand up is a Bad Idea(tm). We don't need a new system. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think the best model would be to have a desk similar to the help desk but intended for more in-depth inquiries ("This admin has done this. Why has he done this and what can I do?" which seems to be the majority of valid work that AMA does). Maybe name it Complex Help desk or Requests for Investigation (Requests for Reflection?). It would present most users with the options they have and reduce any resemblance of lawyering, while in relaity performing the function most solicitors do. Sound good? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "This admin has done this. Why has he done this and what can I do?" sounds to me like a very good question for the admins' noticeboard. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but in practice I see two problems. First, WP:AN(/I) can be intimidating for the new editor. The name sounds intimidating. A novice may have no idea that non-admins are even allowed to post here. AN(/I) are huge, high traffic, rapid-turnover pages; novices probably even have some difficulty finding and following a threaded discussion. Also, a new editor who has gotten into some sort of trouble (run afoul of 3RR, been warned about a conflict of interest, or just got stuck in some sort of personality conflict) may be fresh off of a warning (or block) from an admin, and may not necessarily want to go looking for more admin attention—at least not directly.
    The second problem is that a lot of new editors just don't know how to assemble what Sam (reasonably) describes as a good question. They've just been warned/blocked; they're hot under the collar; they don't know how to link to a diff; they may not even be able to figure out who blocked them; they may want to explain in minute detail all of the BLP/COI/POV/etc. issues surrounding the article they've just created/edited/fought over/seen deleted.
    I don't know what the solution to these problems is. It almost seems like it could be an extension of the standard Help Desk. ("I have Problem X. What do I do?" "You need to post a polite request for Y at WP:Z. If you require assistance with that, please stay on the line...") TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nasty AFD

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural History of South Asia mailing list (3rd nomination) is getting pretty nasty. Maybe a neutral person (admin or not) could calm things down a bit. YechielMan 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Atulsnischal just planted the very same text protesting against Wikipedia here. I think nastiness just went up one notch. x42bn6 Talk 17:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Atulsnischal (talk · contribs) has also broken 3RR on the article. I've reported him for this. --Ragib 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi all I am just complaining, kindly view the comment that was removed from here by user Talk, as it was a legitimate cmplain, thanks Atulsnischal 17:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which would be: this, which you have put on the 3rd AfD, the article's talk page, and apparently 2 more locations which I cannot find. We are talking about the AfD here, not about the article on the AfD. x42bn6 Talk 17:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for impartial review regarding Zibiki Wym

    As expressed here, this account is a new incarnation of MyWikiBiz who was banned by Jimbo last fall and unbanned on 23 March 2007. This user appears to resent my involvement in an investigation and an unban request while the ban was in place, as evidenced by these posts that may constitute blockable/bannable legal threats.[25][26][27][28] Note also that on 1 March 2007 this person accused me of defamation at Wikipedia Review.[29]

    I have invited this person to air his concerns through normal channels (here or at WP:RFAR). This person's response was to belittle these venues as a kangaroo court and threaten to take the matter to the media. Please review. DurovaCharge! 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:RBI. Greg Kohs has only one agenda: hos own personal gain. He is very very keen to use Wikipedia for this end, especially if he can "prove" that Jimbo was wrong to boot him in the first place. Problem is, he thinks Wikipedia is a failure as a business directory because we don't allow subjects to have editorial control. He also doesn't see a problem with conflict of interest. He also keeps coming back even though he is banned. Not just blocked, banned. If he wants back, he can go to ArbCom and get unbanned. Until that happens, he is a banned person. And yes I know that has uncomfortable overtones of Apartheid South Africa, and you know something? I don't care, not in this case. We have heard what Kohs has to say, he has said it at length many times, we have no need to allow him to evade his ban yet again in order to repeat it. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Under the circumstances, since he accuses me of defamation, I defer to uninvolved administrators to reach that decision and implement it. I wish to avoid any appearance of impropriety. BTW Jimbo unbanned him so he does have a right to edit unless someone decides his comments have crossed the line of indef blockable threats. Based on an e-mail I received a while back from Jimbo I think we can trust that this editor has actually been unbanned. DurovaCharge! 21:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Jimbo unblocked him, because he asked nicely. He did last time, too - didn't last long. Jimbo was probably not aware of the community ban. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reblocked User:MyWikiBiz to make absolutely sure, although he seems to be trying to give the impression that he's chosen not to use that account (which is not something I can see the point of). To me it's clear that this will never be a productive user (see also previous post below and to the left). The diffs Durova cites are an obvious case of legalistic intimidation, about as subtle as the chosen username. I'm about to notify Jimbo of this. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Among the many people that get banned and keep trying to come back, some are ambiguous cases which may merit consideration as to whether they might be productive contributors if allowed back. Kohs/MyWikiBiz is not one of them. He really, really isn't. Kohs, in my opinion, would be unable to work with other Wikipedians even if he wasn't being paid to write articles. Kohs is welcome to take his story to the media, who will surely be only too glad to have something to run other than those deathly dull and unimportant pieces about the diplomatic crisis between Britain and Iran, the outbreak of peace in Northern Ireland, and the moider of a team coach during an international sporting championship, but if that happens it's above our heads anyway. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MyWikiBiz article deleted out of process

    I don't care/mind the block of Kohs, but dig Guy have to unilaterally delete the article MyWikiBiz which had passed DRV plus an Afd?

    21:12, March 29, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "MyWikiBiz" (Already deleted by consensus, we also deleted Kohs. No thanks.)

    I like Guy but this is the sort of thing that is just gonna start another fire. It's already on DRV. - Denny 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Recreations of AFDed articles often get speedied. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't. it had passed DRV plus a new AfD and was fine. The deletion was wrong. - Denny 02:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Main page and Fair Use

    There is currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Fair use exemptions#Removing exception in policy for "Main Page" about whether to disallow the use of Fair use images on the Main page. Administrators should be aware of this since only admins can edit the main page and many of the templates thereon, and will be called on to enforce any policy which comes from this discussion. Mak (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting, I imagine the result will be to disallow fair use. For what it is worth though, I haven't seen a fair-use image on the Main Page in ages. I've noticed ITN go for up to a half a day without a photo in it because of licensing. Nice to have a consensus. Teke 01:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I remember now. Ian Thorpe (last week?) went a good while without an image. Teke 01:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was at the Commons end of that, it all happened so quickly. --Iamunknown 01:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Post-AfD: Baptist women in ministry

    Baptist women in ministry was nominated for deletion on 2007-03-01. Here is the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baptist women in ministry. The result seems to have been "merge any relevant information and then delete as non-notable organization." I stumbled on to the page today and saw the information hadn't been merged, so I just now merged the information about persecution of Baptist women into Anabaptist. The content in the article has expanded by a significant amount since the AfD closed, but no information about its notability has been added. Should I send this to AfD again or is it proper to delete it as the result of that AfD debate? --Strangerer (Talk) 22:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid that Anabaptists and Baptists are not quite the same thing — I can't believe such a merge was proposed. Moreover, sectarian persecutions of several centuries ago and a modern "equal rights" organization aren't either. A better merge destination would be Baptist, since it's a Baptist-related organization. It certainly seems to be a much better article than when it was AfD'd. The notability would be that the group promotes women in ministry at a time when the Southern Baptist Convention has been trying to minimize their presence. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    USSTRATCOM PAO

    A little over a year ago, the account USSTRATCOM PAO (talk · contribs) joined us and claims to be a m:Role account for the United States Military's public affairs office. Two months ago I asked the user to submit an OTRS ticket to verify the account. From what I understand, the foundation has not received an email.

    This is an obvious violation of username policy, as well as the fact that we don't permit role accounts. The user has not made any controversial edits, but I see a need to indefinitely block the account to prevent any further misconception. I have forgone a post to RFCN, because I don't think this is specifically under the auspices of any one policy. I would like to block the account, but a review first would be appreciated. Teke 01:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked the account until if/when this is resolved. Other feedback would still be appreciated. Teke 01:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion (as already expressed on IRC) is that this account should be blocked with a note requesting that they work with us to verify their identity. Also we need to make it clear to them that we don't permit accounts to be shared. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review

    User:AFA was using a signature that looked like this:

    AFA (Fuck you!)

    I went to the user's user page, and found a conversation that looked like this

    Hi AFA. Please remove the external link from your signature immediately. It is violation of our signature and spam guidelines. Thanks,--cj | talk 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    No worries mate. I hope my new signature is more to your liking. (Nothing personal, I use it all the time to all sorts of random people.) AFA (Fuck you!) 23:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

    I read this as an obvious violation of WP:POINT, so I didn't bother attempting further discussion. I applied an indefinite block, and left the following message:

    Let me know when you've adopted an appropriate signature, and I'll unblock you. Hesperian 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

    AFA left a message disputing my grounds for applying the block, but nonetheless announced that he had changed his signature. I unblocked.

    AFA has now left on my talk page a very long message analysing the situation with respect to our expressions of policy, arguing that his signature was not inappropriate, but my block was. Therefore I am bringing it here for review. Am I wrong in thinking that we shouldn't be letting people go around signing "Fuck you!" on talk pages? Was I wrong in my handling of the situation? Hesperian 02:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no problem with blocking a user who adds an obviously offensive signature. There are borderline cases, but I don't think "Fuck you!" is borderline. It's more than a bit disruptive. User is fairly well established (just over 200 edits), but this reaction to a politely-worded request, isn't civil, and certainly seems to me to be a personal attack. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how the signature is offensive. I believe that my response to the first request was civil (I changed my signature when it was pointed out it violated policy). It wasn't a personal attack (as I pointed out). Also, I fail to see how my response to that request has to do with my being blocked indefinitely. As Hesperian has said, I have explained in detail why I feel that my signature didn't violate policy. That can be found here[30]. ~AFA (Fine!) 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You fail to see how "Fuck you!" is offensive? Firsfron of Ronchester 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how it is offensive in this context (not directed at anyone). Also, even if it is offensive and violates policy, I still contend that the action taken also violates policy. (As an aside, I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this discussion. I apologies if I shouldn't be talking here.)~AFA (Fine!) 03:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than "not directed at anyone", I think it would be more accurate if you said "indiscriminately directed at everyone". Hesperian 03:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The block was appropriate and normal. The response to the request to change the signature was blatant violation of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL, bordering on WP:NPA. It's well established that WP:NOT does not apply to usernames and the same rationale operates for this signature: we defend the potentially offensive where encyclopedic value exists, but we don't endorse the gratuitous. DurovaCharge! 03:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=118959677"