Fort Towson

Merge proposal of Amqa into Amka needs an uninvolved administrator to close a week-long ongoing discussion. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Any uninvolved editor could have closed that. It was fairly clear.--v/r - TP 14:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I followed up on a report by User:Crusio at AIV (see the diff). I think he has a point: it does appear as if User:LheaJLove's account has been hijacked. I've blocked for spamming, but am interested in someone else having a look. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree with you. The sudden dive into erotica when the user's primary focus has been African American heritage/history seems out of character. The user would seem to know better than to spam in this way in my honest opinion.--v/r - TP 14:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I brought it here because I don't know what to do: I'm sure there is a template with a message for the "real" editor telling them what to do. Then again, if I remember correctly the user hasn't edited since 2009 or so. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If the user hasn't created a identity hash, there isn't much they can do. Emailing them is useless, the email could be changed in preferences. You can't trust any email that comes to you as it could come from the person who compromised the account. User:LheaJLove will just have to create a new account if they chose to return to editing.--v/r - TP 15:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at her online presence it seems fairly clear the account has not been hijacked. It all links up. It may be ambitious, but it's not a compromised spambot. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Not been hijacked? Until July 2009 she edits articles on African-American poetry and Africana philosophy, then disappears, and returns today creating an article for a yet-to-be-published erotic magazine and adds a bunch of text and links related to that article. I don't know what you mean with ambitious and spambot--how does that relate? Drmies (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless I missed something this account has made an abrupt and drastic change editing habits. zzuuzz if you have found something we're missing please provide links. Mlpearc powwow 20:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to provide a detailed rationale on this page at this time. I had a good look earlier though, and I may have time later if you're still interested. The key aspects of this account (then and now) are literature, and a huge interest in writing websites. I'll point you to the first post on this page. The other evidence and links between it all is overwhelming if you look for it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

<--Well, I'm glad she found a calling in life then. In that case, though, there isn't much justification for a continued block, and unless I hear something different by tonight I'll unblock her, with a stern, old-man's warning to not add spamlinks to articles again. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, zzuuzz thanx for the enlightenment, Drmies the advise might be old fashioned but, sound. Mlpearc powwow 00:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Could all admins involved in speedy deletion please see the discussion at WT:CSD#Description pages for Commons images - F2 before deleting images - there are a number of images currently tagged for F2 which may require re-evaluation.—An  optimist on the run! 12:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone recognize these accounts (the ones starting with NNU)? There were several created in the past few hours and I'm not sure what their purpose is. I've left a message on a user's talk page, but have not heard back yet. TNXMan 15:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on the other recent accounts such as NNU-11-liyanyan and NNU-10-Alice, I'm thinking that this might involve a class project. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 16:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably originating out of Nanjing Normal University. –xeno^talk 16:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Gracias. TNXMan 16:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are involved in a school project, many have been created through Account Creations and are legitimate accounts. Mlpearc powwow 18:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other.

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

Current demand for users with regional knowledge

Because of the increasing activity from the South Asian, Southeast Asian, or Middle Eastern regions, CheckUser applications are particularly sought from people who not only meet our general requirements but also are familiar with the ISPs and typical editing patterns of any of these regions.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 18 September 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 16:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Can an uninvolved admin deal with this? A quick look at talk:Hades and my talk page should show beyond reasonable doubt that this guy is a troll, and I've probably humoured him for too long. Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the Reverend indefinitely for trolling. Favonian (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Endorse block. I thought you were very patient with him, Nev. --John (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think this editor is probably sincere -- but clearly not prepared to edit articles usefully. Looie496 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The following sentences cannot be found in the references assigned to them in the article

1. "a decade of his ruling in Iran is marked with extensive violation of human rights"

Sources:

^ A list of executed prisoners in 1988 (in Farsi) at http://www.holycrime.com/Images/Listof1367Massacre.pdf

^ memories of a slaughter at http://www.iranfocus.com/en/?option=com_content&task=view&id=160

^ Iran Human Rights Documentation http://www.iranhrdc.org/english/publications/reports/3149-a-faith-denied-the-persecution-of-the-baha-is-of-iran.html A Faith Denied ...

(The sources are rather primary ones and I cannot find the claim in them directly; even though Farsi is my first language):

2. "Khomeini is widely blamed amongst Iranian elites for his hypocritical approach in raising to power during Iran 1978 revolution"

The italicized text does not exist in what is claimed to be its source (and I am not going to get into whether this source is reliable or not.)

3. "Khomeini is also a popular anti-American, anti-Western figure in recent political history"

The sentence in the claimed source, i.e. p. 138 of Nassr's book only says he escalated that feeling; that is all:

"He managed to escalate anti-Americanism"

You can check the sentence in Nassr's book, The Shia Reviaval. There, he is by no means described as an anti-American nor anti-western unlike what is claimed in the article.

I am wondering if I can go ahead and delete those sections according to this. Kazemita1 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You are asking in the wrong place. This should be discussed on the talk page of the article, and only taken elsewhere if it is impossible to reach consensus there -- and even then this would not be the right place; see WP:DR for information on how to handle such problems. Looie496 (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I notice that this user talk page indicates that the user is banned with a template indicating such having been placed by User:Portillo, but checking the block log I find no corresponding block, only a block from January 2011 by User:Materialscientist for vandalism that has long since expired. Is this user actually banned or is this template mistaken? I'm inclined to say the latter, but I thought I'd ask just to double check that I'm not missing something somewhere. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Portillo is still very active. Have you tried asking him directly? --Jayron32 03:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I notified him of this thread, but I decided to bring it up here in the event that if I am indeed missing something there is also a block missing. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that you notified him. Still, it would be nice if you attempted to settle issues with users individually and privately before dragging them to AN to answer for their actions. Maybe he has a good explanation, or maybe he screwed up, but we don't really need a grand inquiry if he can answer himself on his own talk page... --Jayron32 03:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Portillo, but what seemed to happen is: I've blocked 114.76.75.93 in January 2011 for 12 hours, as a quick measure to stop vandalism after 7 edits from that IP, and forgot to place a block template. Portillo tried to fix that and placed a wrong template ({{banned}}), which I have just removed. There was no edits from this IP since then, and not much to worry about. Materialscientist (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In this discussion, user AliAshraf.D is accusing me of being an Iranian government official. Please, take a look at his rhetoric in that discussion page:

AliAshraf.D: "I am familiar with Iran government's official literature as well as many of the editors here."

Kazemita1 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing it, in that sentence at least. --Golbez (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's just a misinterpretation. Read it as (Iran government's) (official literature) -- the official literature of that government, not literature by an official of that government. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian and close it? A fair warning—there is a lot of reading involved, but hopefully I was able to summarize the discussion in the Motion to close section (apart from a few minor points, the proposal has support, and the last comments of any substance were made in the beginning of July). Thanks in advance.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 23, 2011; 19:12 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that a part of the discussion has now been archived by the bot but should still be considered during closure. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 24, 2011; 13:31 (UTC)

Ezhiki (talk · contribs), would you restore that part of the discussion that was archived by the bot? Then remove that discussion from the archives. Please also combine the related sections (including the archived section and the motion to close section) and provide a direct link to it. This will allow admins to clearly see which discussion should be closed. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion; thanks. I've unarchived the relevant portions of the discussion and placed them under one header. The link to the portion that needs to be reviewed and closed is Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian#Convenience header.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 29, 2011; 13:36 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm looking into this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for the closing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi- if appropriate, could an uninvolved admin please close this Merger discussion? --Sreifa (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Can some admin who can understand Serbo-Croatian reasonably well please read sh:Ah, Ahilej, to determine if its content is good enough for us to not speedy delete Ah, Ahilej? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Google gives the following translation:

Ah, Achilles is a music band from Serbia, Belgrade. It was founded in 1999. Djordje Brankovic was an actor and as a first release under this name occurs in the same year their debut album "Super Life". Since then the band has collaborated with various events, groups and individuals on the art scene in Belgrade and the region. 2005th The band joins the singer and pianist Alexander Virijević. Ah Achilles are equally dark, cynical and entertaining. Deconstruction of classic pop forms, easily moving through colorful grotesque music: jazz-noir, a mutant-disco, pantomime-obscura, dark-calypso, death-shlager, avant-pop ... After the home production of the album Super Life 1999th Music from the house and the 2002nd Album Autopsy published 2005th same name as the soundtrack for a play, and in early 2007. and objectively worse edition. Performers and musical theater projects in support hop.la!

Because it's only a machine translation, I'll not do anything about it, but if I were an sh:wp admin operating under the same policies as en:wp, I'd delete it under A7. Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Rich Farmbrough is has an editing restriction stating "Regardless of the editing method [...] is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented." (for full text, check the linked page). Rich Farmbrough is now mass creating articles imported from Wikisource, from the Dictionary of National Biography. So far, over 100 of those have been created over the last days. These pages are script-generated, with extremely minimal manual work done on them, and are often of very low quality. Problems include

1. The importing of pages that have not even been proofread on Wikisource, leading to incorrect years of birth or death (e.g. William Beattie (physician) has died on Wikipedia in 1876, but according to the source in 1875; George Beattie (poet) lived until 1828 here, but until 1823 in the source)
2. Seemingly randomly placed wikilinks, on e.g. John Dunstall, the only "manual" edit by Rich Farmbrough[1] was the addition of wikilinks to either disambiguation pages like Charles I or John Carter or to incorrect pages like Samuel Clarke or Custom House. The vast majority of links on this page points to an incorrect page. Similarly, John Barrow (fl.1756) links to the surnames of explorers, with pages like wafer bluelinked, while e.g. Van Noort is a redlink that could easily have been turned into Olivier van Noort.
3. Lack of categories: most pages are only categorized according to the year of birth and dead, not to nationality, profession, or other claim of notability, making them nearly impossible to find through the cat system
4. Blatantly incorrect categories; a number of these pages are categorized not by year of birth and death, but as living people, even though all of these people are very dead; e.g. George Steward Beatson, John Bearblock, Richard Butcher (antiquary), John Dunstall, Gabriel Dugrès, William Augustus Barron, and the fifth-century Dubthach Maccu Lugir

• Why he is suggesting to merge an article he just created to a non-existant one is beyond me[2]

Perfection is not required, but blindly copying pages from Wikisource that have not even been proofread, inserting useless wikilinks, and listing a significant number of pages as cat:living people for long-death people (from a source that doesn't list a single living person anymore...) is poor form, and coming from a person who already has an editing restriction against the mass creation of pages (beacuse of problems with the poor quality of them), this is a lot worse. The pages are listed as Category:DNB drafts, but, well, drafts shouldn't be placed in the mainspace but in userspace. Fram (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If he wants to keep it up, then I'd say block him until we're sure the disruption isn't going to continue or repeat.--Crossmr (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have quickly reviewed edit histories - I cannot see an attempt to discuss this with the editor, only a notice of this discussion. Had a warning been given and ignored then I would have been reporting that I had blocked pending resolution. I feel that these actions are contrary to the spirit (and likely the wording) of the restriction and feel a further sanction may be required, but only after we receive some response from RF. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't first discussed this one, no. Previous discussions with Rich Farmbrough for other violations of his editing restrictions didn't lead to anything productive, e.g. the discussion ended here about the violations made by his alternate account User:Megaphone Duck, or these ones here,[3], and others. I don't have the feeling that he takes into account anything said be me, so if someone else wants to discuss this with him first, they are free to do so. But it is far from the first time that he has violated these restrictions (see also his block log), although the violations are less common than they used to be last year. But also note e.g. his series of AWB edits from late August[4][5][6][7][8]... which are a violation of his other editing restriction, and go directly against a request made by me (and others like Magioladitis) to leave the capitalization of parameters in Persondata alone (see e.g. [9] for an older discussion of this). Basically, I have lost the hope that me discussing this directly with Rich Farmbrough will solve anything. Fram (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI if a non-administrator had continually abused their AWB privileges as Rich Farmbrough has done, I would be withdrawing their access to the tool. Given that Rich is an administrator, this is not possible so instead he may need to be formally restricted from using AWB and other semi-/automated scripts and tools. –xeno^talk 13:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be time for the committee to look at Mr. Farmbrough's access to all tools other than manual simple editing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For greater certainty, my contributions to this thread are made in my individual capacity. –xeno^talk 12:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Further restrictions? Oh yes, the never ending cycle on Wikipedia.. someone can't follow the restrictions laid out for them? Well.. instead of enforcing the ones we have, let's just make some new ones. They can't follow those, well how about we tweak them a little more? The user is under editing restrictions. There is no requirement that anyone discuss every single situation with every user they wish to report before bringing them here. The situation has already been discussed with him, it's why he's under editing restrictions. How about instead of trying to shoot the messenger we address the actual problem? As for your response, you got it below. He doesn't even acknowledge that he's violated his restrictions nor that they exist--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Firstly it is not the rule that DNB pages are created before the source has been proofread, rather the exception. Therefore it is only when the DNB process fails that an unproofread page will be used.
2. Secondly there is nothing wrong with dab links, a separate process cleans them up.
3. Thirdly there is always request for categorisation, the professional categorisers do a far better job far faster than I could.
4. Fourthly it is an assumption that these people are dead and not caught in a time rift, or ascended, or simply very very lucky. However I agree marking them as living is unwise and that is easily fixed. (Now fixed.)

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC).

An unsatisfactory reply. I am disappointed at his urge to create a mass of very poor quality articles. It's much better for the project to create fewer articles with each one being fair quality. Whatever can be done to slow his ability to use automated tools would be a step in the right direction. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't impute such an urge from Fram's comments. Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

As is mentioned above, you are prohibited from mass creating pages unless there's a prior community approval for the task. Could you point it out where the required community approval for this specific mass creation task is documented? Jafeluv (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So far, six people have commented, some wanting an explanation from Rich Farmbrough, others more directly agreeing with my analysis, none to contradict it. Rich Farmbrough has replied as well. His reply doesn't address the basic question of the editing restrictions at all, and gives unsatisfactory answers otherwise:

• 1: "it is only when the DNB process fails that an unproofread page will be used." So when Rich Farmbrough uses a page from Wikisource that isn't proofread already, and imports it without checking it, it is the fault of Wikisource?
• 2: "there is nothing wrong with dab links, a separate process cleans them up." That process exists of editors, no automatic cleanup of dablinks exists. He is deliberately creating extra work for other editors because he doesn't want to spend the necessary time to get his links right. Furthermore, not all incorrect links he introduced were dab links, many just pointed to the incorrect page (I gave e.g. the "wafer" and "Custom House" example above, there are plenty others to be found as well).
• 3: "the professional categorisers do a far better job far faster than I could." Really? The "additional categories" backlink goes back to April, and e.g. the article Peter Elmsley (bookseller), which he created in May, still needs further categorisation. I don't believe that he couldn't have done that job faster than that.
• 4: Haha, but seriously: "easily fixed. (Now fixed.)" Really? I listed above William Augustus Barron, which has now been categorised among the living people for 2 months, and wasn't fixed. If he hasn't even fixed one I so conveniently mentioned above as having that problem, I doubt that he has fixed them all, and control indicates that he has indeed still 5 articles among his DNB drafts which are listed as "living people"...
• 5: Looking at his other "corrections" after this thread started, there is [10]: incorrect edit summary, and the article now has both the cat "year of death missing" and "967 deaths"; the one before that [11] has the same incorrect edit summary, and still has that nonsense merge tag he put on it; and the one before that [12] also has the incorrect edit summary, an incorrect year "11793" in the persondata, and no correction of the inconsistent dates which I indicated above. Need I go on?

All this indicates to me that Rich Farmbrough is not acknowledging that this was a violation of his editing restrictions (which everyone seems to agree on), that he doesn't see a problem in introducing unchecked and incorrectly transcribed material, and that he feels it is normal to deliberately include incorrect info (links) or to deliberately leave out user-friendly things (cats), because eventually, perhaps, someone else will cleanup after him. And finally, that when he does correct errors that have been pointed out to him, he does so in a very sloppy manner, introducing new errors and carelessly believing that something is "fixed" when it isn't.

Does anyone has any suggestion as to how this can be remedied? Fram (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is a complete restriction on semi-automated and automated editing. –xeno^talk 12:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) for 1 week per the wording of the mass article creation restriction and upon review of his block log, following his response which did not acknowledge the restriction or otherwise note where approval had been received. Review welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just so that you know that blocking him will also block all his bots as well. Several of which are used throughout WP. --Kumioko (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think most people are ok with that as this has come up time and again. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I just think that the constant crying wolf from FRAM and XENO at this point is getting a little old and they are going to find any reason to bring up that will get Rich blocked. If I was him I would probably ignore whatever they had to say to me as well. Many of the arguments brought up in the past by these 2 have been very weak (although some have been valid as in some of the examples above). --Kumioko (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I think its gotten to the point where he should be asked to leave period. I have never really encountered him personally that I can remember but his constant flouting of his restrictions and doing things he knows he shouldn't be are a waste of the communities time. He is more of a detriment to the community than a help at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, perhaps you would like to volunteer to clean up some of Rich's recent mass article creations? Or closely follow his reckless editing and fix any errors he introduces? –xeno^talk 13:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Helpful Pixie Bot still seems to be running (and continuing to violate Rich's editing restrictions [13]). –xeno^talk 13:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I knew that was coming! For what its worth I think we should completely ban the practive of using Wikisource as a source anyway. The use of it violates RS anyway since it is by definition a Wikisite and it is updated by editors like us and its trustworthiness is dubious but thats just me. I don't think that is necessarily Rich's fault. --Kumioko (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

To Xeno how is dating a maintenance tag a bad thing? --Kumioko (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Rich is prohibited from "making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval)." –xeno^talk 13:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, as far as I know is the dating of tags such an approved task, and his bot does that now with relatively few problems. I do believe that the two bots (Helpful Pixie bot and Femtobot) need to be stopped though, because a bot owner is responsible for any cleanup and so on that is needed if the bot malfunctions, but being blocked he would be unable to do that. Fram (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this has changed, but I was under the impression that Rich is restricted from unnecessarily changing the case of templates (see the footnote on the cosmetic changes restriction). –xeno^talk 14:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the changing of capitalization was what led to the most recent set of restrictions on him if I do believe. Because he was going around changing the capitalization. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• @Kumioko: Erm, Rich is under a community-based editing restriction, which he has repeatedly violated. If he doesn't want somebody bringing him to a noticeboard every few weeks, he should start editing in accordance with the restrictions. I can't help but wonder if a less prolific, lower-profile non-admin wouldn't have been indef'd by now.

  As for the bots, if the autoblock causes trouble, we can disable it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

To HJ - I think you bring up a good point but I also wonder if someone who weren't as dedicated to the project wouldn't have said the hell with it by this point. I agree that he does some dubious edits (if nothing else just by sheer volume alone hes going to have some) but I think a lot of the huff has been blown out of proportion. I think in general he does more good than harm which is also evident in the fact he is allowed to keep editing.

To Xeno - First let me clarify that aside from Rich's edits I personally think that the limitation set forth (mostly imposed by you) that making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page is a bad thing. There are plenty of things out there that don't change the rendering of the page that don't need to be in the article such as Innapproraite comments, dead parameters in templates, empty parameters in templates taking up space and making the page harder and more confusing to edit, etc. This leaves us with piles and piles of garbage in the articles in talk pages we can't get rid of without inventing another edit of some kind that changes the rendering of the page like adding a category, portal, tweaking some grammer by adding a comma, etc. Second, For your info that edit you bring up does make a visible change to the page because it adds the date. Look closer at the comment box and you'll see it. :-) Also, For years adding the date to a maintenance tag was a reguler edit by the bot and it was a highly desired edit. Now all of a sudden because of a shortsighted rule we "can't date maintenance tags" or is it more because of who is doing it...Im not quite clear on that one.

I'm not going to continue to beat a dead horse but I wanted to voice my opinion that, regardless of the edits made, some editors are going to persist in following Rich around until one of his edits does something they don't like and well be right back here. We all do edits that irritate others, delete images, remove garbage from articles, edit too fast, etc. We don't need to block someone every time they do an edit. --Kumioko (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not the dating of the maintenance tag that is the issue, its the spacing he changed down by the logo parameter I believe. Those are the sorts of changes his bot is not supposed to make. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not referring to the dating of the maintenance tag, but the unnecessary changing of template capitalization. While a minor issue, it is further evidence that Rich is not respecting his duly-imposed editing restrictions. –xeno^talk 14:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

To Fram - I regretfuly agree partially with Fram for the reasons given. Regardless of wether I agree with the block and eventhough the bot may be working but if the bot owner is blocked its innappropriate IMO for the bot to be running unless there is another operator that can and is willing to fix anything that doesn't work right. Unfortunately this also stops all the good edits these bots do like bulding the watchlists for the WikiProjects and all the edits that the bot formerly known as Smackbot (Helpful Pixie bot) does. --Kumioko (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

To Djsasso - I disagree with that assessment. I agree that the bot should not be removing spaces like that or other truly minor edits alone but if the bot is already there doing another edit that is significant (renders a change to the page or whatever) then it should do that while its there. Otherwise these minor little things would stay there forever. --Kumioko (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For other bot runners and editors yes. However, Rich himself has specifically been restricted from doing changes like that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So what your telling me is that we are leveeing requirements on one editor that we are not enforcing on others as well. I have a problem with that especially since those edits are built into AWB Band he would have to program around them in order to not do them. Its obvious that I am the single dissenting voice and I am a non admin (nor do I wish to be one at this point) so I see no reason to continue to waste my time complaining about something that knowone wants to hear. But...This is goign to continue until Rich is permanantly blocked IMO so you may as well get it over with and move on. Plus someone needs to keep these bots running so you might want to start converting all the bot tasks into other bots. All this starting and stopping is really hosing up the pedi and I have better things to do than deal with this drama repeatedly. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary template case changes are not built into AWB. –xeno^talk 14:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats a really really weak argument and you know it. Just a few minutes ago you said it was cause it didn't make a change to the rendering of the page and now its cause it changed the capitalization to match what the template looks like when you go Template:Unreferenced? I think you are just trying to justify it. I still think that someone needs to stop the bots also. If the owner is blocked the bots shouldn't be running. Even if there are a whole ton of good things that those bots are doing. I also don't think we should choose when to enforce the rules. If we are going to enforce them on one bot then we should do it to the others as well. Like the one that adds the interlanguage links that don't change the rendering of the page, or the one that removes the commented out deleted images from articles. We should stop these 2 as well since they are violating the rules. --Kumioko (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, your contributions to these threads concerning inappropriate tool-assisted editing frequently include irrelevant tangents such as this. Are those processes approved by the Bot Approvals Group? Are the operators of those processes under editing restrictions? If the answers are "Yes" and "No", then I don't see how your suggestion is at all relevant. There is no consensus that templates must have first-letter capitalization and they function fine either way. Rich has been formally restricted from changing the capitalization of templates, yet he continues to do so. That is what is relevant here. –xeno^talk 15:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because you don't like my arguments or someone questioning your judgement doesn't make them irrelevent. But that was a nice try and deflecting the problem back at me. But my point above was that you didn't even know in the beginning why it was a problem until you came back later with the first letter case change argument. Additionally, if the rule is that we cannot make changes that don't render changes to the page, and that is a rule, then who is the Bot approval group to overrule it? Do they have the right to overrule concensus on any rule? I think not. They choose to follow the rule when it suits them best, or to enforce it the same way. If we are going to make a rule then we ALL need to follow it. I have told you repeatedly I think its a stupid rule but consensus created it and I can live with that. But what I find irritating is when a small handful of editors seems to have the power or the administrative capabilites to ignore it whenever they want, or when it affects them. Thats what I have a problem with. --Kumioko (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The changing of the case is why I linked it in the first place. The Bot Approvals Group can approve a process that makes edits that don't change the rendered page if the task is desirable and has demonstrable consensus. –xeno^talk 15:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well of course anything can be done if it meets demonstrable consensus. But since most bot requests are done on the bot request page and not somewhere where demonstrable consensus could be gathered I am left to wonder who has the power to determine demonstrable consensus. It doesn't really matter though because you were correct that we are a bit off topic. But it does prove my point earlier that we choose when and to what editors we enforce the rules. --Kumioko (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, that is how things work. If one editor is doing something to the extreme and causing a lot of mistakes and trouble and the community (on this page or ANI) comes to a consensus that what they are doing is wrong and they place restrictions on the user of course we are doing it to one user and not another. Its no different from blocking an editor. In this particular case these restrictions were put on him so that he wouldn't have to be blocked and so that he could still be productive on the wiki. In other words the restrictions were a second chance (or 237th in this case) to try and avoid blocking him. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

@Kumioko, the only reason that the template "looks like" {{Unreferenced...}} in its documentation is because Rich Farmbrough wanted it to look like that. He has a habit of making cosmetic changes to template naming and appearance, and then immediately entrenching those style choices with hundreds or thousands of AWB and bot edits. That practise must stop. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think thats about half true. The practice of dating the maintenance tags has been going for several years and I believe he did that when Xeno forced AWB to add a bullet that stopped allowing what he perceives as pointless edits because they don't render anything to the page. Aside from that dating the template is a good thing even if it doesn't change the look. It lets us know how long the artile has been tagged. It also adds it to the appropriate category. So there is really no valid argument against dating maintenance tags unless the goal is just to get Rich blocked. He has done other things that were bad or contrversial but that IMO isn't one of them. --Kumioko (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Again the issue isn't the dating of the tags, its the capitalization of the tag. He was specifically asked by the community to stop doing it. He did it so often that the community then placed restrictions on him stopping it. The dating of the tag has nothing to do with the issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry my example wasn't clear about that. I am certainly talking about style decisions in wiki markup for template usage. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it is done along with other - more important - edits, then there should be nothing wrong with it. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have declined Rich's unblock request pending resolution of this issue. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good timing, because 133 minutes later there's now another {{unblock}} request[14] —Sladen (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC) (nb. it's hidden in the diff-noise).

Helpful pixie bot

I left a message on the bots talk page to stop it. As I mentioned above and on that bots talk page I do not think a bot shoulde running if the sole owner/operator is blocked. They are responsible for fixing any problems created by the bot and he clearly woudld be unable to do that. --Kumioko (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I also stopped Femtobot. --Kumioko (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked both bots. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That was pointless, unless they wouldn't stop. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC) NVM, I see they were ignoring the stop notice. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ban Proposal

Toothis (talk · contribs) has been trolling talk pages, mostly for the purpose of starting flame wars over subjects who were critics of the Vietnam War, occasionally veering into other controversial topics. There are no meaningful suggestions as to how to improve the articles, and no citations are offered; only attacks on the subject's politics. Some of these trolls are disguised as "research questions", innocently looking for facts about the subjects. Suggestions to use the Reference desk and Help desk to find the answers have been pointedly ignored. A more charitable interpretation is that Toothis is using talk pages as a soapbox to criticize public figures. Whether it's soapboxing or trolling, Toothis has been repeatedly warned and advised to follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Few, if any, of his talk page comments seem to be helpful in building a better encyclopedia, although his one main page edit seemed reasonable. I am way too inactive as an admin to be comfortable blocking anyone at the moment, but I don't see what wisdom would be lost to the world if he were blocked for a week or two and given a firm and final warning. fish&karate 16:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I see only 1 (!) article space edit since 2010, among dozens of (at best) forum-like posts. 28bytes (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I will chime in here and say I have reverted a number of his/her edits to talk pages, given warnings and pointed him/her to WP:TALK WP:SOAP and WP:POINT, apparently to no avail. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this IP is him, too. He's trolling for controversy. Support block.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Also him:

• 70.44.147.202
• 70.44.144.184
• 70.44.153.18
• 70.44.154.103

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support block - Toothis doesn't seems to be honestly interested in the answers to their questions but more in the drama they my cause. He/She has had multiple suggestions for better venues for their questions which have apparently been ignored. Mlpearc powwow 18:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I blocked Toothis indefinitely. Looking through their contributions, I see only a couple that I would consider particularly constructive, otherwise this account's sole purpose seems to be to sling mud at BLPs on their talk pages. That behavior isn't acceptable. I would have blocked for a shorter time period if I felt that Wikipedia was benefiting from the editor's contributions. -- Atama頭 18:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Good block. 28bytes (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Just take a look at WP:AIV, there are too many vandals waiting for their block... Alex ^{discussion ★} 09:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the one bot reported and one user reported, this is an outrage I say dock all admins paychecks. Mlpearc powwow 14:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to get snappy, at the time of the above friendly request there were 13 reports open, not the two now remaining. Fram (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And if I remember rightly the helperbot was a bit slow cleaning up after blocking admins this afternoon. Agathoclea (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(As I just said in another thread on ANI) Pray tell the admins don't go on strike anytime soon. –MuZemike 14:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What would admins go on strike over, wage increases? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My comment was also in friendly jest :P. Mlpearc powwow 15:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Very Abusive, offensive contributions in Hungarian (It is better not to translate it) here:Talk:History_of_Slovakia#History of slovakia
Moreover, disruptive behavior at History of Slovakia by User: 89.134.83.226 Fakirbakir (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This should be listed at ANI if it's a wide dispute, or WP:AIV if you want immediate enforcement for a particular set of actions. Ironholds (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, user is blocked by now.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 2#List of Native American women and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 3#User:Amyabaker/Noddle? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Lifebaka. Cunard (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, this should probably be cleaned up, and the redirect may need blanked (redirected to Talk:Conversation), and protected or semi-protected (with perhaps a hat note at the target). I'd do the clean up myself but I am too busy ATM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A good portion of those came from the basic example of {{split section}} setting the 2nd parameter to "Talk:Discuss" by default. I updated the code of the template slightly, as I can't think of any reason why a discussion for splitting out a new section would take place anywhere other than the talk page of the article the template is on, and removed the vast majority of those inbound links. I'll go clean up the others presently. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Embarrassingly, it took me quite a few live tries to fix the template right. But, it does seem that all of the mainspace links were from it, so it's all cleaned up now. Or should be, at least. I've redirected it to Talk:Conversation. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock request/block review of indef-blocked editor before the thread is archived? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Bwilkins, for closing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In a while, I will be changing the lead image of the article per a growing RfC consensus (17:9 in favor of removal, and poor reasoning given for retaining the current image). However, the talk page has been rather heated, and I anticipate the possibility of an edit war developing over the change. Hopefully nothing will happen, but extra administrative eyes on the page would certainly be welcome to ensure a peaceful transition. I've given the current image proponents advanced notice of the action at pregnancy#motion to change lead image, and will add a link to this request there as well, so that everyone has time to pause and reflect before the actual change is done. --Ludwigs2 23:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The RfC, which was flawed from the beginning, hasn't had much time to run. It also doesn't cover the issue, nudity, which further discussion has made clear is on most people's minds. I would welcome some uninvolved administrators at the page, but please read the discussion and note the disruption and incivility there. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Admins should also note Ludwigs' rather heavy-handed declaration that he's going to change the image, essentially whether anyone else likes it or not, including an... interesting statement asking if an editwar can be avoided. → ROUX ₪ 00:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Question: why is there a need to close the RfC? Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent question. It is... curious that Ludwigs is acting with such haste (3 days for an RfC to be open? I thought 30ish was a general community standard) and attempting to ram through what he sees (erroneously, I believe) as consensus. → ROUX ₪ 06:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Involved users may have different interpretations of the consensus. Having someone uninvolved assess the consensus and close the discussion will minimize the controversy. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's actually been open 10 days, and last time I checked there was a 2:1 margin in favor of replacing the image. the fact that the people opposing it are very hot-tempered does not make up for the poor arguments they make or the distinct minority they currently represent. I simply assumed (and still assume) that since the RfC seems to be headed for changing the image, there is no problem in replacing the image now. If the RfC turns around, we can always put it back in (it's not going anywhere).

But, there's no accounting for zealots...--Ludwigs2 01:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If the RfC is, as you claim, heading in that direction, two questions arise: 1) how do you account for the discrepancy between your assertion that there is consensus, and your subsequent assertion that implies no consensus has been reached? 2) Since heading in and already at are rather different things, what is the rush (and justification) in changing the image? And you call other people zealots. Fascinating. → ROUX ₪ 01:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That's easy, and obvious to most anyone who's edited wikipedia for a while. There are certain arguments on wikipedia which run too deep emotionally for reason to be effective. What's happened here is that a small number of editors (4 or so, as I count them) have gotten heavily invested in this as an issue of censorship, when in fact it's nothing of the sort; the tensions are so high that they are unwilling to accept any argument as valid which might weaken their emotional position. It has stopped being a matter of rational discussion and become a matter of preserving their identity, and people who find their identity threatened generally fight to the death. It's human nature. As I said below, if you were acting rationally you would not have reverted me, but allowed that the RfC is leaning towards the change and allowed it to stand until the RfC reaches its final outcome. The fact that you didn't points to the emotional investment you have in the image. --Ludwigs2 02:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting rather sick and fucking tired of your fucking insults. Enough. As is obvious to most anyone who's edited Wikipedia for a while, the status quo stands until there is consensus to change it. You have still, unsurprisingly, failed to address your haste. → ROUX ₪ 02:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please adhere to Wikipedia:Civility, even when (indeed ESPECIALLY when) you are frustrated. Infrogmation (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please surprise me by doing an un-Wikipedian thing and directing such self-satisfied smugness where it belongs. → ROUX ₪ 02:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmph. You consider ten days of heavy discussion hasty? whatever... I don't need to convince you of anything, Roux, and there's absolutely no hope that I could say anything that would convince you, regardless. I hope others can see how emotionally invested you are in the issue; so long as they see that they can understand the difficulties in communication that are plaguing this discussion. and with respect to 'self-satisfied smugness'… Meh. --Ludwigs2 02:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, exactly the sort of well-reasoned response I expect from someone who appears to demand that others engage what he has to say, while blithely dismissing what anyone else has to say. Motes and beams, Ludwigs. Your assertion that I am 'emotionally invested' is, by the way, so far off the mark it's not even within shouting distance. → ROUX ₪ 02:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

lol - where have I not listened to what you have to say? In fact, I've been listening to you more carefully than you've been listening to yourself, because you are still unaware of how little sense you are actually making. Even your last claim (that you are not emotionally invested) is belied by the numerous incivilities you've laid on me in this thread and the article talk page, and your rabidly aggressive defense of an unsupportable minority position. listen to yourself before you respond, it will do you good. --Ludwigs2 02:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll do so. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight after you take your own advice. Hmm, given that, I rather suspect I won't ever take your advice. → ROUX ₪ 02:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the only appropriate response at this point is to declaim that your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries, and then waggle my fingers at you in a senseless but disconcerting way. consider it done. --Ludwigs2 03:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that someone uninvolved close the RfC and determine where WP:CONSENSUS lies. Also see WP:NOT#VOTE. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pregnancy#Lead image RfC

Would an uninvolved admin close and summarize Talk:Pregnancy#Lead image RfC to lessen the chances of controversy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but why is an admin needed? Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, you're crazy. I'd probably prefer an admin to close it as it's relatively easier to determine involvement, and the general precedent of admins closing RfC/u and XfD. → ROUX ₪ 06:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By passing RfAs, admins have been tasked with assessing the consensuses at XfDs, DRV, and RfCs. Because this is the administrators' noticeboard, when I post requests here, I ask the admins to address them. If an uninvolved non-admin wants to close an RfC, there should be no problem. I myself do not close discussions because I have done so before and have been reverted by the involved users. Since I'd rather not have that happen again, I post here requesting admins to close discussions. I agree with Roux's comment above about it's being easier to determine involvement with an admin closure. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of informal article RfC's are not closed by any admin, nor does an article RfC usually require a close as it is delisted automatically after a period of time by a bot or if the user who initiated it manually decides to delist it. The problem here is that an RfC is not the best place for discussing a dispute that requires admin closure. That sounds like a job for a noticeboard like the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Traditionally, aticle RfC's are used to request input where there are few editors involved. Increasingly, they appear to be used for DR, which doesn't work. If anyone wants to point me to a major dispute that has ever been solved by an RfC, I would be happy to take a look at it. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Following a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#RFC closure request, Talk:Political activities of the Koch family/Archive 2#RFC: "the nation's most prominent funders" was closed by an uninvolved admin. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the AN request clearly said that the RfC had "ended a few days ago", and a request for closure was made more than a week after discussion had ended. There is no indication that the pregnancy discussion has ended or requires closing at this time. Viriditas (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a premature request as Roux noted above. I've stricken out my request that this discussion be closed. If the involved editors desire a closure, a request can be posted after 30 days have elapsed. Cunard (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ludwigs has now reverted again. I have no interest in getting into an editwar, but it is quite clear that there is in fact no consensus on the talkpage, despite what he is claiming in his edit summary. Moreover, the RfC has been open for only four days or so. An admin is needed at this point to restore the page to its previous state, and inform Ludwigs that the RfC is not over, and nor is there consensus (in either direction) on this issue. → ROUX ₪ 01:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  I re-added an image that has a 2:1 lead in the current RfC. yes, both the talk page and the RfC are ongoing, but whether you judge by the nubers or by the quality of reasoning the proponents of the original image are on the losing side. They are simply trying to keep the debate alive on sheer aggression. Unless I get a clear consensus here that I should stop, I don't see why it's wrong for me to try to insert the image that is clearly the majority preference in the RfC at the moment. If Roux were being reasonable and civil he would stop edit-warring to maintain the minority image, leave the preferred image in pro tem, and trey to turn the RfC around on the talk page. But nothing Roux has done since he showed up on the page has been reasonable; he entered the discussion spitting and snapping over nonsense, and continues to do so. --Ludwigs2 01:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  Your grasp of facts is poor. Please note how many reverts I have made: one. That is not editwarring, that is standard WP:BRD. You have failed to address your unseemly haste here. I would treat the rest of your commentary with the contempt it deserves, if I didn't have better things to do with my energy, like watching paint dry. → ROUX ₪ 01:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, you've made two, and please note that I have made only 1. Further, my grounds for making that move are far stronger than your grounds for opposing it (based in the current standing of the RfC and the current condition of the discussion). --Ludwigs2 02:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You frankly both are sounding very childish at this point. "Did not! Did too! Did not..." Take a step back, let the RfC run, and go edit something else in the meantime. LadyofShalott 02:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not I who is attempting to ram through changes based on a consensus which has been admitted to not even exist yet. You're usually smarter than this; it's a shame the Wikipedia attitude of 'blame everyone and don't bother looking at the actual details' seems to have infected you. I'm disappointed. → ROUX ₪ 02:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(a) The arguing over how many reverts each of you did is what I was comparing to the "did too/did not" scenario, and does sound childish to me. (b) You'll notice I said "let the RfC run". LadyofShalott 03:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

An user named as "Gerçek Tarih" is vandalising threads about Nurbanu Sultan and threads related to her:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Ger%C3%A7ek+tarih&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1

Please help me to revert these vandalisms. --Martianmister (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

First, if this were vandalism, it would go to AIV...but these are edits made nearly 8 months ago. If they're wrong, fix the articles...however, I note that on Nurbanu Sultan, for example, there have been 39 edits since that editor last touched these articles. That's a lot of people (most of whom are actual people, not bots) who either fixed the problems or didn't consider them problems. If this is a content dispute, you need to discuss it on the article's talk page. In any event, I don't think there's anything for editors to do here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm heading off to bed, or I'd pitch in to help myself, but WP:UAA is reaching a critical level. There's about 25-30 unresolved reports there. An admin with some time on their hands may want to clear some out. --Jayron32 05:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've done a couple of handfuls (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It may be of interest that Johann Hari has publicly admitted disrupting Wikipedia - [15]. It seems clear to me that he edited from the account David r from Meth Productions as well as from*It is sockpuppets.Simone (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't find it interesting, except as an example of a classy way to express contrition. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I'm not disputing Edgar181's actions: I've mentioned him purely as a recent example, and I've also used myself as another example.

Following up on the section immediately above this, I was checking multiple usernames and observed that Asdfasdfagfhjkl had been blocked by Edgar181 with the edit summary of {{Vaublock}}. I notice (1) that the template's contents don't display in the block log, and (2) that although it's not an option in the dropdown menu at Special:Block, there are several other template options. See the most recent example in the case of ThisIsaTest, which I just blocked with a different template. Since these templates don't display their contents in the block log (i.e. we only see the template name, not the text that they transclude), why do we encourage their use by including them in the dropdown? Nyttend (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the template (expanded) is the message blocked users see if they attempt to edit.—An  optimist on the run! 11:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Want me to block you with one so that we can see? LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly as the optimist said. When a blocked user or IP attempts to edit, the message they receive includes the expanded template. Try editing through an anonymous proxy such as anonymouse.org for an example of how it looks to the user. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nyttend, I am so glad that you asked this. I often wondered this, about templates like {{spamusernameblock}} that frankly just look ugly in the block log (and I always feel the need to explain the block rationale in the free text area anyway). But if those templates give a special warning when the editor tries to edit through the block that makes perfect sense. Now I don't feel quite so dumb using those in the dropdown. (I was afraid for awhile that they were broken.) -- Atama頭 19:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Optimist and Redundency: you were right. To see what would happen, I blocked my backup account with the following message:

{{Vaublock}}: Testing to see the type of message that will appear when I use a templated block message

When I logged in as the backup and tried to edit a page, the message that I received consisted of the transcluded content of {{Vaublock}} and the text ": Testing to see the type of message that will appear when I use a templated block message" without the quotation marks. Everything was just as Optimist and DoRD said it would be. And you're quite welcome, Atama :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't do this often, so if I'm in the wrong spot, I'm sorry. The category has been overwhelmed with Russian district articles. Most of those that have "District" in their titles have the ref section & tag commented out. No idea how that happened, but at one point the backlog was over 500. Have cleared from A - M, but the area needs help as there are still 300+ articles on the list. Thanks, We hope (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ive just fixed most of them, someone decided to add a reference to a very highly used template. Ive gone ahead and reverted it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Wasn't sure whether it came from the template or not, so just started working on them. We hope (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing a valid ref is hardly a "fix". Let me remind that the purpose of that tracking cat is to determine the pages which have refs with a ref section missing, and fixing the problem by removing a perfectly good (and necessary) reference is akin to curing headache by chopping the head. I'll restore the ref tomorrow (and of course will lend a hand with clearing the cat). In the meanwhile, if anyone knows a bot that could help with this, it would be most helpful indeed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 15, 2011; 21:38 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't restore the reference. You have no way of knowing whether or not the pages which transclude that template (or the templates it is used in) have a reference section. And now you know that many of the pages using that template don't have reference sections and you plan to restore it? No. Protonk (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Chill out, he is also offering to fix those articles. Yoenit (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

He's offering to fix the problem created by the practice of transcluding a reference to hundreds of pages without checking for a reference list? Protonk (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm offering to fix the problem created by transcluding a reference to hundreds of pages which were created en masse with the reference section commented out, because the creator did not realize that would lead to all sorts of problems later on. Note also that this same reference would otherwise be used on thousands more pages without any problems. Commenting the ref out immediately brings the quality of those thousands of pages down a notch, even as it "fixes" the problem of the missing ref section on a couple hundred pages. You do the math. Once the ref sections are restored, the problem will go away, but I can't take care of this without knowing which pages are affected, and for that I need to have the "fix" reverted. By the way, you (or anyone else, for that matter) are welcome to join the effort tomorrow, or even start without me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 16, 2011; 00:57 (UTC)

FWIW, I was able to do all those from A - N, leaving O - Z to be done. We hope (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for that! I'll take over from here (unless, of course, you had so much fun working on this that you can't wait to continue :)). I've also notified the creator of those stubs; hopefully he'll help as well. Thanks again!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 15, 2011; 21:57 (UTC)

You can't see me waving, but my arm says "Thanks!!!" :-) We hope (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 16, 2011; 00:57 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Lower the limit of account creation in a 24 hour period by non-autoconfirmed accounts has been open for more than two weeks, what are the next steps?--Cerejota (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

When the RFC is closed, file a ticket in Bugzilla that links to the oldid of the closure. This notifies the WMF system administrators so that they can make it happen. MER-C 13:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like the deleted Levi Horn article userfied so that I can post it at WP:DRV. I have notified the closing admin of my interest in DRVing it at User_talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FLevi_Horn.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

request also posted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Levi_Horn.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Pardon me, but what is the policy based rationale for overturning this discussion? You cite on Sandstein's talk that being in the practice roster of an NFL team makes you notable but I don't seem to be able to find the policy that asserts this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done - see User:TonyTheTiger/Levi Horn. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What an absolutely disgusting use of forum-shopping. Seriously, seriously bad. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Tony, you spammed this here, at WP:REFUND and at WP:ARS? Really? This is one of the most horrible cases of forum-shopping I've seen. Don't do anything like this again. Reyk _YO! 21:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

...don't forget the talkpage of the deleting admin. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(I think it's time for me to resurrect this draft template) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• This forum shopping was so horrible that I called my wife to make sure my kids were ok at school, because I thought the world was ending. She said, "its only Tony trying zealously to defend a marginal but perhaps notable football player," i relaxed and returned all indicators to DEFCON 5.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wise move on all counts ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Moar forum shopping: User_talk:Timrollpickering#User:TonyTheTiger.2FLevi_Horn. The discussion has been open for a little more than three hours and Tony wants the article to be restored already. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Three hours isn't enough time? We need our LeviHornbook immediately!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• We need the history of it immediately. That page in Tony's userspace is a copyright violation. :( It's unattributed. Wikipedia:Userfication discusses the issue of copying & pasting deleted content without the history; Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia gives the overall issue. I'm restoring the history and merging it with the userfied version. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through every single image that is about to be deleted for no reason. Orphaned is not a valid reason, most of the images on Commons aren't used by a WP article, it doesn't mean they have no use. Bad name is not a valid reason, they can be renamed. Many images have no description, but it is a simple matter to look at the uploader's contributions. Right after uploading DSC132423.jpg, the editor will almost always add it to an article using a descriptive caption. "Low quality" is relative, but yes, photos from 1919 are low quality. An image should only be deleted for this reason if there are a wealth of higher-quality images of the same subject. The reason that these images keep being nominated for the reasons is that admins keep deleting them. WP:FfD is not WP:PROD for a reason. Perhaps admins should have a checklist of things to check before closing FfD, I don't know. I just know that I have other things to do today than to keep renaming and moving dozens of images to Commons, but I feel that if I stop, admins will delete them anyway. It only takes a little longer to move an image to Commons vs. deletion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Umm, why can't you simply say "keep" in FFDs? Or if you mean something else, more context please. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Images that consist of a name such as "DSC.*.jpg", first off, need to be renamed at a minimum, if they're not going to be deleted. If we have such images uploaded on en.wiki, we should see if we can move the image to Commons. Of course, this is assuming that they shouldn't be speedy deleted or would otherwise be unsuitable on Commons (in which case would likely be a candidate for deletion here, anyways). –MuZemike 22:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Voting should not be required to prevent Admins from operating consistently outside of policy. This is an ongoing issue. The problem is that FfD is being treated as PROD. Yes, these images should be renamed, they should be moved to Commons, but admins are deleting them. File:DSC01533.JPG is proposed for deletion because it has a bad name, and no description, and is orphaned. It is a simple matter to look at the user's next edit after the upload([16]) and see the description: "An Avro Vulcan showing all of the bombs it can carry, in it's post cold war colours." Now it is renamed and moved to Commons. This image would have been deleted for reasons that don't apply. Even images of decent quality with clear descriptions are being listed by the dozen as "Orphaned, No foreseeable use." DOZENS of images are deleted in this fashion every day. We should not need to vote to prevent this. Decent-quality free images should be moved to Commons or left alone. Just because one person nominates an image does not mean the admin should delete it. If this is how we want things, then change image policy, but this is exactly why an "image PROD" has been voted down. People are free to nominate whatever images they want, but to the admins, please stop default-closing discussions as DELETE. Please actually look at the images and the history. Please weight if it is possible that someone (on any WMF project) might get some value from the image, please check for a description in contributions. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

1) I recommend someone notify User:Fastily of this conversation and 2) The uploader is expressing frustration at the mass nominations, most probably because it is difficult to click on every single one of these nominations and !vote keep. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I mention Fastily because he has been mass-nominating files for deletion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that I am not trying to call out any particular editor. There is nothing wrong with nominating any image for any reason, and while that user is one of people nominating images, there are many users that have been doing this for some time. The image I mentioned above was nominated by someone with very good intentions who had never thought of looking through user contribs for info. These editors have good intentions and I am not questioning their actions. I am just asking the closing admins to consistently treat these images according to policy, and to not treat FfD as a prod.▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, my nominations are well within policy: "Files that are unused, obsolete". However, as stated here, I am no longer be making any FfD nominations. I am also working on an semi-automated file assessment tool (with a few other users. Anyone who is familiar with the Java programming language is welcome to join the Google code project. Send me an email if you want in), which will employ a graphical user interface to simplify the !voting and transfer to commons process. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"why can't you simply say "keep" in FFDs? "

Because editors wishing to keep content are required to maintain higher standards than those wishing to delete them. It appears that a bulk nomination of so many files that FFD itself starts to creak is accepted, even commended, by some editors when it is obvious that very little thought or consideration has gone into these deletions (their rate alone precludes this). The deletion reasons of "Orphaned, Low Quality, No foreseeable use." are just a crude rubber stamp and most of these bear no relation to reality either. No "keep" claim at FFD would be let pass with such a slapdash argument. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not my experience. In these routine cases, images quite routinely get kept as soon as anybody objects. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

After this bombing run I can't even read FFD, let alone reply to individuals. I'd also have to load up each image in turn and make some assessment of it. Fastily was whining (yes, whining) on his talk page about how he'd spent three whole hours (hours!) on making this bulk deletion. A bulk deletion conveniently big enough to make it impractical to offer any real response to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to load up each image in turn. User:Ilmari Karonen/ifdthumbnails.js can make it easy to quickly preview all nominated images, right next to the nomination. You'd still want to click through before commenting, but it makes it much easier to tell at a glance whether or not you'd want to. I'm not watching this page. Please ping my talk if there's anything I should to respond to. –Drilnoth (T/C) 17:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I had to click through to each image and see what edits the uploader made (possibly deleted now) to decide on the few I tackled on the 13th. Just looking at the picture isn't enough.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who DVD releases isn't showing up in any deletion logs, and is now overdue by more than three days (having been opened on 6th September). Could someone uninvolved please close this AfD? Many thanks. SuperMarioMan 19:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

*clears throat politely and points to the bottom of WP:CHU/S* --Tristessa de St Ange (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you looking for the Bureaucrats' noticeboard? Jenks24 (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

*slaps forehead* Of course! Damn it. I'm a bit thick tonight. --Tristessa de St Ange (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you looking for the "wait a few hours" noticeboard? Haha, just kidding. Enjoy your day. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 02:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Assuredly! *giggles childlishly* I wonder why we don't have one of those. --Tristessa de St Ange (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

We do ... it's right here LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's less than two hours until the next DYK update is due, and all the queues are empty. See Template_talk:Did_you_know/Queue#DYK_is_almost_overdue. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As customary to notify this noticeboard, I have started a request for comment for the 2011 Arbitration Committee Elections. The community is invited and encouraged to discuss the issues at hand in order to develop a rough consensus for the procedures and rules for the election in December. –MuZemike 00:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Structure WP:WQA conversations--Cerejota (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the current policy for reviewing images with {{badimage}} on them?

It has been suggested by a previous contributor that :

• {{badimage}} is intended to prevent misuse of images by vandals - which is perfectly reasonable
• {{badimage}} Is NOT a "censorship" template.

If correct then technically images tagged with {{badimage}} should not be tagged as such indefinitely?

Thusly in keeping with NOTCENSORED would it not be appropriate for certain images on that list (like for example images with a clear anatomical context) to be downgraded from {{badimage}} to a more appropriate 'advisory' tag after a suitable period when vandal use of them is likely to have subsided?

Another way of putting this is that {{badimage}} use should be a temporary measure subject to periodic review by experienced contributors and admins.

Despite the charcterisation of {{anatomical}} by other contributers, it could be used as a 'downgraded' advisory on images which might otherwise remain as {{badimage}} for an indefinite and indeterminate period .

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If you see some images which are not related to genitalia, I'd suggest contacting the admin who added it. Some have been used by some very long term abuse cases. I'm finding it difficult to see a reason to removed genitalia (any of the many penises) from the list. Some of the other more obscure anatomical images can probably be safely removed. Feel free to make any requests at WT:BIL. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Vagina,Anus,Pereneum-Detail.jpg (NSFW) contains anatomical content, which may upset people of a nervous disposition.

However, {{badimage}} seems to be intended for images that have already been used for vandalism, not as a pre-emptive measure.

Therefore I would like feedback on possible use of {{Anatomical}}, which was created as a tag to advise/warn users that an image might cause discomfort to those of a nervous disposition and that use in additional articles should be subject to appropriate consensus.

I'd appreciate an objective response from admins, because it's usally you lot that have to field the 'OMG! You people are Sick!!' type concerns Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain how that tag would work? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but wouldn't users only see that tag after they'd seen the image? 28bytes (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The intent, was to have a tag for 'anatomical' images that may cause distress, but which didn't strictly meet the full {{badimage}} criteria. It's intended for categorisation and tools(like the image filter) as much as it is intended as a warning about image restrictions. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. 28bytes (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Also created {{Kinky}} to handle 'bondage' and sexuality images :O Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) I'm not seeing how this would NOT trip over WP:NOTCENSORED. If a user is looking up an article on such "naughty bits" of anatomy, it stands to reason they'd be expecting to see images pertaining thereto. Yes, I know, this was already hashed out at the RfC regarding "opting in/out" of certain images, but while I appreciate both the opinions voiced at that RfC and the work Sfan00 IMG has put into those templates, it still strikes me as of questionable usage. Just my 2p worth, save up the change for a hamburger or something... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You may want to look at this initiative on meta. Protonk (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In view of that, I think using either category now would be a serious mistake. Some people might see doing this now as POINTy. The use of Kinky , especially, would seem at attempt to use a totally unspecifiable and personal label. The use of anatomical -- how would anyone be able to say which of our images of anatomy might disturb somebody--or is the intention to cover all images of body parts, such as hands? The bad image list has one legitimate purpose only, which is not to avoid disturbing people, but to limit the misuse of a variety of images known to have been commonly used for vandalism. Either something is used that way, or it isn't. Labeling is supposed to have an actual purpose. Tfd would appear the way to go on these, unless their creator wants to make that unnecessary by withdrawing them. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The two templates {{kinky}} and {{anatomical}} are intended to be used independently of {{badimage}}, including

on images that don't fully meet badimage criteria (as explained previously). In respect of {{kinky}} rather than merely claiming it's unspecifiable, perhaps those objecting would care to explain why objective criteria for it's use are not possible to define, especially given that classification advisories for other types of content appears to rely on them?

The purpose of these templates is not a censor box, but an advisory for potential users, neither template currently contains a direct categorisation anyway (unlike {{badimage}}

With {{anatomical}} another issue was one of 'ethical' reuse (in the sense of research/acadmeic ethics), but that's a different although related debate. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Eventually, {{anatomical}} and {{kinky}} SHOULD probably be brought under some common 'restriction' tagging scheme,

that would also in other aspects cover things like nudity, illegal drug use, extremist symbols etc... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The foundation did not even get true consensus for a much weaker version of this which would permit people to choose to hide such notices forever. and you are proposing one that would not be hideable? Labelling is censorship, as I and many others argued during the discussion of the vote about that resolution. It discourages people from using the material, it insults the people who think they do not need such warnings, it encourages blatant outside censorship by giving them a handle (and you've said as much: you wish them to be available for use in image filters), and it is the first step towards actual prohibition, I think your discussion of additional such tagging as showing your desire to extend this. I consider them contrary to settled policy and therefore subject to speedy deletion under criterion T2, but since they are controversial, I've taken them to CfD. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 17 I would consider their addition to any article as vandalism. I consider their addition to the image you added it to as such , and have reverted your addition as contrary to established policy. The title of the image is warning enough. (and, for that matter, information enough for those who wish a censored body of material somewhere, an unfortunate use which we do permit for we permit all outside use.)

As for your specific questions, I fail to see why we would want to warn people about reuse, for images they could hardly use without knowing what they are. And is Wikipedia a platform for discussing what is or is not kinky. From your discussion above you consider any image relating to sexuality "kinky". And your concept for the use of anatomical indicates you consider the defining as anything which might bother people of "nervous disposition", a very wide & indefinite group indeed. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The {{kinky}} template name was because {{sexuality}} was already in use :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

DGG, I encourage you reconsider your claim that Sfan00 IMG's edit was "vandalism". 28bytes (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I amend it, to being so pointy as to appear as vandalism, although not so intended. And I had already reverted the addition as contrary to policy, not as vandalism, in order to give as uncontentious an edit summary as possible. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the strong views expressed in this thread and the TfD, both templates have now been withdrawn from use on the

small number of images that had been tagged. Perhaps a different approach to content advice is needed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

we already have a very straightforward approach to content advice: We do not give it. Any more than we decide on guilt or innocence, or scientific priority, or who wrote Shakespeare. Quite apart from abstract considerations of avoiding the taint of censorship, any other policy would be contentious about what advice to give. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Reposting in case anyone missed it. The application period is scheduled to close in just over 24 hours, at 23:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other.

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

Current demand for users with regional knowledge

Because of the increasing activity from the South Asian, Southeast Asian, or Middle Eastern regions, CheckUser applications are particularly sought from people who not only meet our general requirements but also are familiar with the ISPs and typical editing patterns of any of these regions.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 18 September 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 16:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Quick question about what other's think is appropriate.

Background:

• India Evangelical Lutheran Church was marked as for CSD as a copy-vio by RadioFan.
• Rather than delete, I blanked the offending sections and left only a stub
• RadioFan would like the copy-vio removed from the page history

Now, the edit history is essentially:

• The current text with the copy-vio text
• RadioFan CSD tag
• My blanking of the copy-vio text leaving the current text

... so there's no way to delete the copy-vio text without deleting the entire article. However, a work-around could be to delete the entire article and restore it again attributing the two contributors to the remaining text.

Question:

• Is simply blanking the offending text OK?
• What do others think of the work-around?

--RA (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In these cases, you can just revdelete the revisions containing copyvios per criterion #1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't do that without removing attribution to the author of current text (the original contributor posted a mix of the current text + copy vio text). --RA (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think usual practice has not been to delete the text unless the owner of the copyright requests it; generally it's sufficent to remove it from the article. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That was the case when the additional work of selective deletion was required. My impression is that admins will revdel these more readily. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

RA, if you do revdel it, you can opt to hide the text but not the username or edit summary, which will leave the original contributor's name visible in the page history. See, for example, the page history of this similar case. 28bytes (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks, 28bytes. --RA (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As explained above, WP:Revision deletion is much better at addressing this situation than WP:Selective deletion. Non-admins may request revision deletion under Criterion 1 by tagging with {{copyvio-revdel}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

During a discussion, a user is repeatedly and aggressively accusing me of being an Iranian government official, while I am just a US resident working for a public US based company, trying to prevent Original Research in an article:

"I am familiar with Iran government's official literature as well as many of the editors here."

"It seems you have problem with the phrase 'Khomeini's hypocritic approach in rising to power"... It hearts[hurts]? O.k. I'll change it. But buy a dictionary and search for 'hypocrisy' and choose another name for what Khomeini did. I couldn't, you try!"

"wait, you should have some consultations, make a hard copy of the article, and check it with them and see whether it is tolerable or they want all of the shares? In the second case you can ask their majesty to prepare a formal propaganda for Imam Khomeini and issue it to wiki ... what about me?! Don't worry about me and people like me. They can find and assassinate us anywhere across the world"

Kazemita1 (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message on the article talk page and a warning on his talk page.--v/r - TP 16:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sock indefblocked. Collapsing per DNFTT. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I believe the admin "Kuru" is made a very serious mistake here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:LardoBalsamico_reported_by_User:Sillystuff84_.28Result:_page_protected.29 He has all but admitted his mistake here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kuru#3RR_or_4RR.3F Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Kuru gave you the right answer. You're lucky he chose not to block you, please quit bringing more attention to yourself or another admin might.--v/r - TP 15:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Could you please explain how I exceeded 3RR? Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC) There is no mistake, especially a serious one that he has admitted to. The two of you were edit warring and kuru did the sensible thing protected the article to stop both of you. GB fan 15:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Could you please explain how I exceeded 3RR? Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Anybody? Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) You invited a block on Kuru's Talk page, and you're repeating your behavior here. There's nothing left to explain. You just refuse to accept the explanations. If you really want to be blocked, I'm sure an admin will oblige you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Agree with GB fan, and may I point out that this looks very much like canvassing. Favonian (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC) I believe it falls within the acceptable variations of canvassing. I'm being entirely open about it. Yuru ran away, so I contacted online admins. Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Your first edit counts as a revert ("Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert"). Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC) So ANY edit at all, can count as a revert then, right? Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Your last comment is correct. I agree with the original admin action. WP:3RR is not a license to revert three times a day; an edit war exists as soon as people start reverting, whether or not they ever get to 3 reverts. Anyone spotting this is quite within their rights to make a warning and in this case it was entirely appropriate. Exceeding 3RR is an automatic bright line for a block; edit warring up to that point is just as much frowned on, but depends more on admin discretion. I agree you were lucky not to be blocked. Hope this is clear enough for you now. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your input Kim Dent-Brown. I believe then it should be made more clear on the 3RR policy page that ANY edit at all can count as a revert. As it stands now, it's very misleading. Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC) That does not appear to be the case at all; as noted your first edit was a revert of a recent addition by the editor you are in conflict with. This has been explained; is it still not clear to you? Kuru (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC) At the risk of wikilawyering this to death, the statement made by Sillystuff, "any edit can count as a revert", is on its face correct, but largely beside the point. What matters is not what can count as a revert, but what does count as a revert. The policy language makes it clear what does count as a revert, and that part of the policy language has been quoted to Sillystuff more than once. I might add that in the policy, the key language is bolded and in a colored circle. To elaborate, if Sillystuff in his first edit had added material to the page, it would not have counted as a revert because it did not "undo[] another editor's work", whereas an edit that undoes can be the beginning of an editor's undoing (sorry, couldn't resist). After that first revert, of course, the next three reverts have to take place in a 24-hour period to violate the rule, although as others have rightly pointed out and as the 3RR policy states, one can be blocked for warring, even if one does not violate the "bright-line" aspect of 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Note, Sillystuff84 is now canvasing the edit warring discussion. Monty845 15:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Blocked 12 hours for disruption (canvassing and forum shopping in addition to original edit warring.) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danilo Ursini needs closing, its been open for a month. Phearson (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it was never listed on the AfD pages, that's why no one noticed and closed it. I'll list it on today's log, so that it get at least some attention at that venue. Thanks - Nabla (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The page nominated for deletion here consists of the details of check user results for someone whose RL identity is known. Ironically, someone seems to have created a sock account to do it. Isn't this a fairly serious abuse of checkuser privileges (per [17]) which ought to be looked into? --FormerIP (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Those are not Checkuser results. CU provides IP, useragent, and a bunch of other info. This is just someone playing armchair Nancy Drew. → ROUX ₪ 19:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Where on earth could they have got the data other than from checkuser? --FormerIP (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the exact method used, but they could be collected from the history of the page(s) that were being socked. Monty₈₄₅ 20:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I get it. It's a list of posts made when not logged in which the creator suspects are linked to the account, rather than a list of IPs used by the account. All the same, is there not a case for bypassing MfD and getting rid of it? It's fairly sensitive personal data, all said and done. --FormerIP (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that all this information is public (which appears to be the case), and given that an admin (Nyttend) has voted to keep it, I find it hard to believe that this should be deleted without going through the normal discussion process. Additionally, this page was already discussed on MfD, and the discussion was closed as NO CONSENSUS. Typicly, once a page is discussed at XfD, it isn't speedy deleted unless it turns out to be a copyvio; while exposing potentially private information could be said to be as bad as a copyvio, the status of this page as revealing such information is exactly as it was at the time of the old discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Monty is correct: Eyepeepeeeye has culled edits from page histories, such as this one in which David R revealed his own username. It's not private information. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I just fully protected Lodhi for 1 week to stop a rapidly brewing edit war. I attempted to guess what the "pre-dispute" version was, and reverted to that. I have never edited that article or its talk page. However, I am quite involved with all of the regular editors (in fact, some people think I'm part of an unholy, power-tripping triumvirate with two of them), so some might argue that my protection violates WP:INVOLVED. My feeling is that the action is acceptable, since full protection is actually for the benefit of all of the editors (and, of course, Wikipedia). If anyone thinks I've done wrong, please slap me, feel free to undo the protection, and/or change the version that's protected. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm going to be away from Wikipedia for at least an hour or more, and have no problem if any other admin unilaterally undoes my actions without consulting me. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It is well known that you three (Sitush, MatthewVanitas and yourself) have been exercising an overbearing influence on the entire topic of Indian caste articles. You three have been acting in tandem on all these articles and have acted in tandem to obtain blocks and bans on hordes and hordes of eds who have tried to edit these articles. Presently, you have even changed the article content and protected it despite being heavily involved(in the caste article area and the eds involved there). You have even issued an oblique threat of block to me on the talk:Lodhi page. You are also involved with me on a number of caste articles. You are a blot on the name of admins. Step down.MW ^ℳ 03:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I threatened to have any one of you blocked--very much including Sitush and MatthewVanitas (again, I can't do it myself, but I can certainly ask for an edit-warring block, the same as any other editor). In fact, if I had to make the call myself, it would be MV who is closest to editor warring, and Fowler&Fowler who needs a stern warning for incivility in edit summaries. Furthermore, I protected the article the way it stood before edit-warring--in fact, I actually chose that version because a cursory glance made me think it was closer to the version you liked than the one MV liked, to further show that I was acting neutrally. Apologies if I chose the wrong version, although, by definition, every version is the wrong version for someone. But if you feel there was a more proper version of the article that goes back farther, then please indicate which diff and I another admin can change the protected version (note that no admin should arbitrarily choose one version in the middle of the edit war). Please note that I literally haven't even read the article yet, nor any of the sources, and have made absolutely no effort to determine which of you, if any, is "right"--all I did was look for the last semi-stable version (i.e., before MatthewVanitas added a bunch of new text that you and Fowler&Fowler seemed to be objecting to), and chose that as the version to protect. Finally, every single person I've sought to have blocked was, in the end, an editor engaged in sockpuppetry or gross personal attacks--and no amount of systemic bias justifies sockpuppetry, editing through a block or ban, or gross incivility. One report Sitush made turned out to be false, and he apologized for that. It's not our fault that some editors feel so strongly that they have to promote their own caste and bring down others that they are willing to break Wikipedia's policies to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The one report that turned out to be false was against me and it was a pretty random sockpuppetry allegation. Anyone competent enough would never have made that kind of an allegation. As far as Qwyrxian is concerned, I've seen patronizing advise directed at Indian editors at talk:Jan Lokpal Bill, on another admin's user page and an implication that Indian editors are somehow incapable of following policies. All of this, IMO, is a manifestation of the generalizations and the assumptions being made about Indian editors. While there may be many such editors, we do not make such broad-ranging generalizations in real life and neither should we make them here. Due to this, I feel Qwyrxian should recuse himself from India related matters for the long term. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Diffs, please. I have some guesses, and if I'm right, you misunderstood my words. However, if uninvolved admins/editors think I am too biased to take admin actions in this matter, I will voluntarily ban myself from taking any admin actions on any India-related articles. I just want to see a consensus of uninvolved editors tell me that I am actually acting unfairly on this topic, preferably based on some actual evidence. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

[18] [19] [20] Zuggernaut (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, what's the problem with any of those diffs? I don't see a problem with any of them. Dayewalker (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It is unacceptable that someone who is spreading such narrow minded and prejudiced views should be an admin at all. Their present actions on the Lodhi article themselves should be a reason to think that we have someone who is incapable of handling admin tools properly.MW ^ℳ 04:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

MW, you're either not listening or not understanding--I didn't even read the Lodhi article in detail. I honestly thought I was protecting the version you preferred, not MV/Sitush. The only point behind the protection is to make the edit warring stop and have everyone discuss the issue on the article's talk page. I seriously don't care which version you end up with, nor do I plan on even helping you decide, because I have plenty of articles to already deal with and I don't need another dispute. Would you have preferred that I protected the version of the article just before I set up the protection? Those are really the only two options available to a protecting admin--the pre-dispute, or the current version (unless there's BLP/copy-vio problems, which did not seem to be the case here). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Funny that someone can express narrow minded and prejudiced views at a page without editing at all! Claims that editors' beliefs make them ineligible for adminship are attempts at censorship; see this relevant page. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs from Zuggernaut, in the first one, it looks like I'm criticizing both Fowler&Fowler and Sitush. The only generalization I make is about articles, not people; that generalization was based on past experience, but I am actually beginning to think that generalization is wrong--almost all of the caste articles are battlegrounds with lots of bad faith editing. The edit on Jan Lokpal is a standard declaration of WP:NOTFORUM, and I was actually a bit bothered that you removed it. Because that subject was so prevalent in the Indian news, both the article and the article's talk page were getting tons of edits either in support or opposition to the Bill, not about improving the article in a neutral way. I was letting editors know that we don't tolerate that type of discussion, and that such posts can and would be removed. The one on Dougweller's is actually one that I was thinking you'd raise, and is something I stand by. Non-western countries have different opinions about what is a reliable source for truth, about what is legitimate copying and what is not, and about what it means to be "neutral". This is well-verified by quite a bit of research. This does not make one system better than another, but it does make them different. Wikipedia's "culture" is, by and large, based on Western (and especially, US "academic") culture, particular with regards to intellectual property and reliable sources. For example, we don't consider information written in ancient religious documents (from any faith) to be "reliable" in the sense of them providing facts about the world. Not all of our editors agree--some Indian editors, for instance, consider their interpretations of the Puranas to be sufficiently reliable to be all the sourcing we ever need; similarly, some Evangelical Christians have at times tried to argue that the Bible is a sufficient source of evidence for other information; similarly, every day we get Muslim editors who try to tell us that our articles must be changed to conform with Islamic rules. Wikipedia rejects these views. I am concerned that Wikipedia is doing a good job of inviting previously un-included people to the site, but isn't doing a good job of explaining our culture. Many Indian (etc.) editor are more than capable of learning Wikipedia's culture; many of them may already have it, depending on exactly what way they've been educated. Some of them, sadly, are not (and this is true across cultures). The problem is that Wikipedia is inviting all of these new people, but is acting like it's their fault if they don't understand, right away, how our culture works. This is the standard colonial/oppressive mentality--that our way is obviously "right" and "superior", and that everyone of course knows this. Thus, if we're not careful, our outreach programs actually reinforce systemic bias, rather than right it, because we failed to provide a proper introduction to how we work. Finally, I'd like to direct your attention to [21] and [22], from a conversation I had with MangoWong on another user's talk page, that may give you a little more insight into my thoughts in this matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You did fine, Qwyrxian. I might've suggested not reverting at all and simply protecting meta:The Wrong Version, but hey, no big deal.

Zuggernaut, I have no idea how you can read those comments the way you are, but Qwyrxian clearly did not say anything like what you are implying.

MangoWong, I trust that this is not normally how you deal with other users, and that Qwyrxian is simply special. Please moderate your tone. lifebaka++ 05:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I will try to do as you say. Qwyrxian, Sitush, MatthewVanitas, myself and caste articles. These five entities cannot seem to be able to live without each other, and not a day passes without there being some sort of a "meeting", somewhere or other. Fowler&fowler is a very major player in all this. All six entities can be seen on that article now. I don't quite see how Qwyrxian could be construed to be "uninvolved" here. If others think it is OK for Qwyrxian to perform admin actions on things with which Qwyrxian might have such a close involvement, OK. I won't push it. If this is a "normal" definition of "uninvolved", OK. It only means we will continue to see things like this again. Nothing more there.MW ^ℳ 06:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I only just saw this and sadly don't have the time to read the entire discussion upstairs, so apologies for any misinterpretation. First, another apology for my uncivil edit summary on Lodhi, which was borne on the wings of frustration. For there user:Sitush and user:MatthewVanitas had yet again written one of their inimitable leads in which the word "Lead" was seemingly interpreted as the "Varna section." Accordingly, there was no mention of "varna" anywhere in the article except in the lead. The rest of the article meanwhile was devoid of every shattered shard of narrative. As for Q, I don't think he should recuse himself from anything. I've found him to be a mostly neutral presence in these caste-related articles. He wrote a very eloquent comment on my dealings with Sitush, which I found to be helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

PS Not for a moment should my criticism of Sitush and MV be seen as an endorsement of their opponents—the reincarnating IPs and SPAs—who claim direct descent from the Sun and add nothing but inflated and light headed content. Both Sitush and MV are (in the main) fighting the good fight; they just need to be more nuanced and less heavy handed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

An anon user seems to be pushing his original research into Relativity priority dispute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

• 71.98.141.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.98.132.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.98.136.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At first they added blogs as sources, then they came with wp:CIRCULAR sources, and now finaly they have source that fails to back the added statement. Edits:

Revert 6: [23]

Revert 5: [24] ,

Revert 4: [25],

Revert 3: [26],

Revert 2: [27],

Revert 1: [28],

Orig: [29],

Can this somehow be addressed? Thank you. DVdm (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Note - Revert 7: [30]. DVdm (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Note - Now we get remarks like "You can't stand the truth, can you ? hide the truth". DVdm (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've full-protected the article for two days to make sure discussion occurs. A lot of the IP's sources were not valid for what they were using them for, but that last one they added does seem to call for discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the article. However, I definitely will not engage in a dicussion with someone who makes remarks like "You can't stand the truth, can you ? hide the truth". That might imply that the article remains in this bad state. I'll count on other contributors to engage in a discussion with this anon. Not me.

By the way, the matter was already discussed in the preceeding sections. DVdm (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Then an {{editprotected}} request to revert his last edit might be a good thing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, good idea. Done. DVdm (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The current article still represents the wrong (IP-created) version. The source has nothing to do with the Holton-section, and does not mention the priority issue at all. Like Dvdm, I recommend to revert to this version. --D.H (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP now calls Einstien "a shameless plagiarist". Why is the article still not reverted to this version as demanded by Dvdm and me? --D.H (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: As if nothing happened, anon (71.98.*.*) happily continues with this new attempt, so I have filed a request for semi-protection, but I think that some kind of block might be warranted. Up to now, we have

• 71.98.139.187 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.98.130.237 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.98.128.47 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.98.135.234 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.94.170.163 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.98.135.234 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.98.141.58 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.98.132.88 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.98.136.27 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

DVdm (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A couple of days ago, I dealt with a WP:RFPP for Jesus from a new editor to this frequently contentious article - Wikiglobaleditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). It was apparent on looking at the article history that the reporting editor was trying to add contentious information about a WP:FRINGE theory, based on a YouTube video. Not surprisingly, three established editors were reverting him on fairly sound policy grounds, and he was up to six reverts by this point. He had also reported one of those reverting him to WP:AIV (report declined by the reviewing admin there). I blocked him for 72 hours, and started a discussion on his talk page about what the problem was. User:Blanchardb and User:Slrubenstein have also contributed. User:Nick-D declined an appeal [31] because Wikiglobaleditor said he wasn't editwarring.

Given Wikiglobaleditor's replies [32] [33] [34] in which he basically says he has the truth and we're all oppressing him by coming up with our own versions of policy, not the real ones which support him, I have increased the block to indefinite, as I don't want to let him loose on the project until he has better understanding.

Is this excessive? Alternately, is there someone out there who might have better success getting through to him. I don't think I explained very well about how Wikipedia regards the theory that Jesus escaped and lived out his days in Kashmir as a fringe theory, even though it is quite well known in the Indian subcontinent (and isn't the work of some English crackpot), although the real problem is his belief (having watched this video on YouTube) that it's the gospel truth (if you'll pardon the phrase). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

He's appealed [35]. Could someone look at it in due course. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) On a brief review of his talkpage, the block looks fine to me. If and when he shows signs of "getting it", he can be unblocked, but based on his behaviour so far, there is no reason to believe he'll be significantly more likely to have "got it" after 72 hours, 1 week or indeed any other fixed period from now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Fut. Perf. actually beat me to the decline while I was looking up a couple links to use (WP:RGW, in particular...) T. Canens (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

We're required to act politely towards them, giving them access to the appropriate channels in which to state their case (so I wouldn't support talk page blocking). However some people just don't ever get what the aims of the project are, and there's no duty on anyone in the project to continually attempt to achieve this, when there is no indication of it sinking in. Good block, good indef block. Anyone who wants to spend their time explaining it over and over through talk: is welcome to, in that worthy but probably futile endeavour, but anything outside that one user talk: page is likely to be an imposed time-sink for editors who do have more useful things to be doing.

On another aspect, I'd like to see an article on Jesus in Katmandu, along with Joseph of Arimathea in Glastonbury etc. Fringe theories and myths, even when demonstrably wrong, have their place in an encyclopedia too, when appropriately sourced and neutrally written (Achieving that neutrality, mind you...). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh definitely. Some of these are very long established pieces of folklore, not just a crackpot theory, and there should be a whole body of scholarship about them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As Elen notes above, I turned down this editor's first unblock request as they claimed they hadn't been edit warring when in fact they were edit warring severely. I think that Elen was very generous in not implementing an indef block originally, and strongly support her subsequent extension of this block on the basis of the editor's posts on their talk page. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I was in the process of declining the original unblock when I EC'd twice. My unblock was going to say: Increase to indefinite was clearly neccessary - editor has stated that they intend to disrupt the project in many ways, including edt-warring and continued discussion about a topic, as opposed to discussion about improving the article, using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You appear to have zero desire to read nor understand the basic principles of Wikipedia, and your unblock request shows this clearly. FPAS beat me to it. The editor is increasingly belligerant, and does not seem to desire to understand the project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If I look at WP:BLOCK, the second section states, Blocks should be used to: (1.) prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; (2.) deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, (3.) encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Given that it is apparent that a 72-hour block has achieved none of this, and given that the editor has shown intent to continue disrupting Wikipedia to make sure his views are permanently inserted in the article, I think forcing him to review his behavior before he's allowed to edit again, regardless of how long that takes, is perfectly in line with our blocking policy. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Let the current block ride out and expire. If he shoots himself in the foot again, we can indef him as disruptive to the project.--v/r - TP 15:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, the current block alread is indef. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the block should be reverted to the initial 72 hours time span (i.e. block until about tomorrow at 12:00). That one seems OK, even if maybe slightly harsh, as Wikiglobaleditor was disruptive. Turning into indef simply because during the first few hours Wikiglobaleditor and others kept a futile and harsh argument makes little sense. If the point was to give 72h to cool down, then let that period run and then see if it cooled down or not. If you keep fuelling the discussion most naturally it carries on. Down-talking the user's sources because "our primary focus is the mainstream view of the English speaking world"(?!) does not help (note: I am Portuguese); calling him a "couch-potato" does not help; SHOUTING at him does not help. So, lets help him to help himself by giving him a real chance of becoming a useful editor, by restoring the 72h block? - Nabla (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Point of order - I appreciate your input, but the block wasn't "72h to cool down", it was because he was persisting in reverting three other editors, to the extent that he had reached 6RR. I don't do cooldown blocks. The conversation on his talkpage was not "a futile and harsh argument", it was an attempt by several editors to get him to understand policy, and avoid him running straight back to the article - particularly necessary after he appealed the initial block on the grounds that he was not the one edit warring. While I agree that the phrase about the mainstream view of the English speaking world was clumsy and did not convey what I meant, (a) it remains true that Wikipedia regards the theory that Jesus escaped to Kashmir as a fringe theory and (b) a pirate youtube copy of a popular tv show does not a reliable source make in this highly contentious area. If you think there is a better way that could have been explained to him, I am open to suggestions, as it clearly didn't go too well when I tried. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Two points taken! First, your block did not explicit mention any cool down. Still, what was the intention? In the short term, to avoid further reverts, as you say, in the 72h the intention was?... I presume you hoped that after 72h the situation could normalise (and that is what *I* called cool down); Second, the argument was not futile, my bad expression, it was fruitless. But I stick to harsh with all those bolds, underlines and caps going on (not by you, I note). As to a better way of handling I already said it above, but I'll underline and expand a bit: in generally policy (sources, etc) and alternatives (write another article, ...) was well explained to the user, but it was counter-productive to have a few harsh remarks as I have pointed above, that is one thing that could have been different, but well, no big deal and we all do it once in a while. Most of all you could have kept you word (and still can): you have blocked for 72h (fine), you stated that you'd block longer if he engaged in edit warring (quite fine), the user said he would only edit the talk page. Good! Looks like you got yourself a deal! Then another user (Slrubenstein) comes in. He previous called Wikiglobaleditor a "couch-potato", now he makes long lecture, downtalks and shouts at Wikiglobaleditor's reply. Wikiglobaleditor shouts *back* at him and so you extend the block? Not the best option it seems. You talked him out to a deal, and it was a good deal; he gets to have his say on the talk page, eventually we may get ourselves a new stub about it, and if the user failed to do so... you would block. Considering the extenuating circumstances, that the user was poked, and as a sign of good faith I ask you to get the block back to the initial deadline. Or allow me to do so - Nabla (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CDB. The term "cool down block" carries negative connotations and is against the blocking policy, which is probably why Elen was keen to clarify that she did not block Wikiglobaleditor to make him cool down. Jenks24 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, I did not recalled the WP slang when I wrote that. As explained I was using the common expression, my bad. I had no intention of arguing that Elen acted outside of policy, and I fully understand her clarification. Thanks - Nabla (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Nabla, if you want to fault me for overzealous comments that you may feel are unconstructive or inappropriate, fair enough. I must ad that in what you call my long "lecture" I was actually trying to explain that Ellen's words about English-speaking were wrong and that we welcome editors who read and write other languages and scholarly sources in other languages, surely this was a good thing to do. I did not quite call him a couch-potato; I did say that one cannot be an encyclopedia researcher by being a couch potato and I stand by this, although you have a right to disagree.

Be that as it may most of what you see as problematic has to do with me, not with Ellen of the Roads, and I would hate for you or anyone else to evaluate her block based on my own expressed views (and how I express them). My understanding is that Ellen made the block indefinite because Wikiglobaleditor stated explicitly that when the block expired he will return to using talk pages as "soap-boxes" for arguing his own POV. I do not think the issue is simply cooling down because he is not being blocked for misrepresenting me or insulting me or arguing against me - the problem is not his hot-headedness and I have to emphasize that I was never involved in an edit-conflict or edit-war with this editor, so whatever heat is between us is I think secondary to the main issue. Ellen's block was not - or not primarily, as I interpret it - to give this editor time to "cool down;" it is at least as much to give the editor time to familiarize himself with the many policies and guidelines he had been violating. And his most recent talk on his user-page not only gives no evidence that he has yet taken any time to look at our policies (and I added a wikiwelcome with links to make it easier for him). I think this is another reason to consider extending the block. Personally, as soon as Wikiglobaleditor shows that he has read the policies to which several other editors have referred him, and shows and inclination to take them into account in his editing, I would favor lifting the block. In any event, these are in my view the key issues, not hot-tempers, and I think Ellen has tried her best to explain it to him, and several other editors have added their own views, clarifying where necessary comments made by Ellen. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Though I don't like the expression, I agree that "one cannot be an encyclopedia researcher by being a couch potato", but your words were not generic as used here (one can not be...) but directed at him (you can not be): «I am afraid, Wikiglobaleditor, that you have to be more than a couch-potato to research an encyclopedia article». Again, no big deal, it happens, but you were, let's say, unpolite enough so that the other party may rightfully feel insulted, even if you did not meant it. And that quite likely obliterates whatever ton of good reasons and advices one may give, as you did. - Nabla (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

@Nabla. Given the chap's last but one edit [36] aimed at Slrubenstein I am extremely disinclined to unblock. The personal attacks "lying after lying" The claim to being a long term editor when the account was registered on 8 July 2011 "You don't have any idea who I am... I associated in the wiki-projects and Jimmy Wales since 2004...my contribution as a Editor - just go through them". The threats "now I have to report my findings on wiki editorial environment to somewhere else, and that is more important." all give me serious cause for concern. And his response to Maunus [37] doesn't inspire confidence either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, that one reply to Slrubenstein is not good, I haven't really noticed it yet. Wikiglobaleditor does have some 100 decent previous edits with no problem (checked a few at random) over 2 months. It was positive contribuition, and seems it was completely ignored, bot not much, obviously not a long term editor. And the rest well... I hope Jimmy Wales has few such friends... If any. The second reply, I see no problem, after having multiple editors saying him more or less the same thing again and again he wishes to stpo the argument. Sounds reasonable. Bottom line: Quite likely he is simply in a trolling rampage, and most likely he would get the indef block anyway after the 72h block, but we could no know that for sure. You condemned him because he might be disruptive (and he might express a minority opinion on talk pages, maybe?). I've seem Minority Report (film) a few years ago, good movie. Have you? They had precogs and even so they could guess future crimes wrong. I will not insist you lift the block, looks like I'm alone on thinking there would be less harm done lifting the block, than there is in keeping it. - Nabla (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of the very serious edit warring which led to the block and the editor's subsequent posts on their talk page, it seems to be a certainty that they'll behave unacceptably if unblocked. I don't think that it's a good idea to unblock someone as an experiment to see if they'll continue to behave disruptively. If Wikiglobaleditor calms down and makes commitments to edit in a collaborative fashion things would be very different. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Very serious edit warring? 6 reverts in 24 hours, once? Bang! One bad day, blocked for life? Are we all saints over here or what? And would you calm down while being blocked and insulted and talked down (from your point of view)? I doubt it. Yes, more likely he will be disruptive than not, but we, has a community, never gave him a real chance. - Nabla (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nabla, I've looked back into his edit history. He joined at the start of July, and has been making useful gnome-type edits, mostly tagging, some Afds that were unproblematic. The edit that caused all the trouble was his first attempt to add "serious level" content to the encyclopaedia. I think what happened surprised him, because he thought the rules worked completely differently to the way that they do. But if someone edit wars, and continues to insist that they weren't edit warring, it is hard to justify unblocking. If he would accept someone talking to him about what went wrong, I would have thought an unblock would be possible, but he's just deleted BWilkins attempt [38] without comment. If you think you can succeed, then I would say to give it a shot. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup. My final words "The above steps are your only way forward. How you proceed is up to you" followed by their removal by the editor shows exactly which way this editor wishes to proceed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with your opinions and actions, Elen and Bwilkins. If he showed any sign, no matter how small, of being willing to engage in discussion with editors and understand that his actions are disruptive, I'd think differently. It's all very well, after all, letting new(ish) editors with a wildly off-base interpretation learn via a collision course of mistakes but, where that collision course is borne of a deliberate agenda in addition to an abject unwillingness to change their behaviour, there really is nothing to be done except an indef block. It should perhaps be noted that if at a future point he decides he's willing to talk and learn about Wikipedia policy in a sensible manner, he ought to be permitted an unblock. --Tristessa (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• I would actually support giving him a second chance. It can be hard to say "I'm sorry", but perhaps his actions will show that he understands the message. If not it's easy to block him again and he can't do that much damage with so many eyes on him. I'd say a goodfaith unblock could make the differences between a valuable future contributor and someone who'll hate the project for life.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I offered him help on how to be unblocked - and "sorry" was not even part of it. He chose to delete the polite advice. I'm still willing to unblock if he simply stops stomping around like a toddler and understands why he was blocked and doesn't do it again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I note he has current communication on his talkpage addressed to Nabla. I've dropped Nabla a note - perhaps he can talk some sense into the guy, because going on what he's written, he needs it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Good block. Support indef. I don't think this user is likely to ever 'get it'. In particular his reply in regards to his RfA attempt as well as his name-dropping of Jimbo displays immaturity and a non-collegial attitude. Overall a hostile pov-pushing user that would've ended up indef blocked sooner or later anyway. -- œ^™ 22:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Good block - I support "indef as in until and unless something changes" in this case, as they haven't done anything yet that I can see to warrant bannination, but they do not appear to get it right now. If they come around or someone helps them come around then I'd support an eventual second chance. No disagreement that a block for now with no set end date makes sense. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, somebody has been making unconstructive edits here by introducting dubious sources or simply vandalizing wikipedia like here (by arbitrarily changing sourced statistics from the worldfactbook and the world bank among others). As per wikipedia rules (WP:RS), I am asking that you warn this person and revert his edits. Thank you. 209.212.23.45 (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drnhawkins and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Willfults? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've closed the easy one.--v/r - TP 14:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, TParis, for closing and summarizing the RfC. Cunard (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, TParis, for closing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Willfults. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. I received an email from this user stating that they have to use a proxy to access Wikipedia, for what I perceive to be legitimate reasons. That proxy is blocked. I have given them IP block exemption. Can someone review my action to make sure I didn't do something incorrectly and also log everything properly? Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added it to Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption/log; not sure how to asess the appropriateness opf the action, though. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it generally considered OK to add IPBE to a non-super active editor (~50 edits over 5 years) who nonetheless needs it to edit? I was thinking yes, but I know that IPBE has its own policies. NW (Talk) 13:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If they have good reason for IPBE then the answer is a probable yes. It might get removed without prejudice if they don't edit in about six months or a year or so, judging from what I've seen. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Excusing me for being pedantic, but the latest block log message for 99.88.78.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows an expiration date of 2011-09-08 when it should actually, if I have understood correctly, be 2012-09-08 (a year later). Since there is no way for non-admins to see the actual expiration date, could somebody please reblock using a correct explanation? Looie496 (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, what I wrote above is incorrect, but in any case the IP is currently blocked even though the block log says the block has expired. Looie496 (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's autoblocked. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Special:Contributions.2F99.88.78.94.2C_block_expired_but_block_bar_still_showing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any policy about what to do with user accounts belonging to the deceased? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin close and assess the consensus in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Declined speedies, which I've combined with Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Restore disputed section?. The policy page was subject to an edit war over a disputed section and was protected. There has been no further discussion since 23 August 2011. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, SilkTork (talk · contribs), for closing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A request on Talk:Tenedos to move the article has been open since August 19. The discussion has stalled long ago, with many of them same arguments starting to be repeated over and over again. The votes are 5 for, 7 against, and that ratio is unlikely to change significantly. At this point I would like to request closure of the request. Athenean (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  07:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Georgetown University is currently under a wide IP block for account creation due to historic sockpuppet/abuse issues. Lately this has been causing some minor headaches with regards to GU's participation in the U.S. Education Program as it makes it difficult for participating students to create accounts during training sessions on campus. It was suggested to me by User:Dcoetzee to bring this issue up here for discussion. While there are some work-arounds, such as use of WP:ACC and using IRC to request immediate Admin assistance, this block will have to be resolved at some point in the next 9 months (i.e. before Wikimania 2012). MyNameWasTaken (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a full list of the Georgetown IPs that are currently blocked? Deryck C. 19:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Using ACC and it's related IRC channel #wikipedia-en-accounts ^connect which are normally monitored 24/7 could be the answer. An ACC admin is also usually present to deal with any unforeseen issues. Mlpearc powwow 20:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course if there's a rangeblock involved, a checkuser is required. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• If there's a list of IPs, we could think about enabling account creation, but whenever you put hundreds of teenagers together, give them access to the Internet, and a way to amuse themselves without any consequences, the result is inevitable, so I would be inclined against unblocking altogether. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, ban all universities, not. Georgetown University owns 141.161/16. I notice 141.161.133.0/24 is currently blocked by a checkuser.[39] If you can find the block in question I'd suggest first going to the blocking admin. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that checkusers made rangeblocks in their capacities as checkusers. What's the reason — is it to prevent the creation of socks by known sockmasters who use those ranges? Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between a checkuser block and a block by a checkuser. But when a checkuser blocks a range for "Abusing multiple accounts", you can be sure they checked the appropriate block settings at the time. Presumably someone was abusing multiple accounts, but I have no idea of the history. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between a checkuser block and a block by a checkuser? I understand the rest of your comment. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A {{CheckUser block}} is a block explicitly marked as being based on privileged checkuser information, warning non-CU admins against overturning it without particularly careful prior consultation with the CUs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

and a block by a checkuser is like a normal block, though they may or may not have used the checkuser tool to research it. The block mentioned above falls into the latter category. See also this statement. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• This has been a situation at other universities also. I think blocks like this except for a very limited period are wrong in principle. As HJ MItchell says, vandalism is common among university users.This is a particular concern as residential colleges, where the students may not have an account outside the university range except on vacations. Much of our range blocking practices date from before the time when we had effective edit filters starting in 2008, and we should try to use that more specifically targeted approach. The existing ones should be reviewed. If we mean everybody can edit, we have to deal with the side effects in some way other than not letting large groups of people edit. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to remove this range block. Before we blocked it - this guy was creating half a dozen different accounts almost every week - after the range block he still surfaces periodically - but only with one or two accounts every few weeks. --Versageek 03:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The sockpuppeteer who's using that range is still getting through, but not as much/easily. There are other Georgetown ranges, but they don't appear to blocked. When I block a sockpuppet with autoblocked enabled, there is no autoblocked issued. This means that sockpuppet is editing through a blocked range/IP. It's common for this sockpuppeteer to still edit in this range, but he/she hasn't been as active with creating accounts. We don't have the manpower to deal with persistent abuse, especially from this user. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

you re seriously proposing we ought to block half a university to deal with one person? 6 accounts a week we can't deal with? 6 Accounts an hour, I'd understand it. If this is the best we can do, a few dozen active jackasses could put us totally out of operation. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A /24 range is not half a university. Georgetown has a much larger /16 range. It's not 6 accounts a week. It was like 6 accounts a day at times (not including IP edits). Elockid ^(Talk) 04:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is also a cross-wiki sockpuppeteer, the accounts I mentioned are just the ones in English Wikipedia. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A note regarding the spectrum of the ban on campus: we have been unable to find any IPs used for general connections that are outside the ban. It affects all wired and wireless connections on the main campus including dorms, offices, the libraries, and hospital. While GU may have a larger range, portions of it must not be in use or be in use elsewhere. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What's really needed though are example IP addresses; there are very clear instructions in the block message which provide this information. However, assuming the sockpuppeteer referred to above is responsible for the block and still active, the block is probably not going to be adjusted soon. One option is for the GU network admins to take some responsibility for this user. Otherwise, it looks like WP:ACC and IRC are the best options for now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is evolving but, if someone from here is in contact or going to contact someone at GU and if the WP:ACC option is looking good, it should be noted that we have a shortage of CU's at ACC. We have two who stop by as much as they can and one is a newly ordained 'crat (who prolly has a full plate) so request might not be handled in a timely manner. FYI. Mlpearc powwow 00:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well since the university would like to have access to edit for their students there should be more motivation from them to do something about the sockmaster. They could identify the person and rescind their computer access, or take some other preventative action against them. If we could get an offer like that then the block could be dropped. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rescinding the user's access is probably the only effective way of dealing with the sockpuppeteer on GU's side. This guy has been abusing the encyclopedia for years and based on other sockpuppets, abusing GU's network for years also. He/she has also promised that he/she will not stop until he/she gets the justice the topic they're editing deserves. I can forward the university with this info. There are sockpuppets blocked this month with a couple I'm monitoring. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Some Georgetown faculty members could be given WP:Account creator rights, so they could make accounts for students in whatever numbers are necessary so long as they are logged in. This would not require lifting the /24 anonblock, which only prevents creating an account when operating as an IP. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

ACC has done something very similar to that recently but, wouldn't we still need the checkuser done on the effected IP's ? Mlpearc Public (Talk) 02:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The checkusers ought to support giving out the Account creator rights to these teachers, since the chance that the sock master would enroll in one of these classes appears small. In any event the misbehavior of a student who socked would get fed back to the teacher who personally knows the holder of every account. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I need to say that I do not investigate sockpuppetry, nor do I work at AIV, & only block the vandalism I happen to come across, so I am in the very uncomfortable position of saying that other people should do possibly considerably more work in order to do it with fewer side effects. I think no matter what we do or don't do, maintaining open access is critical. At a university, unlike a high school with a limited number of computers and access points, it is not necessarily practical to identify particular users, which is basically a good thing, because users at a university need & deserve some degree of anonymity from their administration. (And the administration needs to be able to truthfully respond, just as we need to respond, that they cannot necessarily identify individuals.) And, as a practical matter, there's no particular reason he should limit himself to GU; so it won't even help if they throw him out; it may just make him even harder to detect. I'm told above that the speculations of some Wikipedians that it only affects a small part of the university were not correct. We need to protect our contents, certainly, but the balance here is wrong. If I were one of the Ambassadors there, I am not sure I would be willing to continue under such difficulties. I remember for one class in NYC I ended up having to substitute a different lesson at the last minute because there wasn't time for me to figure out account creation. Of course I could if it were to be needed again. But we have an obligation to potential users who are not taking classes also. The entire point of Wikipedia is openness. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think anyone is disputing the need for access but, we also need to stay within our policy or figure out if it needs to be changed or updated. (I also have little CU insight :P) Mlpearc Public (Talk) 15:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Having someone with WP:Account creator rights locally would go very far in alleviating the problems that we're running into. The most obvious candidate wouldn't be a faculty member but rather the DC Regional Ambassador, Pongr (Talk). While it is theoretically possible to contact GU SysAdmins to try and isolate the sockmaster, but my guess is that its unlikely the University would take any action, if not only because the cost/benefit ratio isn't there for them. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should have someone from Abuse response get involved in the correspondence ? (if that's whats going to be done) Mlpearc Public (Talk) 16:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to consider unblocking this IP range, then we need to also consider unblocking the disruptive user in question. If we cannot prevent this user from evading his block by creating more accounts, then the block on him is worthless. –MuZemike 17:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow admins--could one of you have a look at this AfD which has been open for three weeks? I think there is a consensus. If you don't see one, that's fine; perhaps it could be relisted. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to run out the door in a few minutes but I wanted to post this. The Truth Angle (talk · contribs) has posted on his/her talk page that the William H. Steele article is inaccurate and should be taken down, and "Liability for libel is a real possibilty". User says they know the subject and are working on a book.

The user's edits (I'm including the IP's edits in this diff as obviously related) are mostly adding unsourced information contradictory to the sources, and messing up formatting.

I reverted to the version before all the changes.

Also of note is an editor who was blocked earlier who did nothing but edit the article Truth-Driver (talk · contribs)

Thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a warning on their talk page. I don't see this as a blatant legal threat and considering they're a new user, perhaps the links in the warning message will serve to educate them. TNXMan 14:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It has long been my feeling that if we blocked editors with "truth" in their username on sight, we wouldn't lose any constructive contributions. My feeling has once again been reaffirmed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I can remember a good number of problematic editors whose usernames fit that pattern, and can't think of a single positive one. But even given that, imagine the bad PR if Wikipedia were to disallow anyone creating a username with "truth" in it. That gives a lot of ammo to snarky folks who don't care for this site. -- Atama頭 19:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The accusation, of course, would be that we can't handle The Truth™! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 10#Yael Meyer? It will fall off the DRV log soon. Cunard (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Closed. NW (Talk) 14:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, NuclearWarfare. Cunard (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a particularly difficult close, but as its apparently been contentious for about 10 years it should be closed by an impartial admin. Cheers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fairly contentious... if no-one else cares to tackle it (please! <G>), I guess I could - just need to mull it over a lil' longer. Tabercil (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the RfC turns out to be relatively straight-forward... but there's a Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26#Requested move August 2011 which I'm stuck with and could use some advice. On reading the arguments it seems to me like the suggested move should be done. The problem is the article China has at least 10,000 incoming links, more like more (I gave up counting when I hit the 10000 mark). Assume for the sake of argument 10% of those link break as a result of the move - that's over 1000 broken links and I'm gun-shy about deliberately doing that. Any advice? Tabercil (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a triumvirate of admins can close Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26#Requested move August 2011? See the January 2011 discussion at User talk:Mkativerata/Archive9#Triumvirate, where Mkativerata (talk · contribs) wrote:

Here's an informal proposal that I'm minded to take to WT:Deletion process for approval to proceed on a trial basis.

Proposal: An administrator closing a highly contentious XfD may choose to refer the closure to a panel of three administrators. Highly contentious XfDs usually mean XfDs with an exceptionally high number of contributors, where it appears to the closing administrator that different administrators could reasonably close the debate with different outcomes.

The closing administrator is to refer the closure to a panel by posting at WP:AN to solicit the input of two other uninvolved administrators. The three administrators will then discuss at the talk page of the XfD how the debate should be closed. The administrator who referred the close to the panel shall act as the informal chair of the panel. After a reasonable period for comment (preferably within 24 hours), the chair shall close the XfD on the basis of the discussion and give reasons for the close that reflect the discussion. If the administrators on the panel disagree on the appropriate outcome and there is a clear 2-1 majority in support of one outcome, the majority view is to prevail.

I think for this proposal or something like it to win community acceptance, it would have to:

• impose as minimal bureaucracy as possible;
• make a convincing case that there is a problem to be fixed; and
• make a convincing case that it will help fix the problem. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mkativerata said that this is a "very good candidate for a triumvirate" but that he was involved and had already taken a stance in the debate.

Tabercil (talk · contribs) agrees with this proposal, so would two uninvolved admins be willing to join him in a triumvirate to close Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26#Requested move August 2011? Cunard (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been a participant on that page, albeit as a (hopefully) impartial mediator. I'm not sure if that makes me too "involved", but if not, I'm willing to be one of the three. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What truly makes an admin "uninvolved" or "impartial"? If we cannot answer the question to that, then what would make a "three admin panel" be any different? Moreover, how is this "minimizing" bureaucracy when this is doing the exact opposite? –MuZemike 15:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've relisted the move discussion. The topic appears to be contentious and keeping it open longer than the 7 days is probably a good idea. No hurry there. I'll be happy to join the triumvirate or whatever of 'uninvolved' admins to close the move. --rgpk (comment) 15:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks. As I said earlier, I'm thinking the move ought to be done based on the initial arguments on it but the sheer number of links in-coming makes me pause just simply because so many of them will be broken after the move. Since it's been relisted for another week, let's see what happens... Tabercil (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The hope of such a panel would be that if the 3 agreed, it would be much less likely to go to deletion review. Of course, if it was 2–1, it would be almost certain to go to deletion review, and that would probably balance out. We might as well use Deletion review as it stands, where considerable more than 3 admins as well as non-admins will look at it. But if the admin thinks the community is unable to reach consensus, we already have a way of handling that, which is a non-consensus close. But in any specific case where an admin asks for help, we're NOT BURO and can IAR to help out. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect anything to go to Deletion review, because we're not considering a deletion here. It's a titling question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Broken links?

I don't see why we'd get broken links. A redirect would be in place. I'm willing to bet a sizable proportion of them come in via templates, too. Each template that you update could be 100 links done in one stroke. Between that, and work done by bots and OCD Wikipedians, I don't think links present enough of a problem that they should influence our decision. They do, however, mean that it's a decision we shouldn't take lightly, but I don't think there's much danger of that either. There's not something I'm missing, is there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed moves are:

• China → Chinese civilization
• People's Republic of China → China

I think Tabercil is concerned that if these proposed moves are implemented, many of the links will be incorrect. I don't know if bots have the technical ability to fix these links after the pages are moved. They might have to be manually checked. Cunard (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Triumvirate

Restored to AN from the archives so that the triumvirate of closing admins can discuss the closure. Cunard (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, since I seem to be the chair of this thing, let's lead this sucker off. We have a roughly split group of people here: 32 for versus 29 against. And yes, I am aware that it's been canvassed so the numbers might be skewed. Even if I toss out the IP addresses, we're still left with 26 opposed and 28 supportive. As I wade through the arguments, both sides bring up valid points and I don't see any obvious sense of consensus here... Tabercil (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, who composes the triumvirate? Apparently I'm one of the three? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Tabercil (talk · contribs), RegentsPark (talk · contribs), and you comprise the triumvirate. Cunard (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The key question I have is how does the current situation meet WP:AT? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what was passionately debated - on the one hand it was shown earlier that the topic of China does refer to PRC; on the other hand, there's history on the "oppose" side in that there's 4 prior requests to move the article which resulted in two "non consensus", one "not moved" and the most recent one being closed out as "consensus against status quo, otherwise unclear". Tabercil (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

At least the merge discussion quality looked fairly poor to me and far less policies and evidence were mentioned than this time and the disambiguation page discussion was fairly confused as it talked about lots of topics. To me this decision should be moderately easy. If the current situation meets WP:AT even given the sources found then it should be closed as no consensus or not moved. If the closing admins feel that the sources show that the common name applies and WP:POVTITLE comes into play then the articles should be moved. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, shall we come to individual conclusions, or deliberate as a group? If it's the latter, then in what venue should that happen? I'm assuming there's not a convenient café where we can just meet and hash it out... -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't care which way we run the debate, but I'm guessing since you live in Oregon and I live in Ontario (the province, natch) it'll be kinda hard to find a Starbucks that's local to the pair of us. <G> Tabercil (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) A convenient cafe sounds like a good idea :) But, more seriously, perhaps we should first close the discussion with a decision pending note. Then, perhaps each of us write up a decision and post it somewhere (user space?). And then hash it out somehow if we don't all agree. That's one way. A straight vote would be another but that wouldn't be the wikipedia way. Any other ideas? --rgpk (comment) 19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Another option (I've just started looking at the page) would be to list support and oppose arguments (support/oppose for PRC --> China) and try to decide amongst ourselves which ones are more valid and which are less. Looking at the lengthy discussion, I think a 'no consensus' is not the right way to go. We should try to settle it one way or the other. --rgpk (comment) 19:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually in Texas now, which is no closer to Ontario... well, maybe in spirit. I like the idea of listing arguments for careful weighing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A table listing the arguments for the various options already exists, which can be seen at Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26#Requested move August 2011#Pro-Con table. I'm not going to paste it here as it's fair sized. Tabercil (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that thing. That was made before this recent RM; there might be new arguments to add to it. It's definitely a good start, though. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are I didn't spot any. From I could tell the points raised in the current round are referenced in the table. Remember, this isn't the first move attempt, it's the fifth. And I do think rgpk has a valid point in that we ought to try and see if we can't settle it one way or the other. Tabercil (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note from an involved editor, I think there have been many many more RMs for China and the PRC than the five listed in the notice at the top of their talk pages. The discussion archives are extremely long and debate about moving the pages goes back to 2002. There may be dozens of move discussions, I just found 4 recent ones and made a little template to help people keep up with the debate. Looking at the shear volume of the text about titles and such, its important that the process be advanced a little bit. A "no consensus" result is worth avoiding if you can. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 21:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I started a page at User:RegentsPark/China listing the arguments. The arguments are listed neutrally for now. Perhaps you (GTBacchus and Tabercil) would like to modify or add to it. --rgpk (comment) 02:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

On re-reading through the arguments last nite (again), I've pretty much decided on moving as it would reflect the practical use of the name which is the point of WP:POVTITLE. Yes, the whole PRC/ROC thing complicates things, but it's also a distraction from what the current everyday use of the word "China" (when referring to geography) is in the English language. English changes over time, and it has changed so that currently "China" = PRC much as gay now means homosexual and (going for an much older shift) meat came to refer to the "flesh of land-dwelling animals" as opposed to the older definition of simply "food". We can address the PRC/ROC either via a "see also" at the top of the article and/or a clarification in the text of the article body. Tabercil (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reached a decision as well. I'll post my decision and explanation either later tonight or early tomorrow. --rgpk (comment) 21:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at the discussion now; soon I'll post with my opinion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

My decision is also to move so that China points to the current PRC article. The reasoning is straightforward. The main argument against moving is that, by choosing to point to PRC, we will end up being non-neutral. However, the essence of neutrality on wikipedia is that rather than being conscious neutral by giving equal weight to all viewpoints in deciding on a title, we leave the decision to usage (If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased (from Wikipedia:NPOV#Naming). It is clear that, in current usage, PRC is the primary topic for China and China is the common name for the entity known as PRC, and reliable sources overwhelmingly confirm this. Therefore neutrality requires that we move PRC to China. At best, the China article should contain a reference to the fact that the ROC also claims to be the legitimate China (assuming that they do that). --rgpk (comment) 16:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we're all on the same page. The arguments against the move are serious and deserving of the full consideration that we've given them, but our policies are clear that we achieve neutrality by following sources. I would support an expandable hatnote in which we make it clear to readers that there are two countries whose legal names include the word "China", and that they both have claims of sovereignty over the same territory. However, one of those countries is commonly called "China", and the other is commonly called "Taiwan", or "ROC". The unadorned word "China" refers overwhelmingly to the country currently administered as the PRC.

I'll be more than happy to help fix links after the moves; they are numerous. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Tabercil, RegentsPark, and GTBacchus, for reading through the lengthy, contentious move discussion and providing rationales for the decision you three made. Will one of you move the page and officially close the discussion with "The result was ..."? This was a novel way to close a difficult debate, and I am glad you were willing to try it. Because three admins came to the same decision, I hope this close will be more accepted by the participants of the discussion than if only one admin came to this conclusion. Cunard (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The decision is not at all complete without a mention of whether these moves imply Taiwan is not a part of China. It seems that the above three administrators were selected by convenience—i.e. the first three to come were to read through the discussion (and it seems clear that they unwittingly missed the strongest opposing point). We all know "convenience polling" is not scientific. Please randomly select at least 5 other administrators to do what the triumvirate has done above.  The Tartanator  02:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We came to this with open minds and looked at it afresh. Given your edit here where you are calling the RM a "ill-formed move request" and advising that "we will need to form a rapid response to reset the configuration or make China the disambiguation page", I'd say you have already made up your mind what our decision should be. Tabercil (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the physical move itself, If anyone else wishes to make the move go ahead. I'm going to hold off on doing it myself for 24 hours as I suspect there will be an appeal to the triumvirate's decision and thus would like to give it a chance to occur. Tabercil (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Tartanator, hi. Thanks for your remarks. I'd like to make a couple of corrections. First of all, I was not on this committee by "convenience" as one of "the first three to come". I don't pay much attention to this page, and never would have seen this in passing. Rather, I was approached and asked to be a member, specifically because I have a long history of closing literally thousands of move requests, and I've got a lot of experience with particularly contentious ones. Did you know that? Do you consider that a form of "convenience polling"?

Secondly, you assert that it's "clear" that we "missed the strongest opposing point", namely, whether or not Taiwan is part of China. That's actually the only point on which I had to carefully deliberate. Everything else was clear as day, so the point you say it's "clear" I missed is actually the one I thought very carefully about for more than 24 hours - actually for more than 24 days, because I've been aware of this move request and the related RfC for a long time. This move request has been on my mind for weeks.

These moves do not imply that Taiwan is not a part of China. They imply that the common name for the PRC is "China", and that the overwhelming use of the word "China" is to refer to the PRC. It is abundantly clear that the issue of whether Taiwan is a part of China is the only reason that this move was contentious. That's the only thing that actually required deliberation. Without that consideration, this all would have been trivial and obvious.

I, for one, will be following up on this move, and intend to be active in post-move edits, ensuring that the ROC/PRC issue is adequately addressed, very first thing in the China article, before the lede section. I think the idea of a custom-made, expandable hatnote is a good one, and I hope I have a chance to help implement it. The situation with PRC and ROC - the issue of cross-strait relations - is extremely important, and must be addressed in our China article at the top of the page. The history of this move proposal makes that abundantly clear.

Now Tartanator, have I addressed your concerns, or would you like to hear more details about my thoughts on whether these moves imply that Taiwan is or is not part of China? I will be happy to go into more details, if you like, because it is literally all I thought about in considering this move request. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

All of that said... I would encourage you to select five more admins at random and ask them to review our decision. I'd be very curious to see what they'd say. It's more likely to happen, of course, if you do the selecting, than if you simply request or demand that an indeterminate "someone" do it. None of us is paid to take orders from arbitrary members of the editing community. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Something tells me there will always be arbitrary procedural complaints so please randomly select at least 100 admins to evaluate the RM. I'm being sarcastic. I'd just like to recommend that the three of you stick around for a while to help sort out appeals and interference. There are some very passionate political views involved in this debate and there's a group of editors that's likely to feel they got railroaded somehow. A little warning, it seems likely that as soon as the move is completed a long and complicated discussion will begin about whether and how to merge China and PRC. We might need a little help moderating that discussion. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to help with content. But for the next week or so I'm busy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure I'll stick around. Said passions are exactly what I had in mind when I said I'm holding off on the immediate move myself - to give folks a chance to digest what's occurred. As well, there's been an expansion on the Talk:China page showing the history on the topic going back to 2002 - there were three actual moves of People Republic of China to China that occurred in July 2002, May 2003 and October 2004, but were disputed and (obviously) reversed. So why should this RM be any different all of a sudden?? Tabercil (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize but, in transcribing my closing comments, I inadvertently dropped an addendum that I had intended to add as a 'small' note. (I had prepared the notes the previous evening and copy pasted them at work the next day, forgetting about the note.) Since the small note directly addresses the Taiwan argument, here it is: On the other arguments. (1) That the term 'China' cannot be precisely pinned down and so we shouldn't either: This is solipsism. No nation can claim a precise permanent boundary or definition. (2) That this implies that the PRC is the legitimate government of China or that Taiwan is not a part of China. Article titles don't take positions but reflect usage (disputes or alternative viewpoints are typically presented in the article itself it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the thing in question is the main topic being discussed WP:NPOV)--rgpk (comment) 13:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Tabercil and GTBacchus, thank you for elaborating. The point of contention, is, of course, a point of contention, and is thus a matter of interpretation. To me, titles also affect content, and in the interest of building an encyclopaedia that represents reality, we would have to state that Taiwan is definitely not part of (i.e. controlled by) China because we are making China and PRC interchangeable terms. Also, exactly the same arguments were made in the last pushes to move PRC to "China", so it is difficult to believe that three administrators can have mirrored viewpoints.

Tabercil, there is nothing implicitly wrong if anyone who opposes the move request does what I have done: to consider an appeal. And I expected a "no consensus" close yet again, not "not moved".

RegentsPark, the solipsism argument is a non-argument. Nothing political is permanent. We are describing current boundaries, and so the boundaries of most nations, especially those without territories, is definite. Also, consider WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, as explained by Benlisquare.  The Tartanator  16:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Tartanator, thanks for your reply. I disagree that we're "making" PRC and China interchangeable. We're reflecting that sources use "PRC" and "China" interchangeably. We don't decide these things; we reflect these things.

Also, I disagree that article titles are some form of content, except in the most superficial sense. We have articles called Holy Roman Empire, Seven deadly sins, No Child Left Behind Act and War on Terror. Those titles do not mean that we're asserting that one can wage a "war" on "terror", that no children were left behind by Mr. Bush's policy, that sloth really is a "sin" (much less a "deadly" one), or that the Holy Roman Empire was "holy", "Roman", or an "empire".

Titles are labels, not content. Assertions about reality occur in the article content, after the title, and they often show the problems with any apparent implications of the title. The article content of our China article will make cross-strait issues very clear, from the very start; I'll personally be there to ensure that happens. Perhaps you can help us be careful that we don't misrepresent the issue or leave out important perspectives. That would be awesome. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I've moved the articles. A move was requested and all it needs is for one uninvolved admin to close it. Here, three uninvolved admins closed it the same way, so the procedure is entirely proper. Please feel free to use other avenues of dispute resolution if you feel that the articles are at the wrong titles. --rgpk (comment) 15:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like those involved to comment here. This is not an ordinary move - it requires a change in the naming conventions, which requires further discussion, to be properly implemented. A decision was made, and thousands of links need to be manually reviewed - I'm not sure what's the rush here. --Jiang (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy this evening, but I'll be commenting there before long. Thanks for the link. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

History section

I hope that all have noticed that the history section of the PRC article starts with "Prior to 1949", and one paragraph to cover 3 thousand years of Chinese history. Compare with the History section for France. This needs to be fixed preferably before, or immediately after moving PRC to China. --LK (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

wp:SOFIXIT Yoenit (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a content issue, not relevant here. There is already a discussion on talk actually. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Feedback about the triumvirate approach

Well done on bringing this one to an end! It would be interesting to hear from editors, whether involved or not, about the trimvurate approach itself. I understand this is the first case in which it has been applied on the project. The rationale for it for highly contentious discussions, a triumvurate strengthens the legitimacy of the final decision, reduces the risk of error, and avoids one admin being personally lumped with the outcome. Has it worked well in this case? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• The triumvirate approach worked very well in this case. Despite being in different time zones, the three closers deliberated and came to a consensus in a timely manner—in under four days. Although the close was criticized, that the closers were unanimous in their judgment likely lessened the controversy that may have occurred had only one admin closed the debate. Had there been a 2–1 split in opinion, though, the close would have been more controversial than if there had been one closer. I recommend trialing the triumvirate approach with several contentious XfDs before deciding whether it is a positive. I also recommend ensuring that there are several XfD closes in which the closing admins are in a 2–1 split to gauge the community's response prior to formally proposing it as mentioned at User talk:Mkativerata/Archive9#Triumvirate. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Cunard's assessment there. I'm very pleased with the way triumvirate closures seem to be helpful in shutting down controversy. I do suggest that triumvirate closures should be reserved for exceptional cases: highly contentious DRVs or RFCs where there is genuinely no consensus across the wider community, but which seem to call for a decision rather than a compromise. I don't agree with the suggestion of five randomly-selected admins--I think that the only situations in which a triumvirate would be inadequate are matters for arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 22:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Interesting, thanks. Perhaps one way of circumventing the 2–1 problem identified by Cunard would be solidarity: only the three admins would know whether it was unanimous or 2–1. Of course, the drawback is that is is less transparent, and would require off-wiki communication. On S Marshall's point, I fully agree that this should be reserved for exceptional cases, like the China naming controversy.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
    • A proposal that included off-wiki discussion among the admins likely would not pass. I think there would be accusations of back-channel dealing were admins to deliberate in private. Second, an admin who didn't support the majority opinion would be forced either to disclose their stance or defend a close they didn't support. It's better and much simpler to keep everything out in the open. Cunard (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with Cunard - I think part of the reason why this worked so well is because we were open in the discussion with no back channel communications, and also because we came to a unanimous decision (even if the exact reason why seems to be slightly different for each person). I think three people work best - if it's five, it'll take longer and you run the risk of awkward 4-1 splits - a strong consensus on one side and a significant hold-out on the other which will probably not result the original problem being conclusively closed out. With a triumvirate, if it comes back as 2-1 you know you have something which probably should be looked at at a higher level - i.e. arbcom. Tabercil (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I would generally concur with the two above comments, in particular, that transparency is essential to the success of this approach. As I keep working in requested moves, I'll keep this in mind, and when another monster of a request comes through, I'll consider coming here to suggest this strategy again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have started an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people#Nominating_articles_with_unreliable_sources_for_BLPPROD asking if the BLPPROD policy should allow nomination of articles that contain only unreliable sources. Due to the ongoing failure of RFC bot to list this RFC on the appropriate pages, (Policy and Bio) I am posting a notice here to request additional comments. Monty₈₄₅ 14:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Could someone close or relist this TFD? I would, but it looks like I !voted on it. If you would like to close it, but aren't sure what to do after closing it, just ping me. If that one is closed by the time you read this, then you can always close another one (there is still quite a bit of backlog). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Archives/ 721#RfC on adding future fights to fight record table by Fayerman (talk · contribs) has been unanswered. Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#Adding fights to records months in advance? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I was about to have a crack at this, but noticed this other recently closed straw poll. Perhaps someone from the project can explain what is going on here. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban of Jespah

Also, would an admin close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban of Jespah and log the editing restriction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Mkativerata. Cunard (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin please close the multi-requested move at Talk:2005 Qur'an desecration controversy#Move?. The debate has been open since September 11 and everyone who has commented has agreed with the proposal. The move calls the the uniform rename of an entire category of articles, however many of the articles are move protected and it is therefore impossible for non-admins to complete the request. Thank you, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That one is done. Where are the other articles that need moving? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The list is located at Talk:2005_Qur'an_desecration_controversy#Move.3F, it is in collapsed form as the list is fairly long. Many of the requests have redirects in the way, or are move protected. I have copied the list here using the same collapse template (click [show] to see the list): Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we got 'em all. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears so. Thanks for performing the moves. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I proposed a merger of Elias into Elijah at Talk:Elias#Merger on 4 Sept 2011 and ask for closure.  Andreas  ^(T) 20:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Would admins close the various proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features? Started on 14 July 2011, the discussion has occurred for over 30 days. RFC bot (talk · contribs) removed the expired RfC template on 13 August 2011.

Perhaps admins can use Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security as a template for closure. Admins close the different proposals on the page with summaries of the consensuses, and when the all the discussions have been closed, the entire RfC is closed with an archive template. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, MER-C (talk · contribs), for closing many of the proposals. Many of them remain open. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: date formats in reference sections? Both discussions are listed at Template:Centralized discussion. The first one is a stale discussion, having not received any comments since 22 August 2011. The second discussion has lasted for over 30 days.

If either of the RfCs result in "no consensus", a closure like that in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, where the opposing arguments are summarized, will be helpful to the participants. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BOARD International, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BOARD International and User talk:KuduIO#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BOARD International. Since Cirt has been desysopped by ArbCom and hasn't replied to my inquiry, I'd like another admin to close the request. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 17:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If these were deleted via deletion discussion, then they should go to WP:DRV before being recreated.--v/r - TP 19:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Does anyone know if it is possible, or what user rights are required, to disable "Email this user" from an editor's account. Don't ask me the reasons at this stage: I just need to get in touch with an appropriate account creator/'crat/developer whatever. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume they are not blocked (since otherwise you would do it yourself, as part of the block)? I'm reasonably sure it can't be done to an unblocked account, except perhaps by a developer, and that seems fairly unlikely. But without knowing what is going on, I would think if the emailuser right is being misused, perhaps a block is in order anyway? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that there is good reason for the user not to be receiving email, so I'd like to disable the "Email this user" function that appears on the left of the user's talk page. I don't believe that's within the power of a humble sysop. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand now what's going on. I'm sorry. I'm about 99.5% sure either (a) you need a developer to do it, or (b) it can't/won't be be done by a developer and you might consider a carefully worded block of the account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

:::The user can disable his/her own mail if he/she decides this is warranted. What's the problem? Bielle (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Look first; write second. Bielle (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

closed by Vegaswikian--regentspark (comment) 13:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'd appreciate another uninvolved admin taking a look at Talk:Tree shaping#Requested move 2, a discussion which has been running for six weeks now, and really needs a close one way or the other. As a heads-up, the article is within the scope of an ArbCom case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping, which centered around the naming of the article. I've been helping out as an uninvolved admin monitoring the user conduct in the topic area, but would rather that someone else handled the close. Thanks, --Elonka 06:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(followup) The situation is complex, so we would appreciate multiple admin opinions if possible, at the talkpage. --Elonka 16:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

NoHounding reported Izadso to WP:AIV due to the edits the latter editor made on Theodor Lessing. At the beginning I thought it was just a very bad case of edit warring and protected the article; after checking Izadso's edits more closely, however, I saw that almost every recent edit of theirs was an unexplained undo of one of NoHounding's and, therefore, I unprotected the page and indefinitely blocked Izadso for harassment, instead. Review is welcome (feel free to unblock, tweak the block settings and so on). Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Have you checked why that user is called "NoHounding"? Sounds like there might be some backstory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"NoHounding"'s very first edit was in fact a revert of an edit of Izadso [40]. So, who has been hounding who here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that! I blocked Izadso because this whole thing was incredibly disruptive and he was the one blindly reverting NoHounding. If it turns out that it was the latter who was hounding the former, I have no objections to blocking NoHounding or both... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If I'm correctly reading the contribution histories of both editors, it appears that User:NoHounding is spamming a reference to an essay across dozens of articles, and User:Izadso is removing them. A block is appropriate for the obvious edit-warring but I think we need to take a look at what User:NoHounding is up to as well. Why aren't they blocked for the edit-warring on Theodor Lessing? 20 of their last 21 edits are to re-insert this essay into the article. 28bytes (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

And before these two accounts were edit-warring about the spam links, other pairs of accounts were doing the same: HaTikwa (talk · contribs) vs. Susori (talk · contribs), e.g. on the Felix Salten article in July. These hounds are wearing woolen footwear. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

@28bytes: Because I, apparently naively, perceived NoHounding as the victim... As I've said above, I have no objections to blocking them. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that User:Michael Kühntopf, who appears to have written the essay that "NoHounding" is reinsterting, is using the exact same edit summary as NoHounding to participate in the edit war on Theodor Lessing. Perhaps User:Michael Kühntopf is unaware of our policies on undisclosed alternate accounts? 28bytes (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

See interesting thread at User talk:HelloAnnyong#New HaTikwa sockpuppet, and related case at de:Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung/Michael Kühntopf. Definitely two persistent sock drawers fighting a feud, one of them apparently a COI spammer. Don't think either of them is "unaware" of our policies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've indeffed HaTikwa (talk · contribs) and NoHounding (talk · contribs) (the two spam-inserting accounts, evidently related to the author of the spam links, who apparently was in trouble over at de-wiki too). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your time & review! Should we also indef Susori? I'd say so... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

My inclination at this point would be to indef the lot of them, but we may need CheckUser assistance to determine who "the lot of them" are. At the least it would be helpful to get a list of accounts and IPs that have been adding this essay to articles. What to do about User:Michael Kühntopf? 28bytes (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

He was also using the exact same edit summaries as the other socks, so he is almost certainly the sockmaster. Some of the background, as far as I got it from de-wiki: M.K. is an author of various published works on Jewish history, but he got in trouble over at de-wiki because apparently in some of his published work he had plagiarised Wikipedia texts. Ouch. Some of the links they were edit-warring over were references to just those publications. That means removing the refs was in principle justified, because the plagiarism background disqualifies them as reliable sources (though that may not be necessarily true for all his works). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a very very lengthy backstory here and here's the part I know. Basically, some academic named Michael Kühntopf (and possibly a small group of his associates) has been spamming every Wikipedia project by references to his obscure books and creating articles about the guy. The articles have been deleted at times and in particular Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kühntopf is instructive. This spamming even resulted in a thread on meta. discussion on meta block on de.wiki Here on the en.wiki, the battle is being fought through sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaTikwa/Archive). There are also single purpose accounts working against Kühntopf such as Izadso (talk · contribs) and Susori (talk · contribs). Mr. Kühntopf has made it clear that he know who this person is though I emphatically discourage anyone from caring. All accounts on both sides need to be blocked indefinitely and the individuals behind them need to be directed to a new hobby. I also believe that references to Kühntopf's work should be removed until someone can make a cogent case on a talk page regarding the value of such a reference in a given article. I know this is not the traditional approach but the spam has got to stop and as I recently noted [41] the circulation for Kühntopf's books it too low to be of any practical value, especially since the books are usually included not as citations but as general references. Pointing Wikipedia readers to a book that is only held by two state libraries doesn't make much sense and it's also difficult for other editors to verify the relevance of the book. Pichpich (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. I've requested a checkuser on the Kühntopf account, to be on the safe side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. 28bytes (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: Michael Kühntopf (talk · contribs) has been confirmed as part of the sock ring by checkuser and has been blocked together with other socks. Izadso (talk · contribs) has been offered a conditional unblock by Salvio, in light of what is apparently a background as a legitimate account on de-wiki. Seems we're mostly done here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Izadso has accepted the conditions I set forth; therefore, I've unblocked him. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Another one. I took the decisions made at previous ANI threads to still be in force and blocked for two weeks after continued removal after a Final Warning from Beyond My Ken. I took the block length from the one used in the previous blocking. Are there any objections? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You at least have my blessing. Favonian (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Mine too. A perfectly good block. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And now 184.6.66.71 has been quacking away, and has been blocked.JanetteDoe (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about the Abuse Filter, so excuse me if this is a stupid question: Can a filter be set up that traps any change of "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" by an IP editor? This person comes back time and again, and it would be nice not to have to play whack-a-mole forever. It seems to me that the number of legitimate edits of this nature would be small. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Earlier today I saw this edit at Sarah Blasko on my watchlist and thought BC was on edit restrictions from using scripts on his main account but he isn't, But I do believe the edit violated the following community restriction set on BC:

“	Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.	”
— Wikipedia:Editing restrictions

Because he has appeared to have done more than 25 pages (based on my view of his 50 latest contribs and a random sampling of the diffs on that list), I also had a look at WP:VPR (including the last few archives) and couldn't find a discussion about this (His last posts there appear to be: Archive 75: Proposed partial solution to NFCC enforcement and Archive 73: Heads Up). Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 07:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• BC notified. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 07:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Given the general... aura that surrounds criticism of Δ, I very strongly suggest that you double and triple check your assertions before making such statements. 'Appears' is not useful in any sense of the word. And after you have gone through his contribs to see if there was in fact a violation, it may behoove you to instead rewind a little bit and nudge him gently on his talk page, rather than starting yet another round of drama. Yes, I am generally of the opinion that a restriction is a restriction, intent is largely irrelevant when someone is breaking them. The long history of Δ, however, has proven that to be an unworkable proposition; nobody is willing to actually say "this is your last chance. One more screwup and you are gone, forever, with no recourse. Enough is enough." In some cases discretion is indeed the better part of valour, and if there is no disruption being caused then perhaps it may be best to let sleeping dogs lie. → ROUX ₪ 07:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• I would have checked at least 15 (on the low end) edits as well the matching edit summaries was close enough for me, as for "nudging" the user, he is well versed and should know his restrictions by now, as for no one willing to "drop the hammer" as some say, If everything was take to the users talk page as a "nudge" then barely anything would happen, some times taking things directly to noticeboards (and the subsequent "drama") is the best course of action. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 07:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see anything disruptive regarding the edit at all, The article appears to be in better condition after his edit. My understand is that Δ holds a 1RR line regarding his cleanup efforts. This is more than sufficient to comply with the intent of WP:BRD, and is no less disruptive than correcting a misspelled word. Surly we wouldn't say you can only correct 25 misspelled words without an RfC to do more. If Δ disrupts something, it should be dealt with. If he merely collaborates, that is what we would ask of him anyway. My76Strat (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Allow me to be more direct, then: what disruption has been caused by this? In what way have Delta's actions been a net negative to the project? → ROUX ₪ 07:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting (yet) on the edit restriction aspect of this, was there something objectionable about the Sarah Blasko edit itself? Or is it just a matter of him doing it in rapid succession/scripted/without approval/whatever? I'd just like to get an idea of the scope of the complaint. 28bytes (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Can it be? Am I really seeing people above care more about the spirit of the project than the letter of some wikilawyered restriction? That's... a nice surprise. And yes, if it isn't clear, I fully agree with the sentiment that if the edits are helpful, don't kick the editor who is doing them. In fact, while I am not familiar with the wider background, if there is some kind of old restriction that could prevent an editor from improving the project, and the editor has been constructive for a reasonable amount of time (half a year?), I'd suggest revisiting the very need for such a restriction to still be in force. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 08:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Your half a year and my half a year must be very different. His latest round was in June/July during which time arbcom imposed additional sanctions on his behaviour. that was 2-3 months ago. Anyone who isn't familiar with the wider background should spend awhile in the ANI archives, sub pages, arbcom cases, etc or Delta/Betacommand before really jumping in. It's a very long and storied case.--Crossmr (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So, are you saying there is something harmful in these particular edits, or that there isn't? -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

can you show me any exceptions in the restrictions if that is the case? specifically it shows on-going contempt on his part for the community, regardless of the content of the individual edits. That's quite harmful.--Crossmr (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that issue, and you'll note I haven't disagreed with anything you've said. I haven't advocated making exceptions, and I'm not likely to do so. You didn't answer my question, though, so I'll clarify it.

Are you saying there are two issues: harmful edits and sanction violation, or one issue: sanction violation? Do you mind clarifying this point? I'd appreciate it, so I understand the full scope of what's going on. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing general article cleanup going back two years now. Ive made 7641 edits with the edit summary "Cleanup" (just with this account) and gotten a barnstar for doing it. Ive received other thank you's and its been a fairly simple project. Please take issues to my talk page before dragging this to the drama boards. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you been adding google book urls to articles for 2 years? how does that fall under the scope of "cleanup"? To mean clean-up is fixing up code, spelling errors, not adding urls for books.--Crossmr (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Then your definition of cleanup, and mine, at least, are different. Or not... adding a missing parameter and link to a template is, in fact, exactly "fixing up code" and "fixing errors" (missing data). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was only clarifying for 28bytes that her complaint seemed to be that Delta violated his editing restrictions. As far as problems introduced by his editing, are their specific wiki markup related issues? no. There does seem to be at least one editor questioning whether or not these edits are best for the article though. So is that "harmful"? Possibly. If Delta is adding google URL links to books which have no preview, it's a fairly useless edit that isn't adding anything to the article as noted below.--Crossmr (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The scope of the complaint seems to be that Delta has once again violated his editing restrictions. That despite the continually increasing, tweaking, negotiating, and repurposing of those restrictions, he's found himself once again for the nth time having violated them.--Crossmr (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And for the nth time, nothing is going to be done about that. There is a general unwillingness, and specifically with regards to Delta, to ever enforce restrictions in an unambiguous way. There is always 'just one more chance, we mean it this time, honest.' While on general principles I agree that it shouldn't be that way, the bald reality is that it is that way, and we should probably give up tilting at that particular windmill. This is a tempest in a teapot, and unless Delta is flagrantly disrupting things, absolutely nothing will be done, so why waste time and energy? → ROUX ₪ 00:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What's ambiguous about this? But you're right..I mean..why bother trying to take a stand as a community member. So what if we let users walk all over us. It couldn't possibly reflect poorly on the project or perhaps drive users away.--Crossmr (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in regards to that edit itself that I saw, the only reason I mentioned it was so people saw where I first noticed it, compared being accused of user stalking (or whatever the flavour is this month). Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 09:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of his edits are helpful, and some less so. I don't see the point in adding a Google Books url to all books, which he claims to do for uniformity purposes, especially to those that have no preview on Google. Adding those just clutters the edit window, making it more annoying for people that actually write content in these articles without any benefit towards easier verification by the reader (ISBN does just the same to prove the books exists). Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If this action is desirable, the {{cite book}} template should be changed to allow a "googid" or something similar to be used, like it has for ISBN, DOI, OCLC etc. At least that will slightly reduce the clutter in the edit window. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the scripts, is Delta still not under the restriction regarding making automated or semi-automated edits?--Crossmr (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Have other means of dispute resolution been attempted first before this thread started? Looks to me like Delta was making a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia...like he always does. I agree he has a tendency to edit right at the edge of his restrictions but what do you want the guy to do, change his entire editing philosophy and focus? That would be akin to banning him entirely. I think last time we were here (NFCC edits and being bitey was the issue) there was actually community consensus to lessen the restrictions until arbcom got involved and overruled. Not 100% sure on that and don't feel like digging through the archives at this hour. The question I must ask is, if someone makes a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, as Delta seems to do, and responds to community concerns, as Delta seems to do, then why must we bring every potential technical breach of the restrictions here? There is a key difference between the spirit of restrictions and the letter. While Delta may have violated the letter he doesn't seem to have violated the spirit, which is about unauthorized bots if I recall correctly. Heck Arbcom even exempted User:Δbot so SPI could actually have a clerkbot. All this does is drive good-faith editors away from the project. I'm actually somewhat amazed Delta's hung around this long despite all the...stuff...he goes through on a routine basis. N419BH 06:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on this, he seem to blissfully ignore the opinion of others with respect to the usefulness of this latest efforts, and just carry on. I have previously posted on his talk page myself in this matter [42]. You should check his talk page and its archives as well as he has a rather rapid archival setting on his talk page bot, before (rhetorically?) asking others if the matter has been discussed. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Delta has been through every kind of dispute resolution out there. He is beyond dispute resolution, because nothing ever really gets resolved with him. He's got just enough people who will show up and try and muddle a discussion up, that in almost all cases, nothing ever goes anywhere. Delta's violating the letter of the law, is a continuation of his contempt for the community which has been going on for years, and frankly is directly connected to his original behaviour. While he's turned it down a notch since this first started, the underlying attitude is still the same, which is really the entirety of the problem.--Crossmr (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, please keep your personal attacks to yourself. I may not always comment on notes left on my talk page I do read them all, and take appropriate action. It doesnt matter what you do you cannot please everyone all the time. Once multiple users left a note about the google books issue I have stopped adding links [43]. If you actually have something constructive to say please do, otherwise keep your derogatory comments to yourself. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• This seems pretty straightforward: Is Delta violating his editing restrictions? We seem to have no one claiming he is not. Delta, are you claiming you have not? That those violating actions are or are not themselves disruptive to the encyclopedia is relevant to the degree of response, but not to the fundamental issue. There has been a lot of debate about Delta's behavior and the "final" resolution was to make really clear lines for him. If nothing is done when he crosses those lines we've got a real mess coming up (again). Hobit (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • • I bundle a lot of gnoming work under the category of "Cleanup", everything from adding archive urls, dating templates, removing stale IFD tags, removing duplicate references, removing duplicate categories, deleted categories, missing files, and a lot more other minor stuff. I didnt know I needed VPR approval just to fraking edit like a normal user. I do a lot of minor misc. fixes that I consider cleanup and have done so for a long time using a similar edit summary. Instead of complaining on drama boards lets actually get back to doing what this site is meant to do, write an encyclopedia. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • If Delta is violating his editing restrictions then he should be blocked as spelt out in those restrictions, if not then he should not be blocked. We should follow what we have agreed to do and this should be fairly straightforward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• I think Δ has explained himself adequately. I don't see that there's a breach of editing restrictions here. If he has the privilege to edit here, then he has the privilege to do cleanup work that covers a broad swath of all sorts of things. It's not a specific task. As noted above, there's no apparent disruption caused by the editing. As noted above as well, this is a tempest in a teacup. If you find an actual problem with his edits, then bring it to his attention first so he has an opportunity to explain his edits when you don't understand them. We don't need to bring up yet another dramafest just because someone thinks he might have possibly done something wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree, but I haven't looked into this beyond the diff at the top. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the onus is on the person bringing the concern here to provide evidence supporting the accusation. That hasn't happened here. We've been given one diff to work from. I took at look at Δ's edits in that time frame, looking at ten edits to mainspace either side of the provided diff. I don't see there being any particular pattern to the edits, other than general gnomish sorts of work fixing things here and there. Indeed, it is cleanup work, without any clear pattern, and without any apparent disruption. The OP here needs to bring a much clearer case as to what the problem is exactly. I'm not seeing it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• These ANI boards seem to dredge up drama over and over again...but in any case:

1. I don't see a simple cleanup as a violation of the mentioned editing restriction. The pattern of edits refers more to non-trivial actions that have some impact. Fixing minor grammar issues and spelling, IMHO, do NOT fall under this restriction, IMHO. I recommend discussing issues like this with him on his talk page first before bringing them to AN/ANI. If/when you do bring something like this to AN/ANI, you need to be clearer (provide diffs) to show editing behavior problems and how they violate the rules/regulations/restrictions.
2. Re:"If he has the privilege to edit here, then he has the privilege to do cleanup work that covers a broad swath of all sorts of things. It's not a specific task. As noted above, there's no apparent disruption caused by the editing." Editors should be blocked for violating their editing restrictions even if there is no direct disruption. If someone is on probation and caught speeding, they can be sent back to jail to serve the remainder of their sentence. They aren't being punsihed excessively for "a simple speeding ticket", they violated their agreement.
3. Re: "I didnt know I needed VPR approval just to fraking edit like a normal user. I do a lot of minor misc. fixes that I consider cleanup and have done so for a long time using a similar edit summary." I concur that minor cleanup is appropriate, but you know that you cannot "fraking edit like a normal user". IMNSHO, you brought this level of scrutiny upon yourself, but these "charges" should be dismissed with nary a bad thought left in its wake (and I fought to have delta permablocked). Buffs (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• A slightly tangential question, but still relevant to this discussion: what exactly is "cleanup"? Some editors (e.g. Rich Farmbrough, aka SmackBot) insist that inline templates like {{cite web}} are spelled with a leading upper-case letter, while other editors, such as Δ insist on a leading lower-case letter. Both of these editors frequently show up here or ANI because of edits like these, but regardless of which way is preferred, we simply should not tolerate dueling bots (in effect) undoing each other's "cleanup" work. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit much to assume that the bots keep track of each other's edits. The examples at Template:cite_web/doc all use lowercase. Is there any reason to be converting other than uniformity of wikicode? If not, this would fall in the same class as whitespace edits: ok to do them in the process of other (substantive) edits, but not on their own. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that bots keep track of each other's edits. I'm asserting that there is no consensus for the capitalization of inline templates in wiki markup, so nobody should be using automated or semi-automated tools to enforce one particular style. We can only consider them in the same class as whitespace edits if we can agree that one style is actually preferred, and the ping-pong edits of Rich and Δ would seem to demonstrate the lack of a clear preference. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Violation specifics, or closure

If anyone has multiple diffs, indicating a pattern edit that is in violation of the specific sanctions applied, please provide them here. To date the conversation has wandered extensively but lacked actionable specifics. If specific actionable violation patterns are not presented, then this is not requiring administrator action. If other users are unhappy with Beta / Delta then a User RFC can be started. This isn't the venue for general complaints that aren't an actual sanction or policy violation.

Details, or closure. Please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 17#Category:People of Jewish descent, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 18#Edward E. Kramer, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 19#Harry Brünjes? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Closed the first one. As far as I remember, this is my first DRV close, so please let me know if I did anything wrong. Fram (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the discussion. Everything looks correct. It's not your first DRV close, as I remember you closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 10 per my request here. Cunard (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I did. I'm getting forgetful in my old age. Fram (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The DRV was several months ago, so it's not surprising that you'd forget. Cunard (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Mkativerata (talk · contribs) for closing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 18#Edward E. Kramer. Cunard (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Got the last one. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Lifebaka. Cunard (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

At the suggestion of Jezhotwells[44], I am posting my request here for consideration. I am requesting that the indefinite “Page Move Ban” that was imposed against me over 2 months ago, on July 13, 2011, be lifted. I am an experienced editor, and I request that my editing history be thoroughly reviewed to confirm that there is no need for such on-going editing restriction. I wish to continue to work to rebuild my reputation on Wikipedia, and I appreciate the thoughtful consideration of my request. Dolovis (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The ban allowed you to request any page moves you wanted via WP:RM. Have you initiated any such requests since the ban? 28bytes (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent question. In addition, if you want the restriction lifted by the community, can you please demonstrate understanding of what the problem was and why the ban was imposed in the first place, and explain what has changed in eight weeks? → ROUX ₪ 22:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as an RM regular, I'd say that participation there would be an excellent way to establish that you're okay with page moves, whatever the reason was for the ban. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Per the others above. Use WP:RM for now, once you can demonstrate that you are not going to cause disruption with page moves, the community will consider whether or not to lift the ban. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have requested a few moves since the ban, the most recent being Oleh Shafarenko → Oleg Shafarenko. Other RMs include Nick Johnson (ice hockey) → Nick Johnson (ice hockey b. 1985) and requests completed as non-controversial here and here. I have participated in other RMs including at Talk:Louis Berlinguette. Dolovis (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The concern seemed to be that you would make diacritic-related moves without first seeking consensus. Can you address that concern? There is currently no consensus on how to handle diacritics, as far as I'm aware. What's your take on the issue? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I ran into the issue with diacritics when I started to create articles for notable ice hockey players playing in the Czech Extraliga, a topic that, until then, had received insufficient attention. The articles I created were titled, for the most part, without diacritics as the English sources I found to verify the articles did not use diacritics. I soon discovered that there is a dedicated faction of editors who are committed to renaming all Czech biographical articles to include diacritics, verified or not. My personal opinion is that article titles should be named according to WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME, and I therefore reversed (per WP:BRD) those moves of the articles I created where no verifiable source was used to support the new article name. The massive page moves continued, and I then, perhaps naively, brought what I perceived to be "massive page moves against policy", to the attention of the Wikipedia community. That is when the complaints against me, from the pro diacritics crowd, started. If you will actually take a serious look at the “controversial” page moves that I made you will discover that they are not extremely numerous, and that they were generally only to undo the bold move of another editor per BRD. In any event, my work to create articles for the current notable players of the Czech Extraliga is generally completed, and I have acknowledged that my opinion in support the policies of UE and COMMONNAME is controversial, and I have moved on. In the future, if I feel that such an article should be moved, I will not invoke BRD, but will instead either ignore the issue of diacritics or will use RM. Dolovis (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're committed to avoiding BRD in matters of pagemoves, and you acknowledge that any position on diacritics is controversial and in need of delicate handling, then I have no opposition to your being allowed to move pages. As you probably know, I'm extremely active in pagemoves, and as you might not know, I don't even consider using the 'R' step of BRD in move disputes. That's unless I'm reverting vandalism or fixing clear typos, or something like that.

The removal of your pagemove restriction is obviously not up to me alone, but that's my opinion, speaking as one of the most likely janitors to be on hand in the event of a spill in article titling... -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes, I am committed to avoiding BRD in matters of pagemoves, and I do acknowledge that any position on diacritics is controversial. Dolovis (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Lifting page move ban

It seems to me that Dolovis has addressed the reasons for the ban, and how his approach has changed and will remain changed. I think we can remove his restriction accordingly. I will, of course, be happy to be a first go-to administrator in the event of any problem arising from this, but I don't foresee any.

I'll allow another day or so for replies, and then, pending any objections, I'll be ready to close this matter as resolved. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There's another issue, not directly related, but also connected with diacritics. Dolovis has been repeatedly adding ice hockey player names without diacritics as an argument in {{eliteprospects}}, {{hockeydb}} and similar templates to 100s of articles, eventhough he was warned several times that is it against WP:Hockey practice and template instructions ("name is the player's name, use if article name has parenthesis"). This shows to me he still isn't able to correctly work with the community. (for example [45]); discussion including here, here, here and here, where he started a WP:EA request, but as in other cases didn't finish it. --Sporti (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sporti is correct, his red herring issue of how the ice hockey project chooses to use the name parameter on the Hockeydb and Eliteprospects templates is not related to the issue of page moves or diacritics. However, to explain my position on the template name parameter issue that Sporti raised, I will use the example of Tiger Williams: To me it is just commonsense that the name parameter on the Hockeydb template should be use to show that his Hockeydb profile lists him as Dave "Tiger" Williams[46]; and likewise, the name parameter on the Eliteprospect template should be used to show that his profile at Eliteprospects lists him as Dave Williams.[47]. That was my opinion, but as soon as I realized that this was a controversial issue, I brought it up for discussion.[48] That is how mature editors do it; not by edit warring as Sporti was doing. In any event, the discussion petered out on September 20th [49] with the direction that hockey project wants the name parameter to be used for disambiguated (bracketed) articles only, and it is not to be used reflect a name variant as might be used at the external link itself. It is not a big deal, and I will abide by that view, and move on. I have no intention of continuing to pursuing that issue. Dolovis (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

One of you is smart or elephantine enough to know or remember who this editor is. Maybe there's an SPI that this can be added to. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That's presumably Jack Merridew, or someone impersonating him. → ROUX ₪ 18:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that this is a false flag intended to get the target blocked, I'd caution any admins not to be hasty with additional sock blocks without CheckUser input. 28bytes (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't really strike me as being Jack, not really his style. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. 28bytes (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Jack Merridew is indefinitely locked on all WMF projects I believe, impersonating him is kind of futile for an LTA impersonator. This is at least the second account of this user. User:Cooler Cat made an identical edit and that account is marked as a sockpuppet of User:JarlaxleArtemis. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 19:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's actually door number 3- JohnnyTheVandal. That said, I didn't turn up any other accounts. TNXMan 19:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

<--Considering Tnxman's remark, I must consider the lot of you as elephantine. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

elephantine? -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 21:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Elephantine. lifebaka++ 00:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That is, gifted with the memory of one. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a relief. I thought you were planning to turn us into pianos. 28bytes (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that's Masem... ;) rdfox 76 (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I am 100% sure Barongarong and Cooler Cat were both Grawp. His current game seems to be to post impersonations in an attempt to draw out the user formerly known as Jack Merridew. This does not seem to be having the desired effect so hopefully it will soon stop. (Jack/David is under arbcom restrictions to only edit from one account, and is not actually blocked or banned.) Regards, --Dianna (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm? What is his main account nowadays? he had been taunting me through email (once) and few times on talk pages (effectively wiki stalking me). Admittedly that was months ago but in the past that meant little. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 15:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Uncontroversial Obscurity (talk · contribs). Your signature is unreadable at least on my computer, WC - it just appears as six boxes. Doc talk 15:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh he self retired after mass account (sockpuppet) block. My signature is 6 Japanese characters. I suppose I should get it romanided as few people complained already. Is it better now? -- To Aru Shiroi Neko ^chi? 17:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I heard a rumor once that some editors have a mix of romanized and Japanese characters in their signature, but it's just a rumor. -- Atama頭 17:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't heard that rumor, but then again, no one tells a dog anything. :-/ KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes we do! I tell my dog to sit all the time ... sittttt...sittttttt! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Atama, I still think you should be called Amata--Amata is a really cool character. Aaaargh! Drmies (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have enough problems being mistaken for a female without actually having the name of a mythological female character. I've even considered adding "I'm a dude" to my signature. -- Atama頭 20:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I am mistaken for a Klondike bar. That is far worse. -- To Aru Shiroi Neko ^chi? 21:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I too have heard of these users who mix Roman letters and Japanese in their signatures. Apparently they can be a little confusing to people with older computers. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What it says on the tin - mass-tagging of old AFC things has made a looooong list. Get at 'em, guys! — Joseph Fox 16:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, this is extremely likely having nothing to do with this page, but what are the requirements for Wikipedia editors and accounts? I'd post this elsewhere, But I cannot find it. Thanks and you may move this if you wish. --Hinata talk 18:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There are none. →Στc. 18:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're good enough, you're old enough. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict again, ugh yeah. I'm 17 and have been using this site since 2003. But never edited it until this account. So, a user could be 8? --Hinata talk 18:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. As long as they don't tell us their age and act maturely, we would never know. →Στc. 18:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, but one last thing. What about the recent incident with the Wikiproject Pornography? What are your thoughts on this? Personally, I threw up when I read that thread. Look in my edit history and you'll see why. --Hinata talk 18:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at your edit history -- throwing up because Wikipedia might want to restrict the use of pornographic content seems quite over the top to me. Unless you are just trolling, you should probably see a doctor. Hans Adler 12:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

How would you enforce such an age-restriction? That is near impossible without breaching someones privacy. I would have to look it up to see who, but as far as I known the Dutch Wikipedia has a thirteen year old as administrator. Would you ban him from vandalism-fighting on Wikiproject Pornography? Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The community's thoughts on this, and administrators' thoughts on this, are splattered all over Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), User talk:Jimbo Wales and some archives of WP:ANI. I don't think it's useful to re-run the entirety of those discussions here just because we can. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and yes, I admit... I view that sort of stuff from Google. But personal issues aside, it is unenforceable... because it would take out the privacy that so few websites have. --Hinata talk 18:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes. Because obviously no under-13s use Facebook *grins* Of course it's unenforcable. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 18:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Aside from that, it would disallow Anonymous editors and that, in turn, would ruin the principles of Wikipedia. --Hinata talk 18:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog or a young pup. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK the 13yr age restriction on FB (and a number of other fora) is due to US privacy laws. As opening an account here does require no personal information to be given this is moot. This site has seen 13 year olds as admins and at least one buerocrat. Agathoclea (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

See COPPA which includes "Most recognized non-profit organizations are exempt from most of the requirements of COPPA" (i.e. COPPA does not apply to Wikipedia). Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that comment; the 13-year-old legal bit was in my mind, and I didn't want to mention it because I couldn't remember enough details to make a useful comment. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no minimum age to become an editor, an administrator, or a bureaucrat. Certain other advanced permissions—including checkuser, oversighter, Arbitration Committee member, and steward—require that the editor be at least 18 years old (or the age of majority at his or her home location, if greater). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the real reason, philosophically, why Wikipedia has no age requirement. Its the same reason why Wikipedia has no credential requirement either. Wikipedia is based purely on results. If an edit improves an article, it is a good edit. If an editor makes good edits, they are welcome at Wikipedia. Period, end of discussion. Age (and credentials, and the like) are used in the real world as a form of heuristic when deciding if a person should be allowed to do something, usually when the consequences of doing it wrong are dire, and irreversable. Thus, we say that you have to be 16 to drive not because 16 year olds magically become perfect drivers (at least, compared to 15 or 17 year olds), except that getting it wrong results in dire consequences (death) and 16 has been judged to be about right when most people will stop killing people with cars, and instead will use their turn signals properly (this is not the place to debate if such thinking is justified, but it is still the thinking, so go with it...) Likewise, its possible to learn to be a surgeon without a piece of paper that says you can be one; but the piece of paper is an important heuristic to decide if someone is likely to be a competant surgeon, since if they aren't, you get death. Dire, irrevesable consequences. At Wikipedia, however, there are zero permanent consequences. If an edit is good, it gets kept, and if it isn't, it can be reverted with no negative effects. So there's no need to find a heuristic to pre-screen editors in the same way there is for things like drinking, voting, driving, being a dentist, or any of a number of other real world activities. We don't need to pre-screen anyone because you can't break Wikipedia. Anything you do wrong can be fixed. So Wikipedia is a purely results-driven community, and people are judged solely by what they accomplish, and other qualifications (like age, certifications, qualifications, diplomas, etc.) are completely irrelevent. --Jayron32 03:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying is only an approximation to the truth. What happens at Wikipedia can have serious consequences in the real world. Even apart from the well known BLP problem, we have some absolutely insane people editing, many of them banned, and it is only a matter of time until someone gets killed in connection with Wikipedia editing, or commits suicide because of things that happened here. Hans Adler 12:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? --Hinata talk 00:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32, but Hans is probably right. Some people take Wikipedia far too seriously, and that combined with an editor being a bit unhinged might well result in a death at some point - suicides take place over a lot less sometimes. It's the same with a large number of websites and the internet in general. Some people just can't step back from it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hans, welcome to the Real World. There are crazy people everywhere: driving cars, buying handguns, serving in public office. (And the last not just in the US.) People kill each other or commit suicide for any number of reasons, only some of which are rational. Even if "rational" is loosely defined. I'm not saying this to defend anything -- much less argue that some libertarian philosophy of management is the best thing for Wikipedia -- I'm simply stating what the facts are. No matter how hard we try on Wikipedia, there will be mistakes with serious repercussions. Coming up with unenforceable rules for marginal cases won't prevent them. An age limit on membership in a WikiProject is unenforceable, & even if it was enforceable it wouldn't solve anything. -- llywrch (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We all know this guy is coming back again and again. However, it seems our appelation is feeding him and prompting him to modify his naming MO.

We have this individual's given name, and his e-mail (or his mother's email) at one point used as one of his usernames. Rather than using a name that he has never used himself, and instead seems to be giving him ideas on what to call himself, why should we not use that to refer to him? It doesn't seem he's at a high-functioning level, so it does not appear that publishing his name in a region of the project that isn't touched by the search engines will negatively affect him.

So should we keep his current "name", or use one that accurately identifies him, thereby denying his MO's existence?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

He may not care, but there are extremely serious consequences to revealing an individual's real name on the internet, Ryulong, even if it's in an area search engines can't touch. I am appalled that you would even suggest outing him and exposing him and his mother to needless harassment. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with some of what Jéské said. I was wondering, when was the last time anyone saw him actually edit an article? Could we consider not blocking him when he does his account creation thing? We could also consider MfD on the LTA page, but I don't know how that would go down. There's definitely a DENY violation going on somewhere which isn't helping. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The name is already online; see the link just above the "Articles" header at the LTA report. And we need to remember that DENY can easily be overused: it helps to know what's going on. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, after seeing accounts like Attack of the Evil MascotGuy pop up, I somehow find it hard to believe that "all he really wants is to participate, like everyone else. He just doesnt understand how." I've spent most of my life surrounded by autistic people (and have PDD-NOS myself), and it's usually not hard to figure out what their intentions are. He pretty clearly tipped his hand with that and a few others. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be reading too much into that name. He has used pop culture references before. I suspect that that particular account name was just a reference to "Attack of the Evil..." whatever along the lines of Attack of the 50 Foot Woman. Another pop culture inspired name would be the recent Mascot Patch Kids which references Cabbage Patch Kids. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; now that you mention it, I did see Cloudy with a Chance of Mascots, so it's possible. The one that doesn't quite fit though is Dr. Powblock's BlockVision 5000, which doesn't seem likely to have been inspired from anywhere else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's always risky believing and repeating stuff you find on the Internet. DENY can be overused, and is frequently misused, but is frequently about recognising when someone is doing something only because they can be recognised doing it. The account creation thing is surely a sign of this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

@Jeske: He has already outed himself in one of his early accounts, as well on a link that we use on the LTA page. I am suggesting that we use a name that he cannot take on as his own and use in his ridiculous account naming sprees.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not understanding how calling him by his real name is going to stop him from creating new accounts using variations on "Mascot Guy". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if not his real name, we need something that's not going to inspire him to make as his own. We obviously still need to be able to track him, but calling him "MascotGuy" is only encouraging him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You kinda miss the point, Ryulong, everything will encourage him. Blocking his latest sock account is enough recognition to provide incentive for him to keep going, and yet we should still block everyone of them. It's fine. There's one of him, and lots of us, and it isn't a big deal. Revert, Block, Ignore, Rinse, Repeat. One needs to understand that there is literally nothing we can do to stop him, so its OK to just keep blocking him. I'm perfectly fine with that status quo. Either he gets bored and quits, or he doesn't and we block him again. C'est la guerre. --Jayron32 02:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Widely publicizing this individual's real name would, to the best of my knowledge, not actually be illegal, but it is against Wikipedia policy, there is no reason to think it would be effective anyway, and we are not going to do it. I haven't dealt with this situation before, but I assume that checkusers have been consulted concerning the possibility of reviewing potential rangeblocks without undue "collateral damage" against legitimate editors, and that his ISP-hopping precludes a successful ISP report? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Publicizing someone's real name is unacceptable for the same reason it is tempting. We should continue to err on being the sap rather than the tyrant.--Tznkai (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

@Brad: The person logs onto whatever computer is within a 5 foot radius from him and makes up new accounts. And if the MyFonts.com discussion is accurate, he shuts off his entire house's electricity to reset his modem to get a new IP. I'm personally not sure if anything has ever been done to contact his main Internet provider, but considering his supposed actions, it might not help. And he has at one point used an account that allegedly used his real name, and he even used it to edit WP:LTA/MG (it can be found during edits made in early 2009), so I doubt that it counts as WP:OUTING, unless being severely autistic means he has not voluntarily given up this information.
Regardless of what we can and cannot do, naming him "MascotGuy" is not helping anyone other than Mr. Chicken and Fries Guy come up with new names to register. Can we not call him the "San Diego-based animation vandal"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

MascotGuy has been at it for years. This isn't the first time that he has used MascotGuy in his account names. He's been doing that for years, too. See Gogo Dodo, the MascotGuy created by The Boxer Guy. Changing what we call him isn't really going to help matters nor stop him. Realistically, he is actually a very innocuous problem. He is very easy to spot and doesn't do any damage to Wikipedia beyond creating accounts as he no longer edits using the accounts. He seems happy to make the accounts and that's it. As Jayron said, just block, ignore, and move on to the next account. Is it getting tedious to do so? Sure. But is it worth expending a lot of time over? Not in my opinion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Other than a couple of anonymous accounts, do we actually have proof that this individual is autistic and not just a clever troll? Instead why aren't we contacting ISP abuse departments, or even the local police?--Crossmr (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be a very elaborate troll to disrupt a font website and simultaneously be an annoyance on Wikipedia for what is probably six years, including producing what may be two other personas on the MyFonts.com discussion, just to get a sympathy card.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We've caught socks that are going on for over a year without giving themselves away. The most successful troll would be the most sophisticated one.--Crossmr (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, publishing personal info should not be done. Even if it already hinted or even published somewhere, publicising it (say, writing it down in a widely known and used site as WP) is just about the same [if someone whispered a secret of his once in a public place, it does not allow you to go out screaming it out on the town's main square...]. Privacy and security is important (even more so in a time when it is neglected, by self included). I see no reason to break such a strong principle - Nabla (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect Ryulong (and it may seem like I'm gunning for you, don't get me wrong, I'm not), outing him seems more like a result of a bitter grudge you have against him. I understand the annoyance he causes and such (and I'll admit, I was getting a little bit "process for the sake of process" yesterday with that AIV report), but no, just no. Lets not stoop down low shall we? Kwsn (Ni!) 14:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a grudge. How can I have a grudge against someone who I have never come across? He is simply a vandal that we need to rename.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that consensus seems pretty clear on this - naming him is not a good idea, and I can't imagine it getting enough support. May I suggest we move on? The Cavalry (Message me) 15:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that using his (alleged) given name is not going to fly. I just think he needs to be renamed from "MascotGuy".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a point I'd like to make, I think both sides are right about the "outing" thing. WP:OUTING is intended to protect the privacy of Wikipedia's editors, but posting information that the editors have already disclosed themselves in one form or another is not a violation. On the other hand, we don't use that as a bludgeon either. If it is useful to bring up that information, such as when identifying sockpuppet accounts or establishing a conflict of interest, it's allowed to do so. If you just mention a person's personal information as some form of intimidation or to otherwise dissuade someone from taking an objectional action, then in my opinion that's just morally wrong. -- Atama頭 18:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of our good friend... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That was the one from yesterday that prompted my request.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's just say for arguments sake, that you did get a consensus on changing what to refer him to (I don't think you have such a consensus). Do you really think not calling him MascotGuy is going to stop him? He isn't going to stop just because you don't call him MascotGuy. He doesn't always create accounts with Mascot or Guy in them. For example, Zig de Zag's Killers's list of accounts or Earthfighters's list of accounts. So having Mascot or Guy isn't his motivation. He is motivated by some other reason and the name isn't it. As I said before, this habit of his to use Mascot or Guy is really an odd benefit. Do you really want him to create random names that we can't pick out easily with the edit filter? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's these kinds of account names that just make me think it's a troll. A sophisticated one, but a troll none-the-less.--Crossmr (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Pointer to related existing discussion

People who have participated in this discussion may be interested in this discussion/proposal as well. TNXMan 15:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What if accounts were not allowed to create new accounts AND on the creation of any account, no new accounts can be created from that IP for an hour? This would prevent someone from logging out and creating new ones.--Crossmr (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could an Admin please help me by deleting the redirect titled Lasker versus Bauer, Amsterdam, 1989? ("1989" was a typo, I've already added a new redirect w/ the correct "1889" in title.) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked User:TreasuryTag. He was indef blocked on 29 August by Ioeth, and unblocked on 2 September by HJ Mitchell, but with conditions as stated here. I have explained my reasoning for the reblock at User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2011/Sep#Indef block. Review of this block and any changes (unblock, shorter block, topic ban, whatever) to it are welcome. Fram (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how someone is supposed to know ahead of time that a request for delete will result in a keep. However, if there's an issue with Dr. Who, maybe a topic ban from that subject would work better. Then there should be no wiggle room. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that this thread was started regarding this nomination for deletion where TT nominated an actor on Dr Who for deletion in apparent violation of his unblock editing restrictions. Buffs (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. It was started regarding another Dr. Who related AfD he made, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Christmas special (Doctor Who), as explained on his talk page. Fram (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so there are two of them in play... Buffs (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think this was a good block. Any reasonable editor should have been able to look at that article, looked at WP:CRYSTAL, and drawn the obvious conclusion to delete. There is no guarantee that this particular episode will be notable, there's precious little information on it, and deletion is the obvious choice unless and until there is significant coverage indicating that this episode is, indeed, notable. The fact that the original blocking admin knew of this and failed to view it as an infraction of the conditions that he imposed seems particularly relevant. → ROUX ₪ 10:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Any reasobale editor who knew anything about Dr. Who, like TreasuryTag does, would know that the Xmas episode, once it is announced, is notable, and that (as has been said in the AfD) even a subsequent cancellation of it would be notable. "Crystal" doesn't mean that everything that still has to happen can't be notable. As for the original blocking admin: um, no, it is the original unblocking admin, not the original blocking admin. Fram (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• That looks like a good block to me - it was a clear violation of the unblock conditions. Given their block log, TreasuryTag was already on very thin ice, so it's appropriate to enforce a strict interpretation of the conditions. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Without too much knowledge of the past history the nominations (a few other unsuitable ones were done at the same time) one could apply AGF but the obvious knowledge of the DrWho subject matter makes it clearly disruptive. Compounding the fact that opposing (there were no supporting ones) views get hounded with WP:BASH. Anyway moot as this edit is in clear violation of the NoProd rule laid out in the conditional unblock. Agathoclea (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • (copied from TT's talk page): The edit highlighted by Agathoclea (talk · contribs) was indeed a violation of the unblock conditions. However, it was a genuine mistake which I reported to the unblocking admin as soon as I noticed it. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Different article - different Prod. Agathoclea (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• (ecx2) This is an odd one ... the original limitation/condition of unblock probably should have gone so far as to completely disallow AFD for Dr Who. However, the wording is clear, and the fact that an article that was Speedy Kept was AFD'd means that TT did break the letter of the law, and the block is good. Attempts to weasel out of it is probably the biggest incident of wikilawyering, ever. I'd hate to think that TT originally accepted the condition knowing that it could be milked this way. I would be willing to see TT unblocked but only on the condition that the original blocking conditions be extended to disallow AFDing Dr Who-related articles, broadly construed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• I have no intention of getting bogged down in irrelevant debate about the exact unblock terms and whether or not they were breached. It is not only clear that the spirit of the restriction was breached, but I think it is more important that Treasury Tag's recent overall history relating to AfDs has been highly disruptive, irrespective of the unblock terms, and not only on Dr Who related AfDs. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copyright symbol was ridiculous. As far as I am concerned, the question to ask is not "has Treasury Tag breached the specific terms of the unblock conditions", but rather "taking into account all the relevant history (including the unblock conditions, the user's previous 16 blocks, etc etc) would unblocking Treasury Tag again be beneficial to Wikipedia?" To that question the answer is very clearly "no". I don't think that restrictions on Dr Who-related article are enough, as that is not the only problem area. The indefinite block should be confirmed, and the current unblock request should be declined. There has to be a limit to how many chances we give to troublesome editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I cannot say I know much about Dr. Who stuff, but I agree with you that his proposal Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copyright symbol was ridiculous. Giving editors like him free reign to annoy others on procedural grounds is a significant part of the unpleasantness I found editing Wikipedia. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock with clarified, simplified restrictions. The linked unblock restrictions are too complicated. TreasuryTag’s recent AfD nomination is not a clear violation of readily apparent sanctions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Hinsight is 20-20 but I think events like this illustrate that these kinds of restrictions may not be the best idea. I do not doubt those knowledgeable in this area who say that TT should have known the result of this AfD, but the fact remains that technically any AfD could go in several directions. It's better to restrict someone from an activity altogether than to do so conditionally in ways that it could be argued the person couldn't know in advance if the activity would violate the restriction. That said, I've seen TT mentioned at AN/I and AN enough times now, even defended him on occasion, to know that this goes well beyond technicalities. He has a problem with knowingly editing in ways that the community has, through consensus and through its representatives (admins) told him not to. I think that's a bigger problem than the technicalities of this block or the restrictions he was originally given.Griswaldo (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Whatever happens to TT regarding this, I think there is also another problem that needs to be considered, and especially should TT get unblocked or have his block shortened. Had I seen this AfD I would have voted delete, and I think quite a few others outside the walled garden of fandom surrounding this TV show (like those of others) might concur as well. Entries like this serve only one purpose - PR for the show and the network. They have no business on Wikipedia in my opinion. If TT keeps on AfDing articles like this and they keep on snowballing to keep I think he should be encouraged to start a much broader community discussion about them, while promising not to AfD any more Dr. Who entries. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Good block, must be seen in the context of TT's history and weighing the net positives/negatives of blocking/not blocking. For the future, it would be a shame to completely lose someone who is enthusiastic, intelligent, knowledgeable and knows how WP works. If these positives could be channelled by some (very) strict boundaries - eg, no AfD nominations permitted - it would be nice to think we could deal with TT with something short of what would effectively be a ban. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'm curious to know why there's any debate about Dr. Who episodes. Isn't there a project team for this long-running show? Isn't there some consensus within that team? I'm comparing it with Star Trek, where every episode has its own article, including the incredibly silly ones such as The Omega Glory. What's going on with Dr. Who that there is frequent debate on individual episode articles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That is the heart of the problem. I don't follow the project but from what I have seen there is sufficiant coverage of every episode to warrant an article, at least for the modern incarnation. That coverage is obviously less if the episode has not aired yet but it tends to be pretty instant and widespread once details are released. The problem here is that a one-man-band tries to fight the status quo via AFD. Why else would you nomminate an actor for deletion after he gets announced to have a (repeat) role in an episode that compared to other episodes has a heightened media interest. Agathoclea (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I disagree with the implications of what Baseball Bugs has written. There is no reason to have information about upcoming episodes. We are not here to further promotional work for the network. You realize that almost 100% of information about upcoming episodes originates as PR. That one or two industry sources have done as the network, or the producers have hoped and used their PR to stimulate interest in the upcoming episode does not mean that there is significant independent coverage here. I think it is too bad that people feel issues like this should be left to groups of fans on Wikipedia. There needs to be wider community discussion here. I think what TT is doing is disruptive, but at the heart of it he has a very good point.Griswaldo (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
      • • • A little off topic but I really don't think the BBC needs Wikipedia to promote a popular show that's been around since 1963. That's why I call articles like the one in question (ie "verifiable" articles on fictional elements of otherwise highly notable works of fiction) "low risk" articles and I think it's a damn shame that there is more drama generated by these articles then there is over BLPs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, you didn't really answer my question: Is it, or is it not, appropriate to have separate articles for each episode of a TV series, especially those as widely known as Star Trek and Dr. Who? I mean, I could see not having a separate article for each episode of My Mother the Car. But Trek and Dr. Who are widely discussed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, I think that having separate episode articles for shows like My Mother the Car or Supertrain would be silly but if they did exist, I wouldn't think the sky is falling. For popular shows, not all of them have separate episode articles. Stargate SG1 and it's spinoffs are good examples. Only a few episodes have articles and the rest are redirects to episode lists. However, I would be happy if such decisions were discussed in wikiprojects and not at AFD. Maybe then, some of those AFDs I now close as "no consensus" after 3 weeks with no comments might start getting comments. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
            • BB, please reread what I wrote. I think stubs are fine if we can reasonably expect something will be notable. What I object to is writing articles based only on PR.Griswaldo (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
              • Then EVERY article about a future event has to be a stub, because EVERY ONE OF THEM is going to be based (directly or indirectly) on press releases. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
      • But after the episode has aired, we would have an article about it, right ? (Again, this is true because it is an internationally popular show that no episode since its relaunch has not proven notable - this is not true across the board for any TV episode). Yes, personally, I wouldn't be rushing to create an article on the episode once it has been announced, but I wouldn't be deleting efforts once its created because its not an issue with WP:CRYSTAL. (If anything it falls into WP:HAMMER, since it lacks a name, but that's just me). So yes, it may seem like PR while the episode hasn't aired, but I could say the same for any yet-published work, books, film, video games, etc., and really, that's more harm than good ; the wealth of development and other type of information of behind-the-scenes that are good in these articles only come about before the publication, with reception following afterwards. And basically, that's the right part of the block; it is a gross misunderstanding of CRYSTAL on TT's part; this, and other DW episodes TT's nominated, will have articles once they have aired, so it makes no sense to delete these once the BBC has affirmed they will be airing. It becomes disruptive to do so. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
        • If anything we would need an exception to the notability guideline stating that unaired episodes are not notable even if they otherwise qualify under GNG. So far to my knowledge that exception has never even be proposed - and I doubt any success would be likely because on the ramifications this would have accross the board eg STS-400. Agathoclea (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
        • @Masem. I disagree. CRYSTAL says "to avoid advertising and unverified claims." There is no way to avoid advertising when every piece of information available is part of a marketing effort by the network. This particular entry is almost entirely based on what the BBC has said about the episode. Under point 5 it also says, "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate." That is essentially what we have in cases like this. I think there are several solutions to this issue but they need to be discussed. I think you could argue, per WP:CRYSTAL, to have a stub that contains nothing except a one sentence announcement about the upcoming episode, if the episode has a number or a name. But beyond that CRYSTAL actually cautions against the type of writing that is taking place, based purely on promotional information. Consider also that writing such articles means giving the network or company and advantage once the event has happened or the product has been released, since what is already in place is their PR. Subsequent information about the actual product from third party sources now has to compete with the current consensus version, which again is crafted out of information that was originally PR. We really need a broader discussion about this if you ask me. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
          • That narrow interpretation would rub out every article about something that hasn't been released yet or hasn't occurred yet. Like, for example, Super Bowl XLVIII. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
            • I don't think its narrow, I think it is precise and in line with other policies as well, like WP:N and WP:V in terms of "independent" coverage. But to your main point I'm unsure of why there would be a problem with not having articles on topics that can't yet be covered sufficiently from independent sources, or merely having stubs with announcements until such a time that the product is actually released. Can you explain why that would be a bad thing? Is more and faster always better? I don't think so. I'm sure there is plenty of work to still be done on the entries of existing Dr. Who episodes, which can be written from independent sources. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
              • Again, I point to WP:HAMMER, where, if it were up to me, I would have not created this article now but likely dropped a redirect to the 6th series page, but knowing that there will be an article there some day with high confidence, it makes no sense to try to delete it if someone else actually created it based on the BBC announcement. That said, even if TT thought the article shouldn't have been there, deletion was the wrong answer, since a merge with redirect makes a lot more sense (even if yet unnamed, its a valid search term). --MASEM (t) 13:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
              • I wonder if there's any "independent" source for the 2014 Super Bowl. Sure, it's been written about. But what would their sources be, other than NFL press releases? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
                • Except you are 100% wrong about that. Did you bother to check Super Bowl XLVIII before making this argument? Doubtful. The Superbowl article is almost entirely about events that have already happened, as part of the preparations for the Superbowl and do not originate from press releases. Have a look for yourself. I think the same standard should apply to these articles as to upcoming TV show episodes, but if you ask me the superbowl article does a good job of it.Griswaldo (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
                  • Griswaldo is not alone in thinking that we should not have articles that are merely a network's PR for an unaired episode or program. I agree with that assessment. This is not the place for the general discussion that apparently needs to be had about that though. Griswaldo, want to start a discussion somewhere else (WP:VPP, WT:N...?) about this and link it here? LadyofShalott 13:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
                    • If Dr. Who episodes are considered notable as Super Bowls are, then information about future episodes and future Super Bowls are also notable. I say again, the only source for a future Super Bowl is the NFL itself. And for a future film or TV show that is likely to be produced, the argument that the source is a press release implies the possibility that the creators are lying. That is not a good stance for wikipedia to be taking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The block was quite poorly implemented. The immediate cause was grossly insufficient for the block. And "TT's history" does not support the block. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• This is clearly an example of a poorly defined editing restriction. There is no way of knowing whether TT AfD-ed an article for deletion knowing that it was a violation of the restriction. Similarly, there is no way of judging whether this was a good block or not without getting into the blocking editor's head. I agree with the suggestions above that TT be unblocked, and a clear restriction (can/cannot nominate Dr. Who related articles for deletion). I'd favor the cannot part, because there is plenty of stuff for a single editor to work on and it hardly matters that one particular editor is not permitted to nominate a particular set of articles for deletion. --regentspark (comment) 13:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree with TT on much, but I think I agree with most of the above people: this wasn't a well-formed editing restriction and could reasonably lead to confusion. A blanket topic ban is the most appropriate for this and will lead to a more less acrimoious editing environment. Can't find the policy, but shouldn't TT's editing restrictions need to be displayed at the top of his talk page? Buffs (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I would like to see one additional restriction imposed on AFDs - no interaction on or outside the AFD about keep/delete comments on that AFD. In fact I believe that regardless of the unblock conditions that were the ultimate reason for the block, if TT had not haggled on almost every keep-comment accross his ill-advised AFDs the issue would not have taken such proportions. A few keeps - a snowball close - nothing to see. The issue only raised its head through the combination of actions (and history). Agathoclea (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• • I couldn't make sense out of the restrictions. Ironically, it requires a "crystal ball" on the part of an editor to know what's going to be kept and what isn't. And the fact that others here have argued for deleting the article in question, raises questions about the appropriateness and validity of the restrictions on the user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that this requires a "crystal ball" on the part of an editor to know how the AfD will end up. But when TT decided to do a AfD, they voluntarily accepted that risk. Nobody forced TT to nominate it for deletion. That was their choice, their decision, their responsibility. TT could have simply decided not to do anything. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, except that if the article had been deleted, there would have been no violation, right? A restriction that depends on a unknown future outcome is not appropriate. If they don't want him nominating stuff for deletion, they should prohibit all nominations for deletion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• I am highly leaning towards unblocking TT for exactly what Bugs said. Basing blocks off AFD discussions is petty and childish. If the discussion for some odd reason was delete we wouldn't be having this discussion. AfD was used exactly what it was intended for, a user wants to delete something, but knows it won't survive a CSD and won't survive a PROD. There shouldn't be any restriction on what could go to AfD (Some articles, namely FAs, will obviously be kept). Kwsn (Ni!) 14:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• To me, reading through this and some of the AFDs, the editing restriction on knowing how an AFD will end is completely infeasible, for reasons well stated.
• But, that doesn't mean there's a problem here. My read of what TT does with CSD/PROD/AFD is to throw it against a wall to see if it will stick. (The approach in the Copyright symbol AFD is clearly one example of this). AFD's should not be used as such grounds to gain consensus for something against the status quo, as, as we're seeing here, becomes disruptive. I realize that any AFD could be classified in the same manner, that it is a means to see if an article should stay around. The issue is that many of TT's AFDs are closed as kept, in some cases speedily. To me, this indicates that TT needs to engage in some type of discussions before launching an AFD, such as by posting "I plan to nominate this article for deletion within 7 days unless the following concerns are met" on the talk page. TT should then judicially use any resulting discussion and changes to determine if they go forward. If, if it were the case of the Copyright symbol, there would be a lot of resistance to the idea, and TT did continue to go forward, that would be likely a bad faith nom. I realize that with a show like Doctor Who you will have a dedicated editor base that will claim something is notable, and that talk page discussions won't break any stalemate created by this, and sometimes AFD is necessary to break that stalemate by garnering wider opinions. So basically, I would say that if TT posts such a message, gets significant discuss against going forward on the AFD, still goes through with the AFD, and the AFD is speedily kept, that's an issue to deal with. I don't know how exactly enforcable that is, as it becomes very touchy-feely. But I think there's something there that can be enforceable and implement blocks to prevent future disruption by TT for AFDs that otherwise serve no point beyond a testing ground. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I wonder if Buffs (above) meant a 'less acrimonious editing environment'? For my part, I don't agree with TT on everything. (I don't think I agree with anyone about everything, and would probably be worried to find someone who didn't disagree with ME about something...) If, as it appears, TT's nominating for deletion has become a problem in the world of Dr Who, I would go along with a topic based ban on nominating, but with a proviso that it should be possible for TT to ask an admin to nominate on his (I assume - could be her, I know not) behalf. This may be decided to be any admin, or one of a consensus decided small number (preferably not ones involved in previous blocking or controversy - must be some...). This would take care of anything TT spots that should be deleted, but with a filter. I would be sorry to lose TT, as amongst the controversy there is valuable editing. Peridon (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah, my bad...words are hard!!! Buffs (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note that apart from the AfD that lead to this block, Agatoclea also highlighted a Dr. Who related Prod he made, which is if necessary an even clearer violation of his editing restriction. There is little doubt that he was willfully ignoring (or blatantly and unsuccesfully testing the limits of) the edit restriction. WRT the AfD of the upcoming Christmas Special: new rules, if needed, shiould be discussed elsewhere: for now we have to do with the rules we have (which allow such articles), the opinions of those commenting in the AfD (which were clear), and precedent like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who). Note that TreasuryTag actually !voted "strong keep" in the last one, including references to CRYSTAL and so on (that AfD started in July, not in September!). No idea why we he completely reversed his position in the past year, or why he would nominate an article that he could be fairly certain would end in an overwhelming keep. Fram (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've interacted with TT in the past, and have on repeated occasions noted how TT games the system in a 'if you don't do it my way, I'm taking the football stadium home with me' way. He has had sizable issues with civility and - judging from his block log - is not very good at taking a hint. I am a bit startled that he would violate the terms of his initial unblocking - he's seemed lever enough in the past to avoid doing something overt enough to get himself blocked. If he had questions about the nature of the restrictions, he should have asked.

I don't particularly like the editor, but that's grown out of TT's incivility and edit-warring issues. That he's gaming the system yet again is no surprise to me. The initial block was too easy to ooze around, but the observation regarding the spirit of the unblock conditions was on target. TT knew what he was doing. And now, he's reaping what he sowed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think TT needs a mentor who will get them to dial back a few notches. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone else wants to do that that's fine. Frankly given this action was in clear violation of the unblock conditions and wasn't even borderline it should be made clear that violations will lead directly to an indefinite block or an Arbcom case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I can't see strong consensus here for the indef to stick / a community ban. I'd be happy to mentor TT again, although my time onwiki is increasingly limited, but would be happier doing so if there was a well thought-through and collaborative process to determine some editing restrictions. I think AfD seems to be a flashpoint for this editor. I don't think AfD nominations are particularly disruptive per se, (they're certainly less so than bad speedy noms) I think it's more the bickering that can crop up in the debate which is objectionable. --Dweller (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Its a good block. For fucks sake guys how many chances do we need to give? Indefinitely looked fair enough last time it was given. Giving users twenty trillion chances is totally unproductive. I think I'll be taking the case to Arbcom if the block is reversed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not fond of that block: I think the editing restrictions wrt AfD weren't crystal clear. That said, the two prods are problematic (though the one self-reported and reverted I'm not too worried about). I'd say give a week block for the PROD with escalating blocks for repeat offenses (4 weeks, 3 months, year). Prevent all AfD nominations that are Dr. Who related just to clarify (or perhaps all of AfD). TT has lots of communication issues, but is still a net win for the project and I'm loath to toss him out over something like this. (Which reminds me, how is this any different than the editing restriction Delta is violating?) Hobit (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The AfD he filed was clearly and blatantly in violation of the unblock conditions set at the beginning of September. End of story. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    • With regards to Delta possibly he needs to be indefinitely blocked as well. Just because we haven't always followed our standards of behaviour doesn't mean we should continually fail to enforce them in future. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reduced TT's block to one week, as he correctly pointed out in his last unblock request that violations of his unblock agreement would be dealt with by escalating blocks, starting at a week. Feel free to continue discussion on the merits of the block, vagueness of the terms, etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A bit of a technicality, but that seems reasonable. We should follow through with what we have said we will do. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

good catch! TT has a history of problems like the also mentioned delta. Both are still around and are not banned sofar. Both still contribute in a positive way to the pedia while causing drama in the process. If we can cut out the drama we are left with the positive. Agathoclea (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Cutting out the drama seems highly unlikely to occur. But I'm prepared to be proven wrong. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There is much discussion above which is not actually relevant here. JamesBWatson hit the nail on the head when he wrote: "taking into account all the relevant history (including the unblock conditions, the user's previous 16 blocks, etc etc) would unblocking Treasury Tag again be beneficial to Wikipedia?" To that question the answer is very clearly "no". That, to my mind, is clearly the question here and the correct answer, not how many Dr. Whos can dance on the head of Mr. Spock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition these edits to the page of a real-life director of Doctor Who, who made exactly one clarifying edit [50] removing 4 square brackets, crossed the line.[51][52][53][54] His responses to Newyorkbrad were problematic.[55] Mathsci (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think TT lucked out with only a week. That's ok. I would think that any next block, for disruption, edit warring or whatnot, should be much longer, say a month or two. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The agreed editing restriction says that the next block should be for a month, I would agree that other behaviour warranting a block should be treated similarly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The diffs pointed out by Mathsci are worrisome. It seems TT loses no opportunity to behave nastily as long he can remotely ascribe his actions to some obscure wiki rule. His argument for reinstating the unwarranted message is that it was a "notice" not a warning. He reinstated it three times [56] despite the disapproval of four other editors. I think that's called edit warring. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think that an anti-bullying clause should be added to his block agreement. Egg Centric 14:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Having looked over a couple of situations, I'm concerned about TT's behavior - it seems to be a mixture of wikilawyering, WP:POINT violations, and a general waste of time. If he is allowed to edit again, I'd suggest to impose a complete ban on deletions, Dr. Who, and Wikiwonking. He is welcome to do some constructive main space edits, but should be strongly encouraged to avoid all references to Wikipedia policies. If a point cannot be argued on common sense, he should leave it to someone better equipped with patience and discretion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently serious steps forward cannot be suggested without being removed. Great. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I hate to be the one to break this to you Eraserhead, but you aren't an admin. When you butt in to issues that do not directly concern you, be it reverting a comment of mine made at VP Policy last week, or this giving unsolicited advice to Treasury Tag...it should come as no surprise that the reaction from those involved is swift and negative. Tarc (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

With regards to not being an admin so what? Additionally "butting in" to discussions that don't concern you is actually useful as it gets outside opinions into discussions, which is useful as you get a different perspective.

And the advice was hardly entirely unsolicited. It was quite clear that that sort of thing is useful in this case. If someone has been blocked 20 odd times and they want to stay a member of the community then they are clearly going to have to take advice from other users on how to improve their behaviour.

In this particular case I see the point made by Giacomo and its a fair one, its clear that this time I expressed myself badly and it is clear that he doesn't want my advice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh for Heaven's sake. I don't care for TT one little bit, but your comments were pompous and irrittating to read "The most effective teachers at my school..." "Well hurrah for your school, but Wikipedia's admins are not his teachers or even superiors and I would have deleted such patronising pomposity too. Giacomo Returned 17:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So delete the first bit and leave the second. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well that would be tampering with your post - even worse than delelting it. I would just leave well alone, he clearly does not want your advice - so just accept it. Giacomo Returned 17:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess TT didn't like what I had to say about wikilawyering on his talk page. If he doesn't want to talk about it, that's ok. If he wants to keep unhappy things out of his archive pages, that's ok. I too would say, please leave him alone. TT knows he's skating and skirting on the canny edge. If other editors grow weary enough with all the time he wastes, mentored or otherwise, with these kerfluffles and he winds up blocked for a month or two or whatever next time, that's ok too. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There have been several good points made by those who have observed TT's behavioral problems over the years. Especially Fram's pointing out his flip-flop voting on AFD's. I would add that this essay WP:NOTTHERAPY should be remembered now and in all future threads (two to six months is the usual lag) about TT's editing on this or other noticeboards. MarnetteD | Talk 21:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Tangential discussion

Per LadyOfShallot's suggestion I have started another discussion about the side issue of what to do with the types of entries TT was trying to delete. It can be found here - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:CRYSTAL_and_TV_episodes_airing_at_a_future_date. Please post further comments about that issue there and not here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

I have re-reviewed the discussion on TT's talk page. I am now of the opinion that TT is for inexplicable reasons unable to stop striking this particular deceased equine in a manner that provokes community backlash.

To protect TT from that backlash and avoid the controversy becoming an ongoing sore point, I propose the following community sanction:

TreasuryTag is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from article deletion of speculative fiction related articles, broadly construed. This restriction may be reviewed by the community at TT's request after not less than six months have passed since its enaction.

Proposed - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Eh, I'd actually prefer it the other way around. Taking him out of the Doctor Who arena might free up more of his time to do things like this. I'd rather him spend his time fighting against fancruft than against basic punctuation, to be honest. 28bytes (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'd prefer to see him completely banned from the entire deletion process with the SINGLE exception of BLPPRODS, and if he abuses that process he can be banned from it too, by any administrator, without discussion. Perhaps if he is prevented from working in AFD he can focus on improving content in other ways. It is my experience that partial bans only cause more drama. N419BH 01:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• You might do well to change "from article deletion of" to "from using the article deletion process for"; the current wording is awkward. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Erm, as I am trying to organise mentoring, I'd really prefer the waters I'm trying to settle aren't muddied by ban proposals at this point. If I fail to agree a mentoring proposal, or mentoring fails, fine, but really one of the points of mentoring is to ensure that community bans of any kind aren't necessary. --Dweller (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, let's give Dweller some breathing room to work with TT on a mentorship plan. There's no rush to do anything in the meantime, I doubt anyone's going to unblock TT prior to Monday when the block is scheduled to expire. 28bytes (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Has TreasuryTag even accepted the mentorship proposal? –xeno^talk 16:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• This should also include a ban to interact on or off XFD about anybody else's !vote. Agathoclea (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• As per above I also see the need for a complete deletion topic ban as TT uses the deletion process to eliminate Dr Who actors that where notable for other work (Amonst others astarring role in a longlasting notable series) and it will be always the accidential "Sorry I did not realise it is a DrWho related subject". Agathoclea (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Defer to Dweller; too many cooks spoil the broth. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Somehow I missed Dweller's comments. Of course I don't want to stand in the way of a constructive solution. Agathoclea (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• If the proposed topic-ban pertains only to articles about fictional things that haven't yet come into fruition, then it is based on one single instance alone of (I would argue non-) disruptive behaviour – which seems a rather stupid basis for a topic-ban. But yeah, go for it, whatever. ╟─TreasuryTag►Osbert─╢ 09:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "Speculative fiction": not works of fiction that still have to be released, but works of SF, fantasy, and related genres. Dr. Who is speculative fiction. Fram (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Have there actually been any problems involving Treasury Tag on articles about speculative fiction series other than Doctor Who? It looks to me like that's where the problem area is with him. Why not just go with a topic ban from all Doctor Who-related articles, broadly construed? Robofish (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Interaction with new editors ban proposal

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I suggest that TT not be permitted to interact with new editors, except where they solicited contact (I welcome definition of new editor - perhaps less than a thousand contributions, and also of contact solicition - but certainly incompetent editing should not on its own count as soliciting interaction) so as to prevent their being discouraged by frankly rather nasty remarks. Egg Centric 16:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Disagree with this approach; would almost endorse nasty remarks to established contributors. Nasty remarks aren't acceptable, regardless of the target. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC) This is the most stupid idea I have ever heard, except perhaps for the one about demolishing London and replacing it with a giant Butlins. It is simply Egg Centric piggy-backing onto the existing topic-ban proposal with a complaint completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, trying to have me sanctioned and generally trying to get at me as he has done so many times before. Please could someone close his latest inane suggestion before it wastes further energy? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 16:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC) There really is no need. This proposal has zero support at this time. Save your concern (and your typing) for issues which might actually come to pass. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC) I consider that abuse towards a new editor is at least ten times worse than abuse towards a seasoned one, because of its potential impact - it's much easier for a potential great editor to be put off than a seasoned editor. As TT is completely unable to be civil, he should be kept away from new editors. And this is an ideal place to discuss the idea. Egg Centric 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC) And you have already made your proposal known. In order to comply, TT would have to check #of contribs for every editor prior to replying to them, and would not be able to reply to new users, regardless of how civilly he framed his statement; but would receive implicit carte blanche to be uncivil to established users. This is not a move forward; far more effective would be to require civility towards all, which is already policy. One puppy's opinion, your mileage may vary. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC) It may be policy, but if it were enforced he'd have been banned many moons ago. The # of edits may be a practical problem, but it would mean that he would have to think about whether whatever he wants to say is really necessary, which is surely a good thing. Or perhaps instead of # of edits, a new contributor could be defined as someone with less than 5 sections on their talk page, and no archives. There are various possibilities Egg Centric 18:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Personally I don't think this request is reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Agreed, unreasonable restriction. I can't really see any need to change much - he has User:HJ Mitchell's restrictions with incremental blocks for violations, so its a month next time and he has the offer of an experienced editor User:Dweller willing to mentor and he surly realizes he is walking a tightrope of an indefinite editing restriction. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Can we put this segment of the discussion to rest as unworkable and sending the wrong signals. Agathoclea (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Some guy keeps following around my posts and reverts their significance for some reason I can't comprehend. I guess that's why ppl diss Wikipedia since any1 can just go around and revert edits without any reason. I know you probably shouldn't be allowed to make edits on something that is related to your birth since it might adhere to the POV clause (I am iroquois so I guess I shouldn't be allowed to edit the Iroquois article since I know many things about my people). Anyway, I made some improvements on the overall English parameters for some articles and she/he deletes them posthumously: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. InternetHero (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You have not notified the other editor of this discussion, as is required on this page. And the other editor is explaining in edit summaries what their disagreements with you are about. But both of you need to discuss things on the articles' Talk pages. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Per your history of disruption(see their contribs and block log) when you pop up every few months, I do check your contribs history to see what POV you've decided to push lately and what disruption you've managed to add to the 'pedia. It is what our contrib histories are for. I do not revert all of your edits as you will notice, only the ones that are problematic. Follow our policies and I will no longer revert problematic edits.Heiro 22:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I need someone with higher than 1200 pixel wide resolution to download the map at Openstreetmap.org so I can produce a slightly better version of File:Lincoln Park borders.jpg with the hook that I am currently chopping off.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#OTRS member group? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, 28bytes! Cunard (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I request to give this user a strong warning (assume good faith), as he already many article with hoax information and deleted. If assume good faith, which assume him obtained information from the web, which wrongly using rubbish information from transfermarketweb but not from himself. If assume him a vandal, please just block him.

The most recent hoax is Afonso Carson and newly discovered hoax is Adriano Quintão (see WP:footy for why it is a hoax, the first version his created is a hoax (his hoax French career) and someone edited the page but still hoax (his hoax Asia, Croatia and Italy career)), which created 2 years ago. Matthew_hk tc 09:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

yet Estanilau Li's content seems hoax. Matthew_hk tc 09:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this something for WP:ANI? And, have you notified the editor, as required? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

yes it should be ANI. Matthew_hk tc 11:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I am brining the following matter to the administrators attention, Category:Incomplete file renaming requests seems to contains some images with filenames that suggest that they might be need to checked to see if they've been used in recent vandalism.

Also where would be the best place to make a technical suggestion, namely that images tagged as {{badimage}} don't thumbnail on file description pages, or in Special:Filelist? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind giving some examples? Generally speaking if it's been used for the type of vandalism that would earn it a place in the bad image list, then someone would have already added it to the list. The purpose of the badimage list, or to give it its modern name the restricted use list, is not to prevent them showing on their description pages, or the list of all images, in categories, in relevant articles, or in any other place you might expect to find them. It's mainly to prevent them showing up on the Main Page, in the infobox of BLPs, or in widely used templates. However Bugzilla would be the place to go to change how the extension works, if so inclined. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The two images concerned have a title of Glans penis.jpg, and Glans Penis.jpg both of which are from their title NSFW.

In relation to the second point, can you provide more technical details on which extension handles the 'restricted use list'

so that I'm able to fill out the Bugzilla request as fully as possible. Thanks :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be within MediaWiki core itself. If you say "bad image list" everyone will know what you mean. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 21#Raymond A. Watson and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 22#Red link? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• NuclearWarfare got one, I got the other. Courcelles 23:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you both for closing the DRVs. Courcelles, would you link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson (2nd nomination) in your DRV close? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Theres's a bit of a backup at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you mean "backlog"? →Σ ⚑  ☭  04:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah, though it is backed up, too.  :) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The protection policy is transcluding onto 2003 Russian Premier League Cup, but I can't find the template. L888Y5 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's Template:Deleted, which shouldn't be so used in the mainspace. Remove those, and your problems should vanish. Courcelles 23:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • For future reference, the place to ask about this sort of problem is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) (WP:VPT), not here. While some times admin action may be needed to solve these issues, this isn't usually the case. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, we could really use another admin's opinion here. There is an RM which has been running for six weeks without a close. Of the three admins that have looked at it, one closed it as "no consensus", then changed their mind and re-opened it. Two other admins participating in the discussion have differing opinions. So we're at the point where now we're having trouble finding a consensus among administrators, on whether there's an RM consensus... So we could really use another opinion or two, thanks! --Elonka 06:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

At first sight this may seem like a trivial dispute between competing names for an obscure art. For that reason I would really hope that we can find an admin (or several) who is willing to invest some time in understanding what this dispute is all about rather than just doing a 'drive-by' close. To do this will require taking time to understand the arguments put by the various participants and the checking the quality of the cited sources and what they actually say actually say. It is not an exceptionally arduous task but in my opinion it needs doing to get to the bottom of the dispute. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That article is under ArbCom restrictions. I doubt there is anything simple about it. Rmhermen (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but in the hope of attracting some uninvolved admins, I will mention that the Arbcom case was a very minor matter (by Arbcom standards). It was needed only because there are two editors with a commercial interest in the name of the article, and certain limited topic bans were established. There is no drama. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was taken by Martin Hogbin to have my partial topic ban (could talk by not edit Tree shaping or related articles) to become a complete ban on this subject. The result was my ban was changed to a very narrow ban, and I am now allowed to edit the subject. Unfortunately due to issues in real life Arbcom didn't look at the evidence against filing editors behavior. So no the RM is not just a simple case. Blackash have a chat 03:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Having been a peanut gallery observer of the ArbCom case, and the fact that several of the editors directly involved in that case are both here and at the requested move discussion. Having read the reasoning I'm thinking that there is a very thin or almost no-consensus. As such I really don't think a page move would be appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask if we can have an admin who will actually listen to and understand the arguments and assess their conformity to WP policy and then decide if there is sufficient reason to overturn a 2/3 majority decision. Arbcom asked us to have an RfM to get new opinion, we did that and we got the new opinion, it was unanimous. What is the point of having an RfM if the decision of the new editors is completely ignored? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Could someone take a look at the RM close I did at Talk:Sega_Genesis_and_Mega_Drive#Requested_move? See also the discussion here. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 14:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a good close, for my money. I've been thinking of doing it, and I would have made the same call you did. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Could I ask you, then, why the concerns of the opposers were not considered persuasive enough to defeat the move? Powers ^T 13:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking me? I think it's been an issue for a long, long time, and this might be a good compromise. I see lots of good arguments made, and after all that's been said, I think this solution is worth a try. I'm not a fan of endless disputes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(In case Powers is asking me!) Like I said on my talk page, there are no strong policy based arguments on either side, so it's not a question of ignoring the concerns of the opposers. Based on the post move discussion on the article talk page, it would appear that the vast majority of editors are willing to accept the new title and move on, which supports both my conclusion as well as that of GTBacchus above. May I suggest the seeking of other means of dispute resolution if you believe that the article is incorrectly titled. --regentspark (comment) 20:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I would like some help covering Wikipedia-related topics on my Essay, which is intended to discuss current issues and the future of Wikipedia. I ask the admins' desk mainly because this page is accessed by some of the most experienced editors on the project who can suggest possible areas of focus. The essay will mostly focus on general issues, WP:FAIL vs. WP:LOVE and the recent decline in new editors and the focus on "civility, maturity, responsibility", rather than any specific past scandals or problems.

To clarify:

• I am asking for help on possible topics, rather than direct assistance in writing the content
• This is to be a userspace essay for the moment being

Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Try the village pump as well. And try and write the essay before asking for comments on it. Also, look around and use the search function to find how other people organise themselves and pick up ideas from them. My advice would be to find the right balance between organisation and action. Too many people spend time writing long 'to do' lists they never start let alone finish. Sometimes you have to just get on and do things, and take time out occasionally to assess, set targets, and try and set your efforts within a larger picture. i.e. Don't overplan, but don't underplan as well. Different people balance this in different ways. Carcharoth (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The article Shawn Chrystopher (rapper) was created April of this year by apparently a suspected sock puppet, probably because Shawn Chrystopher was full protected in 2008 for CSD (full log here [66]). I'm not sure full protection was necessary for 2 spaced out CSD deletions. I noticed this though when NPP and finding Silent Films For The Blind, a new album page.

Long story short... we should at least unprotected Shawn Chrystopher and move Shawn Chrystopher (rapper) to there, and then perhaps do some evaulation of if this page meets notability criteria, and if there's any sock puppetry involved. That would also weigh on the propriety of Silent Films For The Blind, which itself isn't all that great at the moment. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I moved Shawn Chrystopher (rapper) to Shawn Chrystopher; since the page is clearly not an A7 candidate any more, it was rather a no-brainer. Feel free to PROD/AfD the article as necessary, of course. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Good morning :)!

I would like to speak with you about an app' that i created yet. It is an animated gif that i posted on commons.

You write into the box ( 1) the name of an article (target) in wikipedia and (2) a question about this article.

Look :

[[:File:Did you know.gif|right|120px|thumb| [[Human Torch (android) (1) |What is the first Marvel Comics-owned superhero appeared in Marvel Comics #1 (Ocober 1939)? (2) ] ]

I am sure that wikipedia would be more insteresting with it. Don't you? : )

[[:File:Did you know.gif|right|120px|thumb| What is the first Marvel Comics-owned superhero appeared in Marvel Comics #1 (Ocober 1939)? ]]

Thank you very mutch.

Best reguards and have fun ! : )

Bastien Sens-Méyé (discuss) 12:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest starting a new topic here at the Village Pump. The Administrators' Noticeboard is not the right place for it. Until you get some agreement from others in this animation, I strongly suggest that you DON'T use it any more in articles. As far as I can see it hasn't been welcomed in articles where you have placed it, and I agree with other editors that it's distracting. Please do wait for feedback from others before implementing it further. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, my friend! I hope you will participate to this discuss on the link that you send to me. Best reguards! Bastien Sens-Méyé discuss 13:55, 3 october 2011 (CEST)

Can someone tell me if the deletion log for Kevin Lowe (lacrosse) is from a speedy, prod or something else?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy. It was a test page that said Kevin Lowe is cool. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that was the case, but the edit summary was not clear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to see here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved An anon editor is making edits similar to those of a banned user. I rollback: he undoes my rollback again. Where should I report it? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC) 86.181.184.224 (talk · contribs), an obvious IP of Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs), has been blocked and a couple semi-protections have been laid. Redrose64, take this guy straight to WP:AIV and you should get quick results. — Scientizzle 16:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks for that --Redrose64 (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please delete File:Bill2.png, see history, thanks--Musamies (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The article Hitler's Pope containes the following text "Some commentators have characterized the book as having since been "debunked".[2][3][4][5]" There is no doubt that particular points of the book had been subject criticism (most obviously the very title) and these are included in the article. I cannot find in the cited text that the whole book has "been debunked" so I deleted the text with the reasons given in the edit summary. This was reverted and following an unproductive exchange with the editor who reverted I placed an appeal on the article talk page asking if anyone would please paste the text on the talk which substantiates that the book has been "debunked"[67]. On receiving no reply I proceeded to delete the text once again but user Mammalujo has reinserted it on the basis that "Deletion of well sourced text did not fail verification and is against consensus"[68]. In terms of bias I am no defender of Cornwell's book and particular dislike it's title but it seems to be stretching it to say that Ronald Rychlak who is cited as having debunked the book himself uses Cornwell as a reliable source on numerous occasions in his own book (at least seventy times) even though he has a separate chapter detailing his objections to those issues he disagrees with in Cornwell's book. The editor in question appears to have had a number of accusations relating to his use of sources but these have been deleted from his user talk page. I don't know how to proceed and any help would be appreciated to break a cycle of reverts.Yt95 (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Try WP:RSN. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, could someone close this overdue AfD? Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that this AfD was ever transcluded properly. I'm going to relist it and post it. — Scientizzle 19:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Danke.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I need an admin to do a history split of Ángel Chávez. At one point it was an article about a baseball player but then came a very odd twist and it became an article about a painter who's a completely different person. So I'm asking for an admin to delete the article and then to restore the new half to a new title and restore the old half to the current title. Cloveapple (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I put the article about the painter at Ángel Chávez (painter) and left Ángel Chávez with its old content plus a hatnote. Feel free to move the pages to other titles, if necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Cloveapple (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Just passing this on. URLs like https://en.wikipedia.org now work. Existing external links to Wikipedia such as [69] are automatically substituted -- even though you paste an insecure diff link, MW will change it to https if that's what you are using. Don't forget to update your bookmarks, user scripts, stylesheets, bots, bot frameworks and tools accordingly.

Discuss this at WP:VPT#Native HTTPS support enabled. MER-C 05:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Now all I have to do is wait for the Firefox addons to be updated. →Σ ⚑  ☭  05:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin like to have a look at this with a view to closing it, as someone who supported extending the ban, it is clear that there is no consensus for that and keeping it open is unlikely to change that. Mtking ^(edits) 08:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I concur from the other side of the fence. This poll needs to be closed to allow contributors to move on to the more informed and open discussions/polls further down the page. This is part of a very thorny issue for the community and we could really do with some admin support to maintain the current calm and constructive discussions going. Thanks. Fmph (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a triumvirate ala the China move close which seems to have been accepted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is one admin not enough here? If a grouping of admins is needed, you only need a few to comment on or endorse another admin's closure, as is sometimes done at complex DRVs or MfDs. Also, the Macedonia naming dispute poll was overseen by a grouping of admins, and there are other examples as well (the triumvirate idea is not really that new, it has been suggested and used several times over the years). But (eventually, if that is what is decided should happen) any actual move discussions should be decided by community comment and vote (as was done at the end of the Ireland naming case and following the Macedonia case). The role of any admins would only be to oversee the process. Carcharoth (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Because using it at China probably saved you guys an Arbcom case - and getting three people to close that discussion has significantly reduced the number of complaints. Given this topic is also controversial it seems reasonable to use it here. Maybe this particular bit of the process isn't controversial enough - but I think later parts of the process are likely to be controversial enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"you guys"? I don't see any arbitrators around here. The point is that ArbCom appointed people to oversee the Macedonia process and to oversee the Ireland naming discussion/polls (I was an arbitrator at the time, but I'm not now). A moratorium on move discussions in the Ireland case was put in place for two years and largely seems to have worked. The same process could be repeated. Why switch from the previous ArbCom-initiated process to an ad hoc triumvirate system? I'm not saying that a triumvirate system doesn't have its place, but I don't think it would have helped with the Macedonia case or the Ireland case. Sometimes you need structured and lengthy, supervised discussions that actually get somewhere, rather than a single, possibly not well-publicised or well-attended discussion closed by a triumvirate, the result of which may not actually last as long as you think. Using the example of the China discussion close to push triumvirates as the solution to all move discussion ills is naive. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately ArbCom are very hands-off at the moment and are engaged in a watching brief. Fmph (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the project have two ArbCom-appointed moderators? There are two listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. If they are no longer active, then perhaps others should be appointed? DrKiernan (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think those admins see themselves as being 'in-charge' anymore. I do agree that having a triumvirate would be nice, but actually at this point in time a single admin would be a huge help. Fmph (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is clear the initial poll on extending the ban does not have support. However the second poll which asked about support for the status quo shows an overwhelming majority support the present setup. There is therefore no justification for making any page moves, and the second poll should be closed. and we can come back to this matter in a couple of months time if the same small group of people opposed to the setup for years wish to carry on with the dispute. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the china move, there was a clear split over what the community supported, so 3 admins came to an agreement and a change was implemented. that is not the situation we are in with the Ireland article. 2 years ago, a massive poll was conducted by the community, which involved many who had never been involved in the dispute before and came from non Ireland related articles. The ban was imposed by arbcom and the situation has been stable for those 2 years. Now there has been a new debate, and a new survey conducted which clearly shows by more than 2:1, support for the status quo. It would be totally unreasonable and unfair, for 3 admins to be treated as some sort of Gods to come along and overrule the very very clear view of the majority, the status quo and the commonsense option. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe its not needed in this case, I haven't looked at the arguments. I was thinking though that as a strategy it might well make sense if the ban isn't going to be continued. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to create the following page Leib­niz In­sti­tu­te of Agri­cul­tu­ral De­ve­lop­ment in Cen­tral and Eas­tern Eu­ro­pe but the system did not let me do it claiming The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. Please help me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuslanAduk (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Your above name string is full of soft hyphens which are only displayed if the line wraps there. Don't use them in Wikipedia. Here is a clean string without soft hyphens: Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe. You can copy-paste that and create the page (assuming you don't have some software which automatically adds soft hyphens again). PrimeHunter (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Or just use the link Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to a VPP thread on content dispute resolution, I've posted up some thoughts I've had for a long time set out in bullet form. I think they identify some major themes underpinning our more difficult content disputes. I also propose ways to explore making a difference without "freezing" content and without creating "content arbitration".

Link

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed link above. WP:VPP links to the policy pump, and your thread appears to be on the proposals pump, WP:VPR. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 10 October 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

All admins when you make blocks manually remove the person you've blocked from AIV for the time. Thank you. Kwsn (Ni!) 14:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Bot is back, closing. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie, which has been open since 20 August 2011? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), for reading and preparing a close for this RfC. Please note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226#BLP topic ban for La goutte de pluie, which I don't see mentioned at the RfC. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What's funny is that I just decided on my own to close that because I noticed it had been in the box at the top of ANI for a long time. I didn't see these postings till just now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

1. User:Tenmei is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
2. Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.
3. Tenmei is banned for one year.
4. User:Bobthefish2 is topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and user space.
5. User:STSC is warned to avoid any sexualisation of discussions, especially during disputes.
6. The parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.
7. The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly, is placed under standard discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
8. An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in East Asia, broadly interpreted, under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands.

   While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

When being accused, am I guilty and having to prove my innocence on Wikipedia? Or is it the other way around? Cause it sure feels like that here. I've done some research into an old group called Technocracy. It is pretty interesting to me, which is why I'm researching it still, but does that automatically portray me as a Meat or Sock puppet of someone else? I tried to meet middle ground on an edit war which occurred on the Technocracy Movement article. It was immediately reverted and I was accused of being a sock puppet and meat puppet of another user who was banned a few years ago. It also happened 7 months back when I was another user talk which you can see I expressed on my talk page....and from that user page you could find who I was when I didn't have an account. I think my edits were neutral and at the time seem non controversial. Until I kept on getting reverted and labeled a sock/meat puppet of the same user I mentioned earlier. I just want to know is this how wikipedia operates because it makes it very difficult to even contribute to something you seem lacking in encyclopedic material. That is why I started editing there. Because when I was researching the group and information related to Technocracy I found there was quite a bit of wrong information and even material that seemed very negative. Like calling the organization "fascistic" here [[70]]. I've even tried to talk about the issues on the talk board and still get zero responses from the editors who are reverting and accusing me. Googlesalot2 (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I also think it's weird how three editors are working in collusion against me. That seems like the strangest thing of all. I remember one editor named epipelagic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Epipelagic who came from nowhere last time and accused me of the same thing. He never edited on the articles before when I was in conflict with user Johnfos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnfos 7 or so months ago. Now another user Larwencekhoo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawrencekhoo is now putting a tag of sock puppetry on my account. My edits ARE NOT EVEN NEGATIVE, POSITIVE, OR CONTROVERSIAL and I'm being labeled a sock puppet!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googlesalot2 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your motives for editing here are the same as many of us: we Googled something that led us to WP and it was wrong, we realized we could influence that wrongness, and now we're here. But since Googlesalot (talk · contribs) is not blocked (and you admit this is also you), why would you feel the need to create Googlesalot2? You're probably not supposed to do that without an official name change. You explain on your page that it's because you like the number "2". That could sound like an odd reason to some people. Doc talk 07:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in the rules that says someone can't abandon an account and create a new one. People actually do that all the time. As long as the editor isn't evading a block/ban it should be fine. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've actually lost my password a long time ago and didn't really bother to try and get it back mainly because of how I was treated previously when I was User: Googlesalot. I choose my current name to establish who I was and because 2 is actually my lucky number. When I registered this account about a week ago I was going to edit an article but just gave up, again, because of how I was treated the first time I came here. A week later I saw an article on the wall street journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576572552998674340.html(discussing technocracy) and decided to check and see if the technocracy article was improved and low and behold, there was an edit war occurring. Googlesalot2 (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see what the editors who have been accusing you of sockpuppetry have to say, so I have notified them of this thread. 28bytes (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think some history is in order here. Some years ago we had two editors, acting in tandem, who strongly pushed a pro-technocracy POV on Wikipedia; the editors were Skipsievert (talk · contribs), who was indef blocked in November 2009 (see here) and AdenR (talk · contribs). In February 2011, we again had two pro-technocracy editors acting in tandem who engaged in disruptive POV pushing at Technocracy movement and Technocracy Incorporated; the editors were FidelDrumbo (talk · contribs) and Googlesalot (talk · contribs). And now we again have two pro-technocracy editors acting in tandem who have engaged in disruptive POV pushing at various Technocracy-related articles; the editors are FidelDrumbo (talk · contribs) and Googlesalot2 (talk · contribs). The pattern of editing is the same in each case, only the names are different. Johnfos (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

To read what Googlesalot2 has said above you would think that he is one of the best editors we have on WP, not a WP:SPA. G has said several times above that his edits are non-controversial, but that is far from the truth. Consider this edit. POV pushing is evident in that anything that may have portrayed the limitations of technocracy has simply been removed from the page. The statement that technocracy reached its peak in the early 1930s has been removed, and G generally portrays the technocracy movement as a vibrant going concern in 2011. Reliable sources have been removed. The edit summary does not adequately describe what has been done. As often happens, Googlesalot2, has directed any editors who disagree with what he has done to the Talk page; a better approach is to discuss controversial changes on the Talk page before they are made. Johnfos (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

To add to Johnfos's history, the background disruption extends well beyond technocracy articles into sustainability and economic areas. Lawrencekhoo (above) has experience with the disruption to economic articles. In the sustainability area, the massive disruption of Skipsievert and his later partnership with AdenR is apparent in these talk page archives. Skipsievert stymied progress on this particular article for over a year, co-opting AdenR as the pressure built. You can quickly get the flavour of this disruption by searching on Skipsievert in this archive. To get another perspective on just how destructive Skipsievert is to the project, here are some ANIs about him: [71][72][73][74] and here are some other postings to noticeboards: [75][76][77][78][79][80] As Johnfos points out above, FidelDrumbo/Googlesalot now operate on technocracy articles with the same MO as Skipsievert/AdenR. Skipsievert and FidelDrumbo both occasionally resort to IP edits when they want to do additional reverts, and the location of those IPs match. Googlesalot appears just in the nick of time when FidelDrumbo needs him, just as AdenR did, in a manner that cannot just be coincidence. That is why I referred to Googlesalot as a meatpuppet. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC) FidelDrumbo has just now reverted the Technocracy movement article back to his POV, with an edit comment typical of the way Skipsievert games the system. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't "tandem" edit or "POV" push. If I have, then by the same logic I can accuse you of the same thing. I've have talked on the talk pages and have actively tried to discuss issues on the talk pages. Lawrencekhoo, epipelagic, and you haven't done anything of the sort. You tandem edit with both editors in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Epipelagic and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawrencekhoo. You all revert to same disputed material. You even revert small edits when the wording of the material is changed to meet neutrality. Like this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technocracy_movement&diff=453158380&oldid=452957615.

I've already had a talk with user Johnphos on the administrator board when I was accused of being a sock puppet. [[81]] That should be looked into for some history as well. I Want to continue the conversation from the past noticeboard material as it has some relevance here. User epipelagic came out of no where and started accusing me. He edited on the Technocracy movement article for the first time (twice) [[82]] [[83]] and then accused me of being a sockpuppet in the same day. [[84]].

I honestly think these users are working together to obstruct progress on the technocracy articles. They obviously knew or where in contact with user:skip and now want to "get back" by POV pushing negative material in the Technocracy articles.

I want to thank Johphos for actually trying to discuss the issues on the technocracy article. Thank you. Why can't you do that on the talk page? Here's a the quote in question.

Technocracy's heyday lasted only from June 16, 1932, when the New York Times became the first influential press organ to report its activities, until January 13, 1933, when Scott, attempting to silence his critics, delivered a rambling, confusing, and uninspiring address on a well-publicized nationwide radio hookup

I think the quote is fine except for the second part which is a bit strange to have. I'm guessing it's okay to put on the article since it is quoted material...but I thought any quoted material can be deleted if it is disputed? I'd be fine if it was written more neutrally and not a direct quote. Googlesalot2 (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Johnphos has an ax to grind as to controlling some articles connected to that subject. I am not connected to any former parties mentioned, my account is not.

Apparently if anyone shows up on Wikipedia to edit the Technocracy related articles they have to put up with edit warring from Johnphos and his cohorts already mentioned by another editor here in a negative light as to their editing.

Looking at the history here it seems that Johphos does not like having a neutral presentation of the material on the Technocracy movement and the articles on the founding organization was repeatedly attempted by Johnphos to delete. The most notable group connected to Technocracy, he wanted to get rid of the article entirely. His arguments of those articles for deletion he created himself is telling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Technocracy_Incorporated ... it appears he is casting around for negative and non neutral edits on this subject.

Looking at another player who reverts and edit wars there is a pattern of making as negative of an article on this subject as is possible.

Calling an organization fascist that is still around or editing to imply fascism is not accurate. The actual group was against fascism http://www.archive.org/details/GreatLakesTechnocrat-JulyAugust1947 but that information by some source keeps returning that they were a fascist group somehow. It is libelous maybe to a currently running group or at least not accurate at all to present it that way, not neutral.

Simple things like saying 'demise' of something is reverted. Demise means death or of something being over, and as an historic organization from the 1930's that is still around again it is not accurate to say it demised itself in the 1930's but that is the edit that is being negatively done by Johnphos. Read this article by a government website about the current status of that group, scroll down to the Technocracy section in the social security government website, these are the kinds of links that Johnphos has taken off http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Johnphos does not seem to care on neutral editing this material, to have articles controlled by little groups that want to slant things negatively and then accuse of socks and puppets and so forth when challenged, instead of making talk page discussion.

Johnphos who claims to be retired mostly from editing is a constant watchdog of putting old and not accurate info back into this article and as said tried a couple of times to have other articles connected deleted and does not contribute on the talk page as the other two people he edits with also do not. Wikipedia is a joke in many ways when tiny editing parties try to control presentation and then claim those that differences are part of an editing plot. Mostly I have ignored his insults and accusations but was alerted on my talk page to come here.

Looking at the history of Lawrence Khoo on these articles also being mentioned as a tandem editor with Johnphos it seems that he is a mainstream economist in the real world who also is enforcing negative edits and possibly is disgruntled by differing information from his published points of view. That seems pretty wrong if true and a problem with experts that try to control info on en. Wikipedia seems like a bad wrinkle and a non neutral trap. In other words its a competing system from his views and he seems to regard it with disdain and negative not accurate edits. Fidel Drumbo 04:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

The three users are now trailing my edits and reverting for no good reasons. What am I supposed to do with this behavior? Is this even allowed? Can I just revert anyone on the assumption that I think they are tandem editors? Here [[85]] on the Technical Alliance article, user:Johnphos has reverted my edits that includes reliably sourced material and then accused me of being a sock puppet. Here's another revert done by user:Lawrencekhoo [[86]] who also calls me a sock puppet. They are obviously working together. Is this allowed on Wikipedia? Groups can work together and accuse other editors without even discussing the edits in question?Googlesalot2 (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think FD and G have gotten carried away with themselves, and that what has happened with the technocracy articles on WP is very sad. There are no doubt well-meaning people with a genuine interest in technocracy, and I respect that. And I wonder what they must think of what has gone on here. I wouldn’t be surprised if they think that the very acrimonious and public controversy which has been perpetuated here by just two editors is a terrible advertisement for the technocracy movement. Johnfos (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think what you and your other two friends have done is a terrible advertisement for Wikipedia in general. Also, what do opinions on the perception of the technocracy movement have anything to do with the issues brought up on this board? The issues are that you and your two Wikipedia friends User: Lawrencekhoo and User:epipelagic are accusing an editor(me) of sock puppetry on nothing but flimsy opinions. You revert my edits which should't be controversial, and if they are then you three should at least talk about the issues on the talk page or at least revert the edits you contend instead of the whole revert. I honestly can't understand how you can come on here and talk about what I have done on the wikipedia articles as "very sad" when you barely try to work on the issues you believe I've done. I've tried to meet middle ground when you were editing warring with user:Fideldrumbo by just fixing two edits I saw as bad encyclopedic material. Like the "fascist implications" and the "rambling, confusing radio address quote". I immediately get reverted by your friend user:epipelagic instead of discussing it on the talk page which I have ask you all to do. All I get from you three is no responses and you guys just revert my edits. I've even tried to talk to you and user epipelagic directly and you guys just ignore me or delete your message off your talk pages. What kind of constructive behavior is that! This is why I believe you guys have some serious axes to grind that you must accuse an editor of sock puppetry just so you can keep the article to YOUR liking. When this is WIKIPEDIA where users can edit freely. It sure doesn't feel welcoming of Wikipedia to have to go to an article, edit and then get accused of sock puppetry from nowhere. Googlesalot2 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There is clear behavioral evidence that FidelDrumbo and Googlesalot are socks. For example, Skipsievert used to insinuate that editors he was edit warring against were 'under investigation' by Wikipedia for bad behavior, just as FidelDrumbo did here. And here, FidelDrumbo goes to Skipsievert's talk page to remove an ANI notice. Googlesalot also shows amazingly good knowledge of Wikipedia's workings and terms for a supposedly new editor that has made a total of 43 edits for both accounts (including talk page edits, this ANI report and page reverts). I have filed a detailed SPI report on this matter. Please see here. LK (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification, when LK says above that "FidelDrumbo and Googlesalot are socks" he doesn't mean they are socks of each other. The position is that Skipsievert/FidelDrumbo are socks of each other, and AdenR/Googlesalot/Googlesalot2 are socks of each other. From the behavioural evidence, there can be no doubt that is the case. In addition, AdenR+ clearly behaves as a meatpuppet of Skipsievert+. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. So I must be in cohorts because I know how to read and file complaints as was done previously to me when I was labeled a sock puppet 7 or so months back? I guess learning from others is an experienced editor thing? And apparently reading some articles every now and then on how to edit Wikipedia and applying that knowledge also makes me guilty? Now, after reading what I'm really accused of...which is a sock puppet of a probable sock puppet or meat puppet(AdenR) of skip seivert(was he a sock puppet too?), this is honestly becoming a circus. I'm not going to argue this anymore. It's sad. I'm not connected to any other users. I'm surprised admins haven't blocked you three or made a notice or something. I guess I don't really understand how Wikipedia works. I probably won't edit here again...maybe every now and then(won't lose my password this time, I might have to go through this all over again!). Heck, maybe another user will get accused as well of being a sock puppet of a sock puppet of a sock puppet cause they want to edit a few things on the Technocracy articles. Way to ruin Wikipedia LK for others. I guess only serviced editors of Wikipedia are allowed to edit articles. Tell your friends Johnphos and Epipelagic what I said for my defense on the SPI report. I'm done here. Thanks. Googlesalot2 (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This post from Googlesalot2 mirrors beautifully in manner and grammar the style of AdenR, see for example. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Case concluded here --Epipelagic (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin close Talk:Pregnancy#Lead image RfC per the request at Talk:Pregnancy#Uninvolved admin to close RfC? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to take this one although I'll set aside half a day. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a detailed closing rationale for your decision. Cunard (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if I should have started a new thread. Seeing how this is a somewhat different issue I decided to do so. If I'm wrong and/or doing it in the wrong place, please forgive me. Before I begin I want to make sure you understand that I used to be three editors in total. I have also listed who I was previously on all my user/talk pages. First I was user 68.226.118.248, then Googlesalot and now me. Googlesalot2 (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm having issues with three editors Johnfos, Epipelagic, and LK. They have reverted my edits in tandem and have accused me of being a sock puppet in tandem. Here's the evidence [Epipelagic reverting me and name calling] [Johnfos reverting me and name calling] [Lawrencekhoo reverting me and name calling] This is in obvious conflict with Wikipedia's assume good faith guidelines and seems to be "tandem editing"(if that's an investigation I could bring up). I'm not sure about the rules on tandem editing as I have not found any articles on that yet.

'Johnphos'

This editor has shown considerable signs of pushing his POV. For example, I've raised issues of this on the Technocracy Incorporated talk page starting here I brought up a legitimate issue from the standpoint that a particular piece of information was confusing and not really appropriate for the article. It contained references to authoritarianism and fascism when the group specifically denies such claims as I proved on the talk page. [Here's a link] of the original material user Johnfos put into the article. There's no explanation as to why or what 'implications' it was referring to. The material was also explaining an aspect of the Technocracy Movement and not the organization specifically which made the material pointless in the article. He gave a small reply with no reasonable argument to defend his edit and ended up reverting me anyway. He then puts a POV tag on the article and explains it here. Apparently he views any criticism of his edits as "POV" pushing and doesn't support his edits in any meaningful way. He also criticized other material I put here as unreliable when it comes from a University Archive Newsletter and a New Scientist article. He then responds here and starts off the response with I think if you want to be taken seriously.... He then deletes huge sections of the article, including reliably sourced material from me and another one introduced by another editor that comes from the Social Security government website [87]

Epipelagic

This editor comes from nowhere and reverts the same material user Johnfos contended [here] and within 24 hours labeled me as a sock puppet along with user Johnfos [here] Now that I'm back he is continually claiming I'm a sock puppet of a possible sock puppet along with user Johnfos(yet again) and this time another editor name Lawrencekhoo.

Lawrencekhoo

This editor was already editing briefly on the technocracy articles. Then out of nowhere again he claims me as a sock puppet of a possible sock puppet [[88]] He also reverts to the same material Johnfos and Epipelagic contest. LK is currently trying to merge the Technocracy Incorporated article with the Technocracy Movement article. Which has been tried and failed by user Johnfos when he tried to delete the Technocracy Incorporated article here

These editors are obviously working together to, IMO, censor or negatively present material related to Technocracy that is not inline with their views. I'm wondering what actions I could possibly take to stop this behavior and in the process protect future users from this type of horrendous behavior. Googlesalot2 (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the 3 listed users. If I missed anyone feel free to notify them for me. →Στc. 08:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Being accused of sock/meat puppet with no solid evidence.-gadfium 08:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking as well. Except I wasn't accusing them of tandem editing until I realized how coordinated they were. After reading up on some Wikipedia information I think I should try to call for a topic ban for those three editors. They have not tried to discuss any of the issues on the talk page except for Johnfos. And overall have been disruptive in the editing of those articles such as deleting reliably sourced material and name calling. Googlesalot2 (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be WP:DUCK case. The pattern of disruptive editing and accusing of opponents by FidelDrumbo and Googlesalot is very similar to that what skipsievert and AdenR have done. Beagel (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Something I did not think at the beginning but now I understand why it seemed so familiar: the only other editor who have spelled user:Johnfos' name as 'Johnphos' has been skipsievert. [89] and [90] are proves of it. Beagel (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Case concluded here --Epipelagic (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to create a new article for Karin Kloosterma​n. Whenever I click on that, and choose the "Create this page" tab, I get the message:

Unauthorized

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The page title that you have attempted to create contains a non-breaking space or other unusual space character. Such characters should not normally be used in page titles. Please replace them with ordinary spaces and try again. If you got here by clicking on a red link in an article, you should go back and fix the link first.

If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, or if you receive this message when attempting to edit an existing page, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you.

So, what's going on? I never had this problem before when creating articles. There is nothing unusual about the title. Dream Focus 11:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the letter "a" in "man", which is not a regular "a" (click on your redlink then look at the url) - try Karin Kloosterman instead. Bencherlite^Talk 11:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I copy and pasted the name from somewhere. It loads up exactly the same in Firefox. I don't see any difference at all. Dream Focus 11:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the computer does — you've got a zero-width space between the final two characters of the last name, and Wikipedia articles can't include them, except of course for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E2%80%8B&redirect=no. The "a" is the same as normal. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's what it is! I saw the code junk before the final letter and assumed the problem was the penultimate letter - hadn't seen a zero-width space before. Mind you, they're probably hard to spot, not having any width... Bencherlite^Talk 11:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, problem solved, thank you. I successfully created the article at Karin Kloosterman‎. Dream Focus 11:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user userpage User:Teach4Morocco, out of scope.--Musamies (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You can just tag stuff like that G11, you know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I posted a template for assistance some time ago and my request has yet to be properly addressed. Could somebody please glance over here? Thank you. SplashScreen (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Colonel Warden has snow closed 19 hours early Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics. At least 2 editors before he last logged in queried him of his decision. He had not replied.

I ask the reopening of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics and let the afd run it's course and let an admin close the discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Point of information: Spartaz has reclosed the discussion as keep (not snow/speedy keep). It was still a little early. LadyofShalott 13:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible for this AfD to be either closed or relisted? Thanks. SuperMarioMan 14:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to User:Beyond My Ken closing User:Ludwigs2's proposal above to allow refactoring of other people's comments, Ludwigs2 has refactored Beyond My Ken's closing comment. This is beyond pointy, IMO. I reverted this once, Ludwigs2 reinstated the refactoring, so I now turn it over to this board to handle. 28bytes (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted it again. I don't think there is any way to defend substantively changing the closing statement and leaving it to appear as if the statement was still made by the closer. Monty₈₄₅ 21:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If he does it again, he'll be blocked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I am asking 2 things:

1. Please warn and block the anon user here who keeps vandalizing Wikipedia. This anon user has been warned and reported to admins already but he/she keeps doing it.

2. Please protect economy of Iran indefinitely so that only established users can edit it.

Thanks. SSZ (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Two edits in as many months isn't generally enough to earn a block. You're free to warn him yourself. If there's something else going on, please point it out.
2. I'm seeing far too much editing by IPs to be comfortable putting a semi on that article. Of the last 50 edits, the vast majority are by IPs, and I don't see the massive levels of vandalism that would be required to justify removing their ability to edit the page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lifebaka. The article is a GA, but there is hardly enough disruption to warrant protection. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please delete File:Kirstie Alley DWTS.jpg, there plenty of hits of same picture in the internet.--Musamies (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Camw (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Page User:Black Peak will be wrong place, please move it users, sub-page area.--Musamies (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Moved to User:Black Peak/sandbox. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Per wp:TALKNEW, major headings should not be used to be critical of or attack other editors, and should generally not be addressed to specific editors. Hat headings are major headings, and the header below violates all three of those principles. It's childish that BeyondMyKen felt the need to do this in the first place, absurd that he was pugnacious enough to continue doing it after I changed it, and thoroughly disgusting that other editors support the act. If this kind of trolling can occur on wp:AN, then it surely explains a whole lot of what's wrong with wikipedia. useless crapulence… --Ludwigs2 22:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction: I did not revert L2's refactoring of my closing comment, other editors did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It was not accurate to claim that there simply was no consensus. The irony of your getting upset at having the discussion hatted away by a bold editor is staggering. siafu (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus here for Ludwig2's proposal, which should have been brought up in a more appropriate venue. There is no request for admin action pending. Non-admin hatting by Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to establish the legitimacy of a (for obvious reasons) disputed talk-page action. Note that is about the action I would like to take in general, not about the particular situation or the actions of the other participants, so I have not notified them and expect no action from administrators with regard to them or the page in question (and I don't really want to bring them into it, because it would just transfer a personal dispute over here - no sense in that). This is just used as an example of a general concept that I want permission for. The action in question is the in-line archiving of trouble-making statements. example as follows: I ask that we find an admin to close an expired RfC (one that's been trouble-ridden) [94] and editor responds with a valid comment that is wrapped in innuendos and personal attacks (a reasonable assertion that RfC's are not votes, preceded by accusations that the request is provocative, unhelpful, and inappropriate, and followed by the suggestion that I am somehow violating wikipedia procedures) [95] a couple of posts later, I obscure the offensive material with an in-line template (as well as removing my own somewhat pithy response to it), without changing the meaning of the post. [96] Note that this is already technically allowable under wp:TPO, wp:TPNO and wp:RPA, it just hasn't been legitimized as a practice. That's what I want to address. The reasons I would like this legitimized are two-fold: On the community side: comments like that add nothing to the page: they are at best ad hominem gambits designed to prejudice uninvolved readers against one side of the discussion and at worst efforts at BAITing intended to enrage an opponent. They really have no place on talk pages anywhere, and do nothing except gum up the page with defensive explanations and counter-accusations. On the personal side: while I am generally level-headed, I have a very bad temper if I get pushed far enough, and when I lose my temper it inevitably gets exceedingly ugly (that's just a fact; sorry). It would do a lot to help keep me from reaching that point if I were allowed to obscure insulting comments of this sort. Obscuring the insult precludes the need to respond to the nonsense and allows me to focus on the productive aspects of the discussion. Of course, this would apply all ways; I would have no problem with someone doing the same to my posts, so long as they were careful not to change the meaning of what I say. If this were legitimized as a matter of consensus it would not need administrator intervention (not much, anyway). The distinction between content-related material and personal commentary is not all that blurry, and once the right to redact personal denigrations is established, editors can find a balance about what stays in talk and what is excised on their own (as opposed to the current situation, where editors will immediately revert to restore even the most insulting statements, and the effort to remove the insults often approaches the level of edit warring). All-in-all, it would make talk pages more congenial, and it would make me a much happier camper. win-win, as far as I'm concerned. Can we reach a consensus on this? --Ludwigs2 23:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC) This sort of behavior can, and has, also be used as a tactic for controlling or misrepresenting the conversation by selectively hiding certain parts and not others. Many editors, myself included, do not feel that editting of others' comments on talk pages is an acceptable behavior at all, except in very extreme cases, and as such this sort of behavior is more often than not an open invitation to talk page edit warring. Ludwigs2's own history of using hat-hiding on Talk:Pregnancy is an excellent example of this potential problem. The best response to baiting comments is to simply not bite, robbing the baiter of any effect or power. siafu (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Not uninvolved in the immediate history of Ludwig2's behavior on this point, but strongly disagree with refactoring, especially by the target. I used to try doing it between third parties, and results were mixed at best, and that was in a calmer time. I've since learned it is almost never (never say never, lest an impish deity make you eat your words) a good idea. Inevitably, the practice inflames passions and distracts editors, which is precisely the opposite of the goal of civility and personal attack policies. We don't need more invitations to people arguing about civility on Principal.--Tznkai (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Note: WP:ANI#User:Ludwigs2, User:HiLo48, User:Tznkai and Talk:Pregnancy.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC) It can also be used to clarify the conversation by removing tendentious or emotional material that gets in the way of the discussion. It is not difficult to see which is happening when it happens (anyone can tell whether a comment is about the content or about the editor), and if someone tries to abuse it it will not make the talk page any worse (the talk page is already in trouble if you have people trying to pull that kind of ploy). where's the downside? --Ludwigs2 00:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC) The downside is that people start accusing you of trying to control the conversation and edit warring to keep personal attacks and commentary in the talk page. Which makes it really obvious who is being disruptive, so that's not really so much of a downside now is it? But really truly, don't do it any more, at least not in this situation. Ignore, or report. And never, ever edit war to hat or remove personal attacks. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Well, in this specific case I'll refrain, as you prefer, but as a general principle I will continue to do it because I think it's a good idea. I'll even continue to encourage others to do it, and help them with ti if they don't quite get the principle. I understand the objection, mind you, just as I understand that petty thieves and bookmakers think that laws are an invasion of their freedom; it's just not a position I have a lot of sympathy for. At any rate, let's avoid the specific case (which isn't what I'm here about) and focus on the general case to see if we can reach some consensus about it. --Ludwigs2 03:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC) My impression as a complete outsider to this specific matter is that there is a consensus, you just don't like it and declare your intention to ignore it. Looie496 (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Clearly the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC) I'm not accustomed to ignoring things. There have been (so far) a small handful of people (I count 4, including you) who have commented, and some of those comments have been off topic. I see no consensus in that. If there's a discussion or consensus somewhere else that I am unaware of please provide a link so I can read it. Otherwise, you are simply expressing a personal perspective, which is just one small (but important) part of the consensus process. I swear, it's astonishing how many people on wikipedia think that merely declaring that there is a consensus is a valid substitute for intelligent discussion. It's like the project has somehow become a FOX News affiliate, except without the conservative bent. Interesting... Tragic, but interesting. --Ludwigs2 04:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC) The "downside", Ludwigs2, is what actually happened, when you used this approach. You might want to review that before asserting that this is a good idea. siafu (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC) The problem there, Siafu, is that I used it far too late in the discussion, after we'd all lost our tempers and had a huge, collective hissy-fit. At the point where I recovered my aplomb and tried to apply it I'd already engendered a whole lot of bad blood and was faced with editors who were dead-set on contradicting anything I did. Had I had the presence of mind to begin with it early in the discussion (back around the 6th of september, when people first started using mild personal comments as elements of their arguments), it would have been a different matter. People would have been less emotionally invested in the dispute, more willing to consider the idea that such comments were not in the best interests of the talk page, and disinclined to dogmatically edit war solely to keep rude personal comments in. After a discussion has reached the stage where editors firmly believe that attacking other editors is correct and necessary, nothing is going to save the page short of an admin stepping in with dire promises. Done early and conscientiously, however, this could have saved the page from making that decent into madness. Had someone applied this to my posts I would not have reverted. I might have adjusted their edit if I thought they removed too much, but I would never fight to maintain some supposed right to be rude to other editors. I think most of us would behave in the same way when we are in our right minds; it's only when we are in a fight that that kind of commentary seems meaningful and important. Anyone who really believes it is necessary to address the character or personality of another editor has user talk pages, Wikiquette, RfC/U, AN and ANI, and other venues in which to do that. There is no need for it in article talk, where it merely muddies the waters so that no effective content discussions can occur. I am asking to legitimize a practice by which we can moderate each other's behavior. If we are not permitted to moderate each other, then many pages will be (as many pages currently are) dominated by immoderate behavior. As Truman (I think) once reputedly said, the easiest way to win at politics is to call your opponent a pig-fucker and force him to deny it; He didn't say that approvingly, though, and we should not accept it as the wikipedia norm. --Ludwigs2 10:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Maybe I'm crazily out of step with the community, but it seems to me that if you're involved in the conversation, and especially if what you want to refactor is directed at you, then no way should you be editing that person's comments. If they're terrible, horrible attacks, raise the issue with an admin or a neutral third party, and see if they decide to carry out a redaction, but I can imagine no universe in which editing one's opponent's negative comments about oneself can end in any way but drama. Don't do it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Ok, I'll make one last (long) comment, and then I'll leave it to you all to discuss or ignore this as you see fit (unless there are particular questions aimed at me). Fluffernutter: by making that statement, you condemn certain pages to endless, vicious warfare. I know that's not your intention, but that is the inevitable (if unexpected) result of that particular belief. It is a matter of the nature of human social interaction. In normal social interactions, people have any number of mutual-moderation tactics, ones that are either biological or deeply rooted in pre-verbal socialization. You know this and you do this, regularly; there's not a question about it. if you are in a conversation with someone who begins to become emotionally stressed, you are quickly aware of it and you instinctively react - changing your body posture, your facial expressions, your vocal tone; making certain sounds (e.g. the ubiquitous 'small cough') or certain gestures (e.g. that palm-down 'chill-dude' hand gesture) - all in order to check the other's emotional outburst before it gets out of hand. I'm not even going to bother claiming that this is good or necessary: it's evolutionary. Infants are proficient at it by the time they are six months old, and it only gets more deeply rooted in us over time. On the internet, none of that works. None of it! All of the non-verbal cues that we implicitly rely on to moderate other people's emotions (and instinctively respond to so that others can moderate our own) are entirely absent. It's almost exactly like tearing the rudder off a ship. You may not see that the rudder is gone because it's below your level of perception, but it becomes significantly harder to steer a proper course in a conversation. Now, the majority of the time we manage, mostly because people don't get emotionally involved with topics all that often and most people are generally considerate of others as a matter of intellectual principle. But as soon as someone becomes emotionally attached to a position on Wikipedia, it is a line straight to hell, because all of our evolutionary mechanism for moderating others' emotions rely on the other person being able to see us, or hear us or be touched by us. Without those, we go back to more primal mechanisms for moderating others' emotions: the screeching, head-butting, feces-throwing tactics common among chimpanzees and other primates. What you're advocating, as reasonable as it sounds, is effectively (to coin a term) Wikicidal. It only works were people are capable of maintaining a strict division between their intellectual and emotional lives, and on certain topics and concepts (nudity being one, but I can also point to religious issues, political issues, social issues, even silly stuff like fringe science) there are going to be people who cannot separate their intellect from their emotions, and there is going to be conflict because talk pages lack all of the socio-biological cues that would normally tell such people they are stepping over the line. What you are left with in those situations is conflicts that escalate endlessly because no one (in the moment) can see that their behavior is out of line, because there is nothing to see except the righteousness of their own anger. This is the advantage of obscuration templates. It gives people something to see: a visible token that their actions are out of line. It's a surrogate for all the missing socio-biological cues. If it's legitimized as a practice, then people will quickly come to respond to it the same way they respond to a raised eyebrow or a hand gesture, and we will save endless amounts of trouble across the project. It's not a panacea, obviously, but it would certainly keep the sillier arguments (those that are based mostly in misperceptions and hurt feelings) from ever getting off the ground. I can't really explain it any better than that, and if you all still don't think it's a good idea… well, Wikipedia has had monkey-shit-throwing contests since day one, and we can continue to have them as long as you like. it frankly irritates the hell out of me - partly because I tend to work on pages where people tend to have strong emotional attachments (which gets me in a lot of trouble) and partly because I can't help but think that it's unbearably dumb to allow this to happen to otherwise reasonable discussions. I hear admins complain frequently about these kinds of kerfluffles, and I see these kinds of kerfluffles end up at ANI on a daily basis with no end in sight. I don't understand why you resist what might be a simple and straightforward way of snipping off many of these conflicts in the bud. But at the end of the day, as admins, it's always going to fall back on you: if you don't start encouraging something that stops these conflicts early, it's going to be one of you descending on a drama-ridden page to corral out-of-control disputes, and there will always be pages where that is necessary. It's your bed: you should make it the way you want it to be, because you're the ones who have to lie in it. --Ludwigs2 16:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Regarding using {{nono}} or hatting or similar on comments directed at you: per Tnzkai and Fluffernutter, this is almost guaranteed to make things worse. Don't do it. If it's a one-off then ignore it, if it's chronic then ask for help. Regarding using {{nono}} as a third party: I've done it a few times, with mixed results. The biggest problem is that it muddies the waters about what the dispute is about. If you use it as an uninvolved party, I'd really recommend not reinstating it if you're reverted by the original author, but going another route (warning/blocking) instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Floquenbeam (p.s. from edit conflict with my last post): I'm sorry, but I can't take that advice as written; it will put me in a position where I am likely to lose my temper, and I am trying to set up conditions where I can avoid that. I will compromise as follows, though: if I use this tactic I will redact once and revert once (if the redaction is reverted), and if it's reverted after that I will open an ANI case. The single revert is necessary, both to give the other person a chance to reflect on whether the removed material is really worth fighting over and to demonstrate at ANI that there is a determined effort to keep the defamatory material visible in talk. Is that acceptable? --Ludwigs2 16:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC) If your goal is to de-escalate the situation, as it sounds like you're explaining it to be, then no, that's probably not acceptable. Revert warring (planning to revert their reversion rather than discuss sounds a whole lot like "Hey, I'm going to edit war, but it's ok because I'll only do it once each time") over something that you have now been told (and seen for yourself) multiple times is likely to anger your opponents is never going to be helpful in making them less angry. More acceptable, though no more likely to calm down the situation, would be to say that you will redact once and then not again if someone objects to your action. Your opponent then would still be angry and inflamed by your redaction, but not more angered by your redacting and then fighting over it. Even better than what you're suggesting is is a simple solution: do not get into conflicts where you or your opponents are losing your tempers. If tempers flare, back away rather than throwing more fuel on the fire by editing your opponent's words. Ask for help from a neutral party, post on a noticeboard, go have a cup of tea...do anything but continue to engage in a situation where you can't hold your temper and want to take an action that you know will cause someone to lose theirs. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Fluff, I said the compromise I'm wiling to make, and I'm going to stand by it. You can support me on it or not, as you choose. I'm not going to be chased away from pages because I run across editors who are losing their tempers, and I'm going to do what I need to do to keep myself from losing my own temper, and those are the constraints I am trying to work within on-project. You can make that easier for me, or harder, but my mind is made up on this point. --Ludwigs2 21:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC) I more or less agree with Fluff here. People REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY don't like having their comments redacted, and I haven't ever seen one case where someone "redacting" comments, in the name of civility, actually led to an increase of civility. What happens is whoever redacts is piled on, dismissed as an agent of the thought police by whoever's side you censored, heralded as a hero by the opposing side, and now you end up with a meta-debate on whether such actions are appropriate, you end up at ANI, then warning, blocks and desysops are issued. It never stops drama, and if the goal was to bring the heat down, then you've just shot yourself in the foot because you ensured that the heat would rise up to white-hot levels. Yes people should try to be civil and focus on the actual problem, rather than saying "that's just retarded" or similar. However sometimes, there are behaviours and viewpoints that are "just retarded", and it's perfectly appropriate to call a spade a spade. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. But WP:CIVIL isn't one either. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs2, one cane engage in eloquent theorizing all you want; the fact is that you have actual case studies of attempting to use this refactoring, and of the results. Did it manage to reduce tensions? Did it redirect the conversation to being on topic? Did it smooth over the bile that was building? The answers are no, no, and no. This should really carry much more weight than any supposed or possible outcome. The very fact that you have had to come here to obtain some sort of legitimization for this behavior is in and of itself evidence that it has not been successful, and is heavily resisted and resented by the users you have been using it on. If it were a good idea, it would have been self-evident from the effect it had. siafu (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Siafu: In fact, experience - 'case studies', as you put it - show that this does work. it worked on talk:pregnancy the minute an admin stepped in and started redacting material; that chilled-out the discussion on the talk page immediately. It works almost every time an admin steps into a fray because admins have a community-legitimized power, and the mere presence of an active admin will often get people to start behaving correctly. All I'm suggesting is that we extend that power to normal editors by legitimizing the behavior publicly. once that's done, people will respect editor redactions of inappropriate material the same way that they respect admin redactions, and it will save admins from having to intervene except in the most extreme cases. I have used this to good effect as well even though I'm not an admin (not on this page: as I said, I started too late), but that is more a function of my personality than anything else - I know how to present myself with a degree of intellectual and moral authority that sometimes substitutes for my otherwise complete lack of power. But the effort here is to remove it from personality and establish it as a community norm; once that is done, it will be respected to everyone's benefit. Yes, people will balk at it at first - the way that young children often balk at toilet training and young adults often balk at committing themselves to a career - but people they will get over it and adapt, and it will benefit them and the community. --Ludwigs2 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC) This isn't about admins stepping in to hat conversations, this is about individual editors doing so with comments by people who are currently in the process of vigorously disagreeing with them. Seriously, step back and look this over: not one commenter has supported this idea as a good one, the admins who have commented have noted that even 3rd party admins have had limited success with this method, and when you yourself have recently attempted it you have sparked revert wars, inflamed tensions, and created hostility and antagonism. Even when not abused, this sort of refactoring will serve primarily to make people angry, as the message that is given is that their comments and input are being discarded simply out of hand. Even worse, it can be (and has been) so easily abused by regular editors, in the form of selectively removing some comments while leaving others intact-- this complaint should sound very familiar, as it was brought up repeatedly on Talk:Pregnancy. Why would you expect this refactoring to receive a different response in the future? siafu (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC) That's a misrepresentation of what I said, and a misrepresentation of the situation, and a misrepresentation of the concept. You are not open-minded on this issue at all. That's fine, but let's just boil it down to brass tacks: This literally cannot make the project worse. People can already do it if they want to, and people who are inclined to squabble already have plenty of tools to squabble with. One more tool to misuse will make no meaningful difference to the level of nastiness on the project. This might make the project better. If my 'eloquent theorizing' (as you put it) has any merits, it will make the project better. I'm not sure why you're opposed to this, and I'm not going to speculate. What I will suggest is that you are neatly screwing yourself (and the project as a whole) out of a tool that cannot do any harm and may do a lot of good. As I said, the project can go on with the same old monkey-shit disputes it's always had, or it can try to do something different and better. This practice is not going to cause those disputes, and it might help to solve them, and I can not make any sense at all out of your resistance to it. I mean seriously: If this is about me (on the assumption you're one of that number of people who have a deep dislike for me personally), then steal the idea and make it your own. I don't care about getting the credit for it, I just want make the project a better place, and if the perception that I'm an ass is getting in the way of making the project a better place then I will happily step aside and let you run with it. But don't deprive the project of a more stable and mature working environment just because you're pissed at me. Ok? --Ludwigs2 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC) This is not about you personally; if I had serious concerns about that you are as aware as I am that there are more appropriate venues, and more punitive complaints I could raise. I have no interest in that. This is about a bad tactic that had already failed in practice that you are insisting could somehow make things better. I am pointing out the specific case of your own use of it with the purpose not of trying to punish or castigate you, but because you should be most familiar with your own experience. This, for example, was an instance where you attempted to hat a conversation to "keep it on topic". Note that you chose to retain your own comment while removing the disagreements; this may have seemed to you like a perfectly reasonable thing to do at the time, but I hope at this point you can see how bad an idea this really was, and where the results have gotten all of us. If you wanted that to go away, all you needed to do was not reply-- or, in this case, take your edit summary and make it your actual edit. However, if we put the actual case aside and I provide my personal opinion, editing, hiding, or removing someone else's comments is inherently disrespectful of them and should, as such, be regarded as a punitive measure, or a measure of enforcement. My own desire is that it not be done at all, but I recognize that there are cases when there may be legal issues involved for wikipedia, and other cases, like enforcing WP:NOTAFORUM when hiding comments is the only real solution. More importantly, it is not to be taken up by someone who is involved in the discussion directly at all, and probably shouldn't be seen as something that those who have not sought and obtained additional priveleges from the community should take it upon themselves to do. You've not been modest in advertising your intelligence, and I bring that up not to start a fight but to suggest that I'm taking the radical step of being willing to believe you. I wouldn't continue to argue if there was no point. siafu (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Well, I'm glad to hear it's not personal (sorry for that suggestion, but it is something I have to be aware of: there are editors and admins who - for various reasons; some good, some bad - do take an extremely dim view of me. But as I said already, the case on talk:pregnancy is a bad example, because I attempted it after the dispute had been going on for close to a month rather than early on in the discussion. that's not a mistake I'm likely to make again. You can keep raising that as a counter-example and I can keep telling you it's a bad example. I believe we've looped through that three times already; I'm good for another four or five cycles, if you think that would be helpful. As to the rest, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I will take it as read that you believe what you're saying, but I still cannot make sense of it. You seem to have drawn the conclusion that editing out someone else's rude comment is somehow a far greater offense than them making the rude comment in the first place, which strikes me as perverse and perplexing. It's like those cases I occasionally hear about where some burglar breaks into a home and gets jumped by the homeowner, and then later sues the homeowner for attacking him. I am myself often self-righteous, so I understand the emotion, but I am rarely self-righteous about my bad behavior (that only happens when I'm in the heat of it, and I feel bad about it after). Asserting in a cool and reasonable tone that one of the project's higher concerns is to preserve the individual's right to be a complete biatch at his/her own discretion is incomprehensible to me. Perhaps you don't realize that that is what you are arguing? --Ludwigs2 05:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC) My objection to this particular refactoring should not at all be construed as a desire to protect bad behavior. On the contrary, I'm trying to point out that this particular "solution" (hatting) to the "problem" (off-topic or offensive commentary) does not work, and in fact makes things worse. This is for 2 reasons: 1) the hatted users will, understandably, be quite angry about their comments being disregarded for reasons that are not likely to be obvious to them, and is likely to result in responses in situ (i.e., on the talk page where the hatting occurred) and escalate the dispute. 2) It is not reasonable to expect that involved editors will be able to dispassionately and reasonable use this tool. In the cited example, you chose to remove two responses to your off-topic comment while leaving yours intact; as I said at the time in my edit summary, it looked an awful lot like an attempt to hold on to the last word. Such abuses of this tool are not a personal flaw of yours, but a generally likely outcome when people invovled in a dispute believe that they have the right and responsibility to arbitrate what comments should and should not be visible in that dispute. This, btw, is also the weak point of your burglary analogy: in a burglary, there is no question which of the two parties is at fault since there isn't a POV that would make breaking into someone else's house not against the law. In an argument on wikipedia, there is usually no personally owned property or some other obvious flag that makes this unambiguous, especially for someone already wrapped up in one side of an argument (I did keep the caveat before of extreme cases; obviously if someone is hurling actual insults, racial slurs, &c. the distinction becomes clear; I still don't personally like removing such comments because I value the open and absolute record of an unredacted talk page, but I'm willing to accept it in service of following WP policy). I also strongly disagree that doing it earlier on Talk:Pregnancy would have benefitted anything (would likely have been even worse, actually), but that's not entirely relevant to the question posed here on this page, so I'll leave it. siafu (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC) and again, I can only say that you are misunderstanding the concept. with respect to your first two points: IF this is established as a legitimate action, THEN few people will choose to escalate. The only reason people escalate it now is out of a self-righteous belief that they have a right to use article talk to say whatever crappy thing comes into their head. If this procedure were legitimized, they would not be able to maintain that self-righteous belief. They would then have to explain the value of particular comments on a case by case basis in order to have them restored. Only useful comments would be restored that way I'm not counting on people using the tool perfectly; I'm counting on people using the tool collectively. In that case you pointed out (where I refactored an off-topic comment of yours), the problem was not with the hatting, it was with your subsequent action, here: [97]. What you did was move your comment out of the hat so it was visible again. What you should have done was recognize that the action was correct but the implementation was wrong, and moved my comment into the hat. Had you expanded the hat to include what I said, I really would have had no grounds to object, it would have forestalled BC from subsequently removing the hat entirely, and it would have closed an irrelevant discussion completely. Between the 2 or 3 we could have muddled through to a proper balance where sore points for all of us were removed from visibility; instead we went the other route and drew all the sore points back out into the light so we could bitch about them some more. 'civil society' is not two words pushed together (a collection of independent individuals who are all supposed to be nice to each other - like that would ever work!). Civil society is a collective structure that people exist within, something that establishes certain sacrifices everyone must make for their own (and everyone's) good. Even in the real world, property is a collective structure rather than an individual one: you 'own' a house because the rules of the culture you live in give certain exclusive rights to you in exchange for certain behaviors on your part (stop paying your mortgage and see what 'ownership' really means). On wikipedia the 'property' being broken into is the collective 'house' of civil discourse. If I ask you to sacrifice the right to say something irrelevant and insensitive to me then I sacrifice that right myself, and there is no other way civil society works. We simply need to establish the precedent that people should push the discussion towards civil respect rather than dragging it back towards interpersonal conflict, and then it will rapidly become self-regulating, like a good civil society should be. --Ludwigs2 16:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Since it's obvious both that the community is not supporting your request to legitimize this behavior, and that no amount of explaining from any number of users is going to lead you to any insight, it's clear that there is no point in continuing this discussion. siafu (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC) This is what I find so deeply offensive about 'debates' on wikipedia. You made a reasoned argument using a particular example (in fact, you insisted on making that argument and on using that example). But when I demonstrated that it was actually your mistake in that examople, not mine - you chose to extend the conflict by unhatting rather than close that aspect of the conflict by extending the hat - you ignore the point as though you never made it. Treating reason as though it has no value unless it supports your position is a violation of the basic principles of rationality, and by doing so you preclude any possibility that the debate will find a resolution. Arguments are interminable on wikipedia because few people here truly respects reason. Your own example turned against you; it happens, man up and accept it. If you can't, then you're absolutely right that there's no point in continuing this discussion: not because I'm refusing to face some putative consensus that (so far as I can see) only seems to exist in your head, but because you're apparently going to cling to your position against any and all reasoning. That's no way to behave in a discussion. --Ludwigs2 15:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultra Force - Could someone please close this AfD? It's been relisted twice and finally someone else voted. I don't see how PRODs are still allowed but AfDs keep getting relisted if nobody cares enough to comment. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done, Closed GB fan 20:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I regret to say that I have utterly failed at the first hurdle in my attempts to mentor Treasury Tag. Apologies for wasting everyone's time. Perhaps a more skilled mentor would have more success. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So what shall we do? Propose a topic ban for all deletion nominations? No nominations for deletion for AFD or prod permitted. But permit copyright violation and attack and vandalism speedy delete nominations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame, but perhaps not a surprise. I thought your proposed beginning editing restrictions during mentorship were fine - apart from "Don't write any whole words in edit summaries" which I just didn't understand. But I suspect this is because I didn't get the background problem which this is supposed to address. However TT flatly declined all the other proposed temporary restrictions (which would have left the vast majority of article space free to edit in) and as such I think no more skilled mentor could have achieved anything better. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

While it may have left the majority of article-space free for me to edit, I don't edit the majority of pages. Nobody does. We all have specific interests. While I wouldn't be banned from writing about the music of Argentina or God in Hinduism or cricket in Zimbabwe, I have no inclination and no competence to do so. ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 10:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This idea of "there is a whole wiki to edit" always strikes me as missing the point (not to jump on you specifically Kim). I have zero interest in most of Wikipedia - and if the community stopped me editing pages I was interested in my response would just be to stop editing... --Errant ^(chat!) 11:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a moment, these restrictions were designed to be temporary and allow Dweller the manouverability to focus on the areas that were shown to be problematic. That TT dealt in absolutes and refused to even discuss them - even attacking the only editor who came forward to put himself out to help TT has actually disappointed me. If you don't understand a reason for a restriction then the best way to deal with that is not through sarcasm.

I know that discussions regarding sanctions were largely postponed due to the fact that there was a mentor available, if TT does not appear willing to try, then I do not see any other option. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I could be a "start being a little nicer to people in words and actions" half of a two person mentoring team (if acceptable to TT). It would be limited to analysis, commentary and suggestions on behavior just in that area. Would be slower motion I have a 9 day period coming up when I'll be off the grid. The other person / half would would be more attuned to understanding/watching and dealing with their complex range of activities. Just an idea, don't know if it's viable. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have a mentor that I could trust, thanks, North8000. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 12:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, with that declination (and that mis-characterization which ignores the outcome) I'm bowing out. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you would be willing to work with a mentor? Your comments on your talk page look to me like you are not willing to compromise, to limit yourself even in the early stages of the mentoring process. If you would like a mentoring team, perhaps I could help. You know my history and would you believe, I'm quite knowledgable on Doctor Who too. I do think you need to stop dealing in absolutes though and finding a solution that's acceptable to all Worm^TT · (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said repeatedly on my talkpage, I'm happy to work with a mentor provided that a compromise can be reached that doesn't involve an outright prohibition on all my normal Wikipedia activities. ╟─TreasuryTag►Odelsting─╢ 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is your 'normal Wikipedia activities' that are precisely the problem here. But let's try this another way.

• What, as you see it, is the problem with your editing that so many people have raised so many times?
• How do you suggest these problems be addressed? → ROUX ₪ 13:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

  Roux, you seem to believe that I'm under some sort of imperative here to (a) provide timely answers to any questions you may demand, and (b) to find a mentor and actively seek out editing restrictions.
  I won't insult your intelligence by going into detail about why (a) is bollocks, but as to (b) I think I should remind you that I am not currently blocked. I'm not currently topic-banned. There is currently no active proposal for me to be either blocked or topic-banned. And personally, I'm quite happy to 'take my chances' without a mentor, without being prohibited from editing in my areas of expertise, without being subjected to pathetic childish point-scoring and without receiving ultra vires demands to account for myself at any given opportunity. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 16:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the simple thing is to preclude any activities that violate WP:BATTLEGROUND, pure and simple. Just stop trying to pick wiki-fights with people - I mean initiating this a whole 41 minutes after Dweller suggested this was...er...actually adjectives fail me here. Does anyone think TT will actually listen to any mentor anyway. I doubt it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main problem is TT's inclination to delete everything, 2nd to the comments and demeanor when those deletions are contested. I would suggest that the comment given above by Graeme is a good one that TT be limited to prod deletions only relating to copyright violation, attacks and vandalism speedy delete nominations. At least temporarily. If after a couple months they get the communities trust back then perhps the restriction can be lifted. --Kumioko (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems more than a little unwise to have tried to delete Casliber's userspace draft without asking him first so quickly after the block ended. At worst what possible harm does it do for it to remain there indefinitely? I'd say very little. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, given this reply, it is obvious TT doesn't think he's done anything wrong whatsoever, doesn't need a mentor, doesn't need sanctions, so in which case, is there any other option but an indef block here? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I hate to see any productive editor blocked, much less indefinitely, but it does seem like mentoring has failed. I'd suggest, as does TT himself on his talk page, that he takes his chances now, along with the inevitable consequences if things don't change. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish to speak against the casual application of indef blocks to experienced editors.  Why should this block be for more than 4 months at the outside, unless the powers that be are quietly encouraging a sock puppet to reappear that will be hamstrung?  Consider my viewpoint as that of a newbie, if that is appropriate, but after seeing what happened to User:Rememberway, I don't think the admins should ever be assigning indef blocks to experienced users.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Renewing topic ban proposal

Continued disruption

Are pointy edits such as this really improving the encyclopedia? I don't understand why this type of behaviour by TT is tolerated by the community. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

...arguably, TT seems right - the citations to support the statements there in the lead are a bit lack on a casual readthrough of the article, and not readily apparent in the body. That said, there's much less pointy and combative ways to say "this needs more references". --MASEM (t) 20:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And to be fair that is probably the way to go - rather than this earlier edit by TT. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is that it was a completely pointy edit that served only to disrupt an article which receives approximately 1000 page views daily. If there were concerns they could have been expressed on the talk page, or through discussion when the edit was initially reverted. This was pure disruption to prove a point, regardless of the legitimacy of the concerns. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced weasel words from the lede of an article is not disruptive. It is Wikipedia policy. The fact that the article is frequently-viewed makes it even more important to adhere to our standards of verifiability. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 20:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, because the owners of that article feel unable to provide citations for the glowing praise of its subject, I've initiated an RfC on the talkpage. Well done folks – instead of just doing something simple, we're going to have 30 days of bureaucratic discussion. Good one. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 20:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

An RFC before even approaching a talk page discuss is further flaming the issue. As a simple comment on this whole thing, I think that's the problem that is at the core. TT is thinking in absolutes, those being the ultimate processes for resolving disputes (xFD, talk page RFC) instead of stepping through the steps that are more preferred and generally more helpful and friendlier to all involved. There's no requirement that these steps be done before the ultimate step is taken (sometimes its necessary), but at the same time, when this is the only steps that TT seems interested in taking, at the volumes TT edits at, that's disruptive. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely over the top - as no non-RFC talk page discussion has been suggested first. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Disruptive and not even borderline. I agree that the lead needs to be supported by cited text in the article body but there are a simpler ways of making that point rather than starting an RfC on a hitherto undiscussed issue. --regentspark (comment) 20:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't feel able to engage in constructive discussion with an admin who baselessly accused me of being a "POV-pushing vandal." ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• As I've stated on my User talk page and at Talk:The New Yorker, TT's edits related to The New Yorker are clearly deliberate disruption -- and this is disruption that is unrelated to the ongoing topic ban discussion. --Orlady (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Despite the fact that at least one of them is completely correct? The article claims that the New Yorker is well known for its fact checking, yet in the article the first mention of that is of a scandal where its fact checking was claimed to be poor! That's just bad writing. Either leave the {{cn}} tag there or remove the sentence. No opinion on the rest of it. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • It took me just a couple of minutes to find a source for the assertion and add it to the article. I'm not sure who deserves blame, but making a huge, time-consuming dispute out of an easily fixed omission is disrutpive.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

In light of the ongoing combative behaviour not conducive to a collaborative environment, along with violations of the terms of his unblock (making allegations of misconduct in edit summaries rather than on noticeboards [98] [99]), I have placed an indefinite block on TreasuryTag's account. I believe TreasuryTag has exhausted the community's patience, but give leave in advance for another administrator to lift ^{or modify} this block if they feel it is no longer necessary or was made in error. –xeno^talk 21:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC) ^{22:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)}

Can't help but unfortunately agree. His argument that we have to follow a specific escalation pattern is pretty moot: he's wikilwayering, and just as we can skip from a 1m to 4m warning based on circumstances, it's clear that TT is testing and pushing a non-existent envelope. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like the only option left. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that (for all it's worth at this point) post-block, TT published an unauthorized IRC excerpt on his talk and, when advised that that was prohibited by irc policy, suggested that "someone had better block me, then". Does this call for redaction of the excerpt? Revdeletion? Removal of talk page access? None of those? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest removal of talk page access. Revdelete sounds good as well. Agathoclea (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised that TT was allowed to publish IRC scripts. I think this is entirely unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've blanked the excerpt-related content and advised TT to not restore it. I'm agnostic on the issue of revdeletion, and am fine with it if someone else decides to take that extra step. If TT does restore the log despite my warning, I very much suggest removal of talkpage access. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Gwen beat me to the decline of the unblock. Good block by Xeno, good unblock decline reasoning by Gwen. Exceptionally poor form by Treasury Tag. TT has demonstrated a remarkable resistance to mitigating his problematic behavior and has torpedoed good faith efforts to mentor him I think the therapy session is over and it's time to 86 him for a while. WP:OFFER might be of some use, but I agree that a timed block is unlikely to do any good in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• "for a while."

I'll stand a round if his latest "indef block" lasts longer than a week. It'll be reversed in a day or two and he'll once again chalk it up on his "scoreboard" of invulnerability.

I don't care about him publishing an IRC log if only he'd apologize afterwards, and maybe admit that he'd been in the wrong. As it is, everything is always someone else's fault and he's perpetually wikilawyering away at loopholes to prove it. We just don't need that behaviour at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. He contravened my request that he not restore the irc-related content and restored the thread minus the log itself. Rather a neat way of saying "fuck you" while retaining some chance his talkpage access won't be removed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What? TT is a wikilawyer? He'll fight you tooth and nail on that charge (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy, that's going to be a giant tab at the pub! I think the block is good and the unblock refusal is good. The editor is a net negative, taking skilled eyes away from improving the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please call these guys, who are a mere two blocks from my house, to arrange that beer. I prefer their porter. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Endorse block. We may want to consider closing the thread and having an uninvolved admin judge the consensus on the topic ban. When TT is eventually unblocked I believe such editing restrictions thus entering into effect will serve to help avoid the issues that have led to the present situation. N419BH 04:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think its rather sad for the project that people feel that this block will be reversed sometime soon. If it is it will show severe lack of judgement from the unblocking admin given how practically universal the arguments for stronger restrictions on treasury tag have been. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is his third "indefinite" block. As blocks just don't stick to this editor, he has developed a mentality that they shouldn't stick to him and that blocking is just something for the little people. An editor who keeps a scoreboard that's positively crowing over how little block time was actually served, "TreasuryTag has received 907 hours' worth of blocks, plus two times ∞, though has only actually been blocked for 356 hours and 12 minutes" just isn't realising that the problem might be with their behaviour, not the blocking admins. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I have reviewed the conflicts that TT has involved himself in since October 3. That he was brusque and dismissive in his comments is no surprise to anyone by now. But he also disrupted the article on The New Yorker (The nutshell version is: he added many ^{[citation needed]} tags to the lead, and only one of those was found justified and remedied by others.) So the block is needed to prevent further disruption of the stuff that matters—articles. Insofar he gave no indication that he is willing to modify his behavior in that respect. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Question

Is an indef block approaching a community ban? I share Andy's pessimism but I would be delighted to be proven wrong. Egg Centric 01:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship offer by Worm That Turned

FYI folks. User:Worm That Turned has offered to mentor TT ([100]). I think if TT accepts mentorship, he should be unblocked. I know Worm's mentoring and he is a great mentor. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why enacting the topic ban (which would be valid during mentoring) is important. The only understanding - should TT accept mentoring - is that if either: TT formally (by words) or informally (by actions) stops being mentored by Worm, OR Worm determines that mentorship is no longer fruitful, the indef block is reapplied. Might wanna have a 3 strike rule, but that might be wikilawyered to death, so make it an LBW (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What, and he'll suddenly find these "unacceptable' restrictions acceptable? I doubt it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

How much time do we have to waste on this? 99.9% of our userbase manages to behave reasonably - shouldn't we concentrate on them? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea that mentorship of TT at this time will be beneficial to the project is not one I would support. The topic ban wouldn't help either, he would just choose another sector to disrupt. Something happened to TT's interaction with the project a couple of months ago and since then he has been a train wreck in action. WP:Standard offer and only if he accepts mentorship in six months time would be my offer. Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't spotted this. Firstly, thanks PC for the vote of confidence, I really appreciate it. I wasn't planning to mention it here, since anyone interested would already be watching TT's page. In my experience, the community is a very forgiving one, and if TT and I can come to some arrangement whereby he is not causing issues and we can move forward - I expect the community in general would allow me to have a go.

For the record, I have mentored a few other users when they were teetering on the edge, and I have had both successes and failures. Importantly, I think it should be known that I am willing to step up to the plate and summarily block my own mentees if mentorship is failing, and the only reason that they are unblocked is my mentorship. As such, it can be properly regarded as a "last chance"

However, the whole thing does take (at least) two willing participants, and so this whole point could be moot depending on TT's level of interest. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd support Worm's idea. Although I've not personally interacted with TT, I've seen some of his interactions with others, particularly when he appears on ANI, and in general he doesn't help so much as fan the flames. Be watched or be gone, I say. Perhaps, something more "in your face" is required to make sure he knows that this is his last chance; TT should accept Worm's mentorship unconditionally or face a community ban. strong words, I know, but sometimes hitting them with a tree works better than smacking them with a twig repeatedly. --Blackmane (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If I can add my non-admin opinion here, I would at this time say this is a bad idea. The numebr of blocks that TT had had, including the indef-blocks that were reverted strike me as a "and we really really REALLY mean it this time" gesture, and aren't taken seriously. At this point, I feel it's better for the project if TT stays away for a period of time, and if they come back with a genuine mindset to be civil, them maybe this should be considered. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I can see that point of view, blocks on Wikipedia are founded on the idea that they're not meant to punish, but prevent harm - what's more indefinite blocks are placed until something changes to render them un-necessary. However, this discussion is still currently moot. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand that and respect your decision to mentor TT, which is admirable. I just think it's a fruitless measure unfortunately. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not the first, and you won't be the last Worm^TT · (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Good luck. Though this doesn't bode well. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 19:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there is significant value in blocking users for a decent period of time before taking them to indef. Certainly MickMacNee was never blocked beyond a few days before going indef and I think that's bad. There is a reasonable chance that a 1-3 month ban followed by mentoring will be successful. Far greater IMO than unblocking now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If anyone can do it, Worm can, he's one of our best in that department. However, given TT's utter rejection of the last mentoring attempt, I don't think it is even worth trying now but should be considered along with the standard terms of WP:OFFER. TT needs a break from WP, and vice versa. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk page title altered

TreasuryTag has modified the displayed title on his talk page so that it is no longer identified as a User talk page. I've never seen that before (but maybe I just don't get around much). Another user restored the heading, but was reverted by another admin. Is it kosher to remove the name space label from the page? --Orlady (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have mine not showing on my user page - never heard anyone question it. I'd be interested to know if it was a problem. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

But your talk page is clearly identifiable as such. --Orlady (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It's harmless, in my opinion. I think it's a fairly common thing to modify one's user page or user talk page title in such a way. I doubt anyone's confused whether it's a user talk page, since TT has a couple of banners at the top that say that it is. 28bytes (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time working with very new users, and wanted to make sure it was clear for them. If my interests lay elsewhere, I probably would have changed the talk title too. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree that many editors do this and that it's fine. See User talk:Splarka for an interesting one. Jenks24 (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Mine's altered that way too (along with colors to match my signature), and I know of at least one admin (HJ Mitchell) who does so as well with colors and font changes. It's not a problem especially when combined with edit notices and talk page banners, which most of us have. The removal of the topic ban notification with the edit summary "rm lynch mob", however, is a problem. N419BH 06:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

My problem with it, as I stated before, is that the users talk page's title is simply the regular looking text, as if it were an article. (not a article talk page, but a article) I have absolutely no problem with the ways that the users above have theirs, as the pages look a lot like a userpage would without the namespace. If the user were to implement some html to make it look at least a slight bit different, I probably wouldn't have had a problem. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 18:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As a additional note, while 28bytes did notify me of the discussion here before I had made my post, it seems TT was not notified. I shall notify him. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 18:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Does it matter? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

LikeLakers, I notice in some of your edit summaries you speak of whether you would allow it or not.[101] Not sure where you got the idea that it was up to you, but continuing to edit war over it is not a good idea.. Really, what harm to Wikipedia is being prevented by your edits? None. It's a non-issue. Let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We need a history merge of Daryl K and Daryl Kerrigan.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to require a history merge so much as just moving the page over properly, by deleting Daryl Kerrigan. There's really no history on Daryl Kerrigan, until today a redirect, to preserve. Does that sound ok? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That is fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Mkativerata (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Healthandbalance and User:J Koblah Wutoh, could somebody check.--Musamies (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they're presumably the same person, and yes, the pages should be deleted as purely promotional, but why did you U1 speedy them when you are not the user in question? Do you know something we don't? (I see you've done this to a number of other people's user pages. Why?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I just came across the file name File:For wikipedia.JPG. Could a passing admin please salt that name and any other variations that they can come up with (.png, .gif, different caps combos, etc.)? It's long overdue. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 12:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Might be better to put an entry in the title blacklist since it's case-insensitive. 28bytes (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The title blacklist isn't really for things this specific, it's more for stopping people from using the camera generated titles for names, or that sort of wide net activity. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

How about this userpage User:Hot Pro Basketball Hoops, is it too promotional ?--Musamies (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: the content at this userpage has also existed at User:Reda Hammouch. Goodvac (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, User talk:Hot Pro Basketball Hoops has the same info. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Borders ‖ 23:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

They are persistent. They've recreated the User:Reda Hammouch/User talk:Reda Hammouch account. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 14:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted and salted. fish&karate 15:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to close the rfc at palestine? Chesdovi (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually see where a WP:RfC has been called for. Currently this appears to be a straightforward talk page discussion and does not yet need the intervention of a admin. . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I added "Palestine" to Yosef Karo, but it has been reomved. That was supposed to be an "rfc" discussion and someone needs to "close" it so the case is settled, instead of people still contending there is no consensus. Chesdovi (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish to bring into the attention of the en.wp administrators the case of the banned editor Stubes99. He is breaking his edit interdiction with a very high frequency and his disruptions create problems to the community almost every day. He is bothering different users ([102] [103]) and sometimes his edits have to be deleted because of their offending content ([104] [105]).

Unfortunately the only possible countermeasure seems to be a Wikipedia:Rangeblock. After a little work, I gathered some of his IPs and I calculated some narrow range blocks:

- 84.2.20.0/22 (84.2.20.68, 84.2.22.119, 84.2.22.236, 84.2.22.239)

- 78.92.104.0/22 (78.92.104.41, 78.92.105.250, 78.92.106.7, 78.92.106.49)

- 81.183.128.0/18 (81.183.154.112, 81.183.164.106, 81.183.185.181, 81.183.190.253)

- 84.0.48.0/20 (84.0.55.118, 84.0.57.111, 84.0.60.175,84.0.60.213,84.0.63.190)

- 84.0.88.0/22 (84.0.88.240, 84.0.89.13, 84.0.89.220, 84.0.91.50, 84.0.91.240)

- 84.0.114.0/24 (84.0.114.29, 84.0.114.85, 84.0.114.101, 84.0.114.139, 84.0.114.153, 84.0.114.183, 84.0.114.217)

- 84.0.143.128/25 (84.0.143.135, 84.0.143.156, 84.0.143.220, 84.0.143.248)

- 84.0.146.0/23 (84.0.146.48, 84.0.147.57)

- 84.0.172.32/27 (84.0.172.37, 84.0.172.49, 84.0.172.50)

- 84.0.228.0/23 (84.0.228.120, 84.0.228.236, 84.0.229.34)

These blocks would be decent and not many user innocent would be affected Daccono (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at 81.183.128.0/18, there are about 200 IP contributions in 2011 from that range, from dozens of IPs. A /18 is hardly a narrow block and would cause extensive collateral damage. Even if it was a "Block anonymous users only block", blocking dozens of contributors to hit 3 offending IPs seems like too much damage. Did you look at the IP contributions in your proposed block ranges? Monty₈₄₅ 16:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The 81.183.128.0/18 is the widest proposed range, and it can be skipped if it is considered that the block creates too much collateral damage. But the other ones would be reasonable blocks I think Daccono (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Daccono

Please note that the filer of this report Daccono has an editing pattern that is extremely similar to that of the banned editor, user:Iaaasi, refer to their contributions and also see this user compare report [106]. The Daccono account was created on 13:30, 8 July 2010 Daccono a few hours after the time of [03:07, 8 June 2010 the exact time when DerGelbeMann and MarekSS, previous CheckUser confirmed Iaaasi socks were blocked thus forcing the creation new ones. An SPI is also in progress regarding this matter. This is only relevant because banned editors such as user:Iaaasi and socks, are not allowed to edit any pages on Wikipedia, let alone administrative noticeboards. And also someone reading this might want to look into the matter further and compare contribs. Hobartimus (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Case closed. Verdict: innocent Daccono (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I deleted an attack article that was incorrectly tagged as A7, so I dropped a courtesy note on the tagger's talk page. We got into a bit of a discussion, nothing heated or offensive (or so I thought). However, the editor must have thought I was being offensive, as he stated as such in the discussion. I apologised, and have read through what I wrote. I am too close to the problem, as I cannot see how what I wrote could be seen as offensive.

So here I am, asking for your thoughts...

The thread is here: User talk:Chris the speller#Incorrect category for Michigan State Youth Soccer Association.

Important: Please limit this thread to the discussion of my actions only, not those of User:Chris the speller. I will drop a note on his wall to let him know that our thread (and more specifically my actions) is being reviewed.

So, what did I do wrong, and how can I prevent this from happening again? Thanks. Stephen! ^Coming... 16:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's good to see you're willing to accept that you might be wrong. On the other hand, you need to get some confidence and realise that you're not. This thread is a waste of time. Tell Chris to stop shouting at you and heed your advice. Leave it at that. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Honestly, I think you were admirably calm and inoffensive here. The only spots that strike me as even potentially problematic are your request that the user read articles thoroughly (which could give the impression of "I think you're not doing your job") and your comment about it being ok if his tagging rate goes down (obviously said in good faith and not as "yes, make you rate go down! please!", but interpreted poorly by the other person). I guess the only thing you can do going forward to avoid this sort of thing is be aware that if you're telling someone you declined or changed their speedy, you are essentially telling them that they "did it wrong," and you need to be careful to couch that telling in terms of "here's something you might have missed, I know, I hate when I do that too" and not "I am coming down from on high to tell you you failed because..."

All that said, however, to my eyes you certainly didn't put your foot in it on this one so much as you seem to have just run up against someone who was a tad defensive and upset. You can't always avoid having people be offended by even the most inoffensively-intended thing you say. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, first, you didn't do that much wrong. (1P) You thanked the tagger for his nomination, you explained constructively what he did wrong in a way that he could learn from it, you were calm and collected throughout. (2P) Also, you deleted the page in question, which was, after all, what he wanted, as he said himself. (3P) Finally, you noticed that something was wrong, and came here asking for more advice on how to improve, that was truly important. (1C) However, you could consider Googling "praise to criticism ratio". It's a common management concept. The problem is that people tend to notice criticism much more than praise, so if you want to be seen as balanced, you want to draw much more attention to praise proportionately. Rule of thumb is something like ... oh ... 3 praise to 1 criticism. :-) --GRuban (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we can close this thread. I still stand by my statement that I don't promise to read any article thoroughly. However, I read the article in question thoroughly enough to make a good judgment about how to handle it (from what I remember of it). I saw the negative statement in it, but judged that to not be the primary intention of the article, and thought that A7 was a better fit than G10. Yes, I am still probably a little too sensitive and steamed about the accusation made in the section "Hi there" on my user talk page, but I think it's plain wrong to attack an editor who makes an improvement for not making more improvements. Chris the speller ^yack 17:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the point here has nothing to do with the tag. The point here is that there was no attacking in the discussion and you're being overly sensitive. And before you accuse me of attacking you, I'm not and I won't apologize like Stephen has.--v/r - TP 18:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

We're done here. Thanks to Stephen and Chris both. --GRuban (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone Stephen! ^Coming... 19:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(Also posted at WP:VPT) According to the NFCC#9 violation report, the file User:Multichill/Free_uploads has numerous non-free images in userspace which need to be removed. The problem is, the page appears to be so big that I can't load it. Can anyone else? And if so, could someone remove the following files from it?

• File:Estadio-azul.jpg
• File:Gentech_pharmaceutical_logo.gif
• File:Gozofa.jpg
• File:Jim_Beam_Red_Stag.jpg
• File:Jim_Beam_White.jpg
• File:Logo_estadio_caliente.gif
• File:Old_Heaven_Hill.jpg
• File:Old_Taylor.jpg
• File:Omnilogo.png
• File:Pessenger_nico_touches_the_walls_album.jpg
• File:Salon_premier_membership.jpg

Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I posted this response at VPT: Seems to be a memory issue. Couldn't the entire page be deleted?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You can go to the subpages linked from the images (e.g. User:Multichill/Free uploads/2011-07-18) and manually comment them out that way. However, is there a particular reason why User:DASHBot can't handle this? NW (Talk) 00:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The page is coming up in the report because the last time the server generated it from the transclusions the offending images were there. There is nothing for the bot to remove as the images were already removed from the pages they are transcluding in from. Monty₈₄₅ 00:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the case. The bot was missing some images (see, for example, the one removed by the bot and the one missed here. However, I've just been through the offending sub-pages (thanks NW) and removed them all. All good now. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like other admins' opinions (NAO also fine) on what to do in the aftermath of full protection. Let's say you spotted an edit war, via RFPP, 3RRNB, or even just through randomly scouring articles, and you felt it was so bad and not clearly the fault of just one editor, such that full protection was the best option to stop the edit warring and get people to talk on the talk page. Let's further say that this is the first time such a problem has occurred on this page, and so you used a limited duration protection. Discussion occurred, although no clear consensus had been reached, as the issues were quite complex. After the protection expired, if one of the editors somehow got the idea that their version was, in fact, supported by consensus, even though consensus was not yet clear, what would you do? Do you all believe in just throwing the protection back up (for longer or indefinitely), or has that one editor clearly been disruptive and thus a block is in order?

While I would like general opinions, if any admins want to look at the specific problem prompting this question, the article in question is Paragliding (though the enmity between editors is spilling out across a variety of other related articles as well, some of which are at AfD as possible OR/SYNTH/POV forks/NOT violations). This particular issue is a problem because there may have been off-wiki canvassing (I'm looking into that), most of the editors appear to be "experts" in the field, and apparently there's a lot of animosity between some of them based on things that have been happening outside of Wikipedia over the last several decades. While I don't want to sound condescending to anyone's hobby, somehow I never thought that a sport/hobby could engender as much animosity as a nationalist POV debate. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Simple. If the edit warring continued after the protection expired, reprotect for longer and let them fight it out on the talk page. Eventually these issues either get sorted out or the issue dies and they move on. -- œ^™ 00:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

General thoughts:

• Along with the initial protection, an edit summary and/or a talk page note clearly laying out that the protection is not an endorsement of a particular version.
• I'd lock it down again, and depending how bad the push is drop back to the "wrong version". Depending how active the disruption is, I'd go for a very long term or indef lock.
• Definitely add a note that lack of protection is not an invitation to edit in lieu of a clear consensus.
• It may also be wise to point out with that note as well that expanding the disruption to related articles can and likely will result in those articles getting locked and the whole kit-n-kabootle getting moved here.
• Drop specific notes to the editor(s) editing in lieu of discussion or consensus on the core article.
• If needs be, also issue warnings to the editors doing the disruptive editing on the related articles and, if warranted, the canvassing for the RfC and AfD(s).

- J Greb (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please delete promotional userpage User:Autosintransit, thanks--Musamies (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Pleaswe delete as promotional User:BLACKCATDESIGN, thanks.--Musamies (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Userpage CSD tagged as G11, user now at UAA. →Στc. 07:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was the editor who originally proposed placing Sarah Palin-related articles on community probation back in January 2009, a proposal that was ultimately adopted. This was in the wake of the wheel war ArbCom case and various other insanity regarding the articles. There have been various flare-ups regarding the articles since - particularly when Bristol Palin appeared on Dancing With the Stars and during the aftermath of the 2011 Tucson shooting, but it always seemed in the context of a political battleground between partisans for a "President Sarah Palin" and partisans of President Obama.

I think things have finally settled down to the point to where we can lift the probation. A few weeks ago, an attack biography by Joe McGinniss about Palin was released, and there was surprisingly little battling over the article - issues were settled easily by talk page discussion. And a couple of days ago, Palin announced she will not be running for President against Obama, which should relieve the partisan pressure on both sides. I propose removing the community probation. Kelly ^hi! 23:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I endorse lifting the probation which has served its purpose. The probation is administered here: Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Except for one warning in September, the last warnings were issued in January 2011. The last two blocks were issued in April 2011 and December 2010. Now that Palin has decided to not run for US president, it is unlikely that she will be as polarizing a figure as she was at the time the probation was voted in by the community. Keeping stale probations in place serves as a disincentive to editors who may legitimately fear getting blocked for engaging in a disagreement. It's time to bring this to a successful conclusion. Any future disruptions can be handled through ordinary procedures.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

While I have no issues with the probation being lifted, it may perhaps be better if one were to lift the same a few days (perhaps ten days more?) from now, as the current news of her not running for the post may have died down by then. Wifione ^Message 07:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Palin will always be in the news. There's no reason to expect that her announcement will lead editors to engage in the disruptive behaviors which led to this community-imposed remedy two-and-a-half years ago. It's been reasonably peaceable for the past year or more.

The effect of lifting this probation is to remove the hair trigger. Any uninvolved admin could no longer topic ban an editor after only a single warning. That's a lower threshold than used with most ArbCom probations, where an enforcement would usually follow a structured discussion and consensus at AE. Lifting the probation would not undo the previous individual topic bans imposed by the ArbCom, the community, or admins under the probation. But it would reaffirm our assumption of the good faith of the current and future editors.   Will Beback  talk  09:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the proposal intended to rectify a potential problem or an actual problem? If it is merely a potential problem, why do it? If it is an actual problem, where is an example? Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That presumes that community probations should be indefinite unless there's a specific reason to lift them. I think the better model would be that probations should be kept as long as needed, then lifted when no longer necessary. If Wikipedia were still around in 50 years, would we still want to have this probation in place even if there had been no problematic disputes in the prior five decades?   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I support lifting the probation. We can always reconsider if it turns out to be ill-advised. 28bytes (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Will's point of view makes a good case; concur with the lifting of the probation. Wifione ^Message 17:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal of Isdud into Ashdod requires the attention of an uninvolved administrator to close a week-long discussion. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Restored unresolved request from archive. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at the proposal; despite the fact the discussion stopped a week ago, there's no consensus there. Nothing has been decided. Despite using {{archive}} tags, I'm leaving the discussion open so those involved can continue to discuss the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, llywrch, for closing the proposal. Cunard (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize a mistake upon the closure, where i was counted as an "opposing" party without actually expressing a solid opinion (i proposed the merger), and if at all i'm supporting it strongly. Thanks.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion restored from the archives for review by Llywrch (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• My apologies to Greyshark09: since you didn't explicitly state whether you were for or against the proposal, I had to determine from your comments & obviously misread them.

  To the point: From my reading of the discussion, nothing had been decided -- & even if the consensus was to merge, there was no consensus how to merge the articles -- & I felt that closing the discussion as "no consensus" would not be productive. But after a week, no one continued the conversation -- until Greyshark09 added her/his "support" to merge. By this point, it appears to me that the only person who cares about the issue is G., & if no one speaks up a week from this point -- just to give everyone a last chance to participate -- I think Greyshark09 would be proceeding in good faith to merge them as she/he sees fit. The point of an RfC like that is to give everyone a chance to participate before someone does something; it appears everyone has said what they want to say on the matter, & that's as far as they care about the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

no problem, i shall notify all discussion contributors once again and we shall see if there are any new comments/objections.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

An uninvolved party is required to finilize a week-long relisted merger procedure of Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I see three comments on the proposal. Why is an uninvolved party needed exactly?--Tznkai (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Truth, but i'm the one who had proposed it - i don't think it is legal to finilize it by myself.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Restored unresolved request from archives. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

How is this unresolved? Monty₈₄₅ 00:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

My error. I noticed that the following section on the talk page pertained to merging and was unclosed. I mistakenly thought that the request pertained to that section. Cunard (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Merging is complete, no need for further assistance here.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I blocked 121.22.34.166 just a moment ago for vandalism, and noticed in the block log it was blocked as a proxy in July. I was wondering whether it's no longer a proxy or just slipped through the cracks somehow, and I don't know how to tell for sure. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just checked it's still open, or open again. I've re-blocked it for one year this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#BAG Nomination: Snottywong if you're interested. Thanks. —SW— ^verbalize 23:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:BOTPOL, I am required to notify this board regarding my nomination to the Bot Approval Group which can be found here. I welcome any and all comments regarding this. Thank you. + Crashdoom ^Talk 06:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I came across the case of Adel Al-Jubeir assassination plot and Iranian assassination plot earlier today, 2 articles created on the same subject. I came back to find they had been merged, but unfortunately from what I can tell not very well. It appears Adel Al-Jubeir assassination plot was merged in to Iranian assassination plot, which was probably the correct course of action since the later was more detailed. However this appears to have included copying a small amount of text, but still enough to likely require attribution from Adel Al-Jubeir assassination plot to Iranian assassination plot [107]. Later Iranian assassination plot was moved to Adel Al-Jubeir assassination plot and the original Adel Al-Jubeir assassination plot was deleted [108]. This means the attribution for the copied content is lost, so a history merge of the deleted and current version is likely in order. Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved; someone asked me to do this on my talk page. NW (Talk) 14:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wbroun (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing articles with the intention of demonstrating to classes that Wikipedia can be changed with malicious intent (as it can). However, he has been clearly vandalizing pages since 2007. Although it might be with good intent, it really isn't allowed by policy. I'm not sure exactly what should be done about it, but when confronted previously he maintains that

"No offense, but I edit these strictly for educational purposes in a classroom setting. Students often cite Wikipedia on academic papers, something a demonstration of Wikipedia's vulnerabilities helps discourage."

I'm not sure exactly needs to be done, but it's a unique situation to say the least. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could warn him that *leaving* the vandalism in place would be a problem, but if he self-reverted after showing the students the vandalized version rendered, it would be acceptable as a demonstration? Or help him set up a sandbox article for his demonstration, rather than doing it in the main articlespace? (Just my non-admin opinion, as an idea for a way to be able to show it without actively being disruptive.) rdfox 76 (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Vandalism only block? "Something a demonstration of Wikipedia's blocking policies"? Strictly for educational purposes of course. We want his class to know what happens when folks vandalize Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 00:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Rdfox 76's proposal of a Sandbox may be a good idea. We could create a WP:FAKEARTICLE in a sandbox on his page. However, vandalizing actual articles even if he reverts is a violation of WP:POINT.--v/r - TP 00:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have blocked the account indefinitely as a VOA. We do not promote vandalism of any form on Wikipedia. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

But the thing is he isn't a vandalism only account. Especially earlier in his contribution history he's made valid changes. He is doing this misguidedly, but not out of malice. I think we need to AGF. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have to agreed with NativeForeigner here. Eagle, you may want to take another look at his contribs. I was joking when I said this was a VOA.--v/r - TP 00:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the block, I would like to mention that some time ago I created a fake article in my userspace specifically to be used for testing purposes like this. It's at User:Beeblebrox/fake blp. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no tolerance for teachers who believe their vandalizing Wikipedia is constructive. I've seen this many times before and it frustrates me to no end. A month or two ago, an IP repeatedly vandalized the Philadelphia Eagles article for "a class assignment." Wbroun edited constructively three years ago, but the only purpose for the account now is to vandalize. WP:VANDNOT does not cover "instructional purposes." Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's justified for a block. But in this particular situation indefinite seems unduly harsh. If a hard precedent is set, I have no doubt he'll follow it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If Wbroun promises to stop vandalizing, I'll shorten the block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Indef is exactly right when we know that vandalism from the account is going to continue. Now, if there's a promise that the vandalism will stop, then we can consider a shorter period. T. Canens (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with T. Canens: Eagles' block is spot-on. There are plenty of editors (myself included) who would be willing to work with teachers to get their point across to their students without damaging our articles, but repeatedly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point simply can't be tolerated, especially considering they've been repeatedly asked not to. 28bytes (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Suppose we want to prove it is possible to go to the moon. How? We (we as in some people just like us) go there once, or a few time to make sure the first was not a rare lucky event. Then we document it. To show such voyage is possible for other people, other generations, you show them the documentation, you do not repeatedly take them to the moon. That is, if Wbroun has done this repeatedly, quite likely he (or someone else of us) may write a nice report - an essay...? - about it. Then he would show it to his class, no need to repeat the process indefinitely. - Nabla (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention there's plenty of native vandalism already out there. Shadowjams (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

An indef block may be excessive here. Wbroun (talk · contribs)'s contributions show only three vandal-like edits in the last year. There are editors who create more trouble in an hour. (Or, in some cases, in a minute). I'd suggest a medium-term block to get the message across. --John Nagle (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a permanent block. It's a "you can't edit until you promise to cut that out" block. 28bytes (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone thought to suggest a sandboxed WP:FAKEARTICLE to him as a place where he could demonstrate the possibility without disrupting articlespace, as we'd come up with above before he got summarily indeffed, or are we just going to assume he will come up with that idea on his own? rdfox 76 (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggested that in my post here four days ago, pointing out that I have a page at User:Beeblebrox/fake blp specifically for such purposes, but nobody ever uses it. Maybe I should move it to project space? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone remember (probably not all that long back, but seems it) an SPI and blocking case involving a user with a name claimed to be a Scandinavian word and not what it had been thought to be? This went on for quite some time, and got fairly acrimonious at times, but I can't recall details. This is in connection with User talk:Smokinswede, who may be totally unconnected, but if anyone who remembers the other case could do a comparison it would ease my poor tired mind. Peridon (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Toug ma Tojer/Sven the Big Viking, perhaps? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That's the one. Thanks. Any opinion? Peridon (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing immediately, but we'll see how it plays out. Sometimes it takes a little while for leopards to show their spots. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've unblocked the account. We shouldn't be blocking people based on imaginary problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Template_to_request_a_discussion_be_closed that would create a template which would be used to request that a discussion be closed, instead of making a request here. Comments on the proposals from the regulars here would be useful. Monty₈₄₅ 19:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please bring back the following user sub pages:

• User:Joyson Noel/Mateus de Castro
• User:Joyson Noel/Thomas de Castro

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 09:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Please also bring back the associated talk pages.

• User talk:Joyson Noel/Mateus de Castro
• User talk:Joyson Noel/Thomas de Castro

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 09:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• •  Done ... next time try making the request at WP:REFUND (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to appoint five editors to the CheckUser team and three editors to the Oversight team pursuant to the CheckUser and Oversight appointment procedures and following the 2011 CUOS appointments process.

Subject to their providing identification satisfactory to the Wikimedia Foundation, the Arbitration Committee hereby resolves to:

(a) appoint the following editors as checkusers:

• AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• Elockid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Keegan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• WilliamH (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

(b) appoint the following editors as oversighters:

• Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• Fluffernutter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• WilliamH (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

† Previously identified member of the Audit Subcommittee who will retain the specified permission(s) upon the conclusion of their terms.

The committee thanks the other candidates (28bytes, HelloAnnyong, Kww, and Mentifisto); those who applied but were not put forward as candidates; and the community in bringing this appointment process to a successful conclusion.

The committee also recognizes the departures of Dominic and Nishkid64 from their dual roles on the CheckUser and Oversight teams; along with EVula, Howcheng, & Mr.Z-man from the Oversight team; and thanks these editors for their diligent service as functionaries and their extensive contributions elsewhere on the project.

At the request of arbitrator Iridescent, checkuser and oversight permissions will be removed from their account until such time as Iridescent is able to return to active participation.

Supporting motion: Casliber; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; Coren; David Fuchs; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; Mailer diablo; PhilKnight; Newyorkbrad; Roger Davies; Risker; SirFozzie; Xeno

Not voting/inactive: Cool Hand Luke; Elen of the Roads; Iridescent

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 13:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Strawpoll. How many want to make being on the bestseller's list proof of notability for a book? The discussion has been open since 3 September 2011. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. I hope I summarized it well.--v/r - TP 16:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a very good close that summarized the discussion's key points. Thank you, TParis! Cunard (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I may not be in the right place, but I couldn't find a page for this. I want an administrator to block this account. I am aware of the option of courtesy vanishing, but I feel that it is not adequate for me, which is why I am now requesting to be permanently blocked. I have been a wikipedian since 2005, and I assume you all can check to see that it really is me and my account hasn't been hijacked, so I hope this will not be a problem. Thank you--TAW (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I request that an editnotice be created on Sandbox (computer security) and Sandbox (software development), as I think this and this are rather unnoticable. I believe the editnotices would belong here and here. mysterytrey talk 02:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not obvious that these articles are receiving significant numbers of edits by editors who believe them to be sandboxes. Indeed, I'm not even sure the HTML comments cited are necessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Darwinek's recent edit history shows multiple page moves to re-title articles so they include diacritics:

• moved Karel Plasek to Karel Plášek
• moved Tomasz Czerwinski to Tomasz Czerwiński
• moved Michal Dvorak to Michal Dvořák
• moved Almir Cehajic to Almir Čehajić
• moved Stanislaw Szymecki to Stanisław Szymecki
• moved Eugene Parlier to Eugène Parlier
• moved Monica Wetterstrom to Monica Wetterström
• moved Abel Avila to Abel Ávila
• moved Dusan Grezl to Dušan Grézl
• moved Miroslav Sperk to Miroslav Šperk
• moved Frantisek Purgl to František Pürgl
• moved Radim Beles to Radim Běleš
• moved Martina Kniezkova to Martina Kniezková

It has recently been discussed on these pages that all moves concerning diacritics are controversial, and that all proposed moves involving diacritics should go through WP:RM. Does that consensus apply to all editors, or are some editors held to a higher standard? Dolovis (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You have not discussed this first with Darwinek, and you have not notified him about this AN report either. Please follow our dispute resolution processes, i.e. go to Darwinek's talk page and discuss it with him, before coming here with a complaint. Fram (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This is just a continuing of his fight against all things diacritics which he has been sanctioned for in the past. He was sanctioned for trying to use many methods to block editors from making moves like creating redirects with double edits etc. He is just now trying to find yet another way to stop editors from doing what he doesn't like. If you want requests for moves Dolovis start some to move the articles back. I think you will find (as they have in almost all of your other requests) that the consensus will fall on leaving them with the diacritics. As for deciding on this page that all moves like this should go through RfM. That was never decided, what was decided was that your moves should go through RfM since you were being disruptive. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on moving articles to/from diacritics almost always falls on leaving the article as is sits (no strong preference either way). Dolovis (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Why was this marked by Fram as "Resolved" when nobody answered my question. I am not bringing a complaint against Darwinek (and I have raised this issue with him in the past on his talk page). I was just using his multiple page move edits as an example of how some editors do not treat moves concerning diacritics as controversial and they go about moving articles for no good reason other that their own POV. This flies in the face of a recent discussion on this issue[114] and I am asking for a clarification. Dolovis (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Because this page is for notifying administrators of specific action that needs to be taken. If you are not making a complaint about his actions or asking an admin to stop him then it doesn't belong here. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Umm, no it's not. This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest. If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Nyttend (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I have said. (discussions that admins might want to look at and/or close, slow burning issues that need to be looked at, information about things admins might need to act on etc etc) I clarified what I said because I was worried it would be taken that way, you may have started your reply before I fixed my comment. ANI is for stuff that needs help immediately. General chatter about practices or policies like he is implying was his intention tend to happen at Village Pump or the page/guideline of the related issue. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see this thread. When I supported lifting the topic ban on Dolovis, my hope was that he would shift his focus away from the diacritics wars. 28bytes (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this case at all; but it sounds like the prior ban needs to be reinstated. Same behavior requires the same response, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 18:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at his recent contributions, Dolovis has not resumed his old behaviours. He is complaining about another editor acting in a similar pattern, however. All I see from Dolovis are some uncontroversial page moves (i.e.: spelling corrections) and at least one maddeningly useless redirect creation unrelated to diacritics. Nothing worthy of reinstating such sanctions against him. Resolute 20:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This is true....in the end a topic ban from diacritics probably would have been the more appropriate ban instead of a move ban like he was given. -DJSasso (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

File:National Transitional Council logo.png and upload it to Commons as File:National Transitional Council logo (early version).png. It can now be licensed as PD-Libya. We have File:National Transitional Council logo (orig).svg, but for documenting the source of the SVG, the original file should be stored on Commons, too.--Antemister (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Question: I ran into User:Carthusian hermit/Hermits of Saint Bruno, which was abandoned by the editor (and vandalized by our Roman vandal). What can we do with it? At first glance, it seems to need work but I think it's a notable topic. Can we move that into article space without the original editor's permission? It seems like a waste to just leave it there. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure we can. You should leave them a message though, in case they ever return and want to know why their article was moved. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I see now, however, that the organization is far from notable, and the best I can find is that it is a private thing (see this, page 3)--I am going to nominate it for deletion. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If kept as a draft, it needs to be moved to the WP:INCUBATOR. To take it a step further, I would recommend that all such abandoned drafts, if not to be deleted, go there. Keeping them in the userspace as-is not only encourages WP:OWN, but it also places it out of sight for others who may wish to edit and improve drafts for the mainspace. –MuZemike 22:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Um...move it to Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts. That's why we exist, to deal with issues exactly like this one. I mean, like, exactly this. Silverseren^C 13:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Whichever, as long as it is somewhere. However, I sense a conflict between the two, though I would say that WP:DRAFTS is a little more active than the former. –MuZemike 21:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wherever it goes, please ensure that it is labeled "nobots". There is a recurring issue with draft articles outside of article space showing up in google searches, and they are extremely difficult to keep track of, whilst giving readers the false impression that they're "real" Wikipedia articles. Risker (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, for incubation, the {{Article Incubator}} template automatically NOINDEXes the affected page(s). However, I think {{Nobots}} merely prevents our Wikipedia bots from doing tasks there and has nothing to do with search engine bots (whereas NOINDEX does). Please correct me if I'm wrong, though. –MuZemike 19:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. - Category:Requests for uninvolved help - is there an admin willing to close this "uninvolved request" for closure of a stale RFC at Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism - Its been there 15 days so far with no offers. Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Its been there 15 days so far with no offers.

For the record, the request has been open for a month and a half. It appears to have become either a forgotten page on admin's agendas or nobody wants to touch it for reasons unknown. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I dealt with one of them. I'll take care of the other one later too if no one else has.--v/r - TP 20:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, per https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Titleblacklist#Seemingly_legitimate_article_triggering_the_blacklist could you update it? There is filter now for that which ignores regular users so that it doesn't break so much. Petrb (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, how do I move privileges from my old admin account JoanneB (talk · contribs · email) to this new one? --JoanneB temp account (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The first step would be to convincingly link the two accounts so it didn't look like you were an impersonator. Any checkusers around? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Assuming JoanneB is still accessible, you wouldn't need a checkuser -- just a post from JoanneB confirming the users are the same. I assume a 'crat could then remove the priveleges from JoanneB and give them to the temp account. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have access to my old account any more, nor the email attached to it, so had to create a temp account. --JoanneB temp account (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And you had to create a sockpuppet category as well? Strictly for laughs, right? Doc talk 10:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

But JoanneB edited only 14 hours ago: [115] --Mkativerata (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the account to prevent impersonation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Good block, IMHO. Doc talk 10:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if nothing else, this does it. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What, are you saying we admins (and the 'crats) are not a bunch of rubes that will simply do what some random account says is the truth without even asking questions? Whoever is behind the fake account should receive a full-bore outright WP:BAN from this project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you really need to update your computer clock (hope you didn't have anything urgent but it's now either 15 or 16th October) although you otherwise have a relevant point Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to WP:AGF here. Assuming the temp does in fact belong to JoanneB, here is what you need to do:

1. Contect an editor with bureaucrat privledges. They're capable of assigning sysop privledges to other editors.
2. Verify your information. If you forgot your password please write to the wikimedia foundation or contact Jimbo. Once you're verified as the owner of the original account, your admin access will be moved to your new account. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not JoanneB. Some trolls feed on AGF when it's not warranted, BTW. If it were an admin in that position (ignoring the lie that the password was hijacked in "mid-2010") they wouldn't have gone about it this way unless they were incompetent to begin with. Doc talk 11:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, some people will do almost anything to be subjected to the strain and abuse of actually being an admin. It's as if they think the extra couple of bits is actually fun or something (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

(chuckle) How could it be fun? One of my favorite things I've seen here is that when someone screams "Admin Abuse!!" - there is indeed an admin being abused. Doc talk 11:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that edit and the category the user created, AGF went out of the window very quickly here. The argument that User:JoanneB has been un-login-able since mid-2010 and yet its last edit was 6 days ago is, er, not very convincing. Y Endorse block. WilliamH (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Bottom line: If the account belongs to JoanneB, she is free to experiment with a second account. If the account does not belong to JoanneB, then the psuedo temp's block is justified and the real JoanneB should be notified of this incident. Next? –BuickCenturyDriver 11:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The "temp account" was not experimenting—it was acting disruptively. Things like these edits, the sockpuppet category, timing, behaviour etc explain why this was impersonation. Notifying JoanneB is not necessary when it's obvious that the account was an impersonation. And looking at JoanneB's logged admin actions, I only see a very small amount of occasions when JoanneB has blocked somebody for being a sockpuppet. HeyMid (contribs) 12:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

JoanneB should be notified ... she should a) know she was impersonated, and b) probably suggest who/why (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course they should be notified - I'd want to know if someone was trying to impersonate me, so I've left a note about this discussion. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Also JB has a committed identity but no mention was made of this by the 'temp account' Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for notifying me! As was already concluded before, the 'temp account' was definitely not me. I still have access to my account, even though I only use it sporadically these days. --JoanneB 18:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This User:JoanneB editor is the exact type of inactive account that has no reason or rhyme to be have administrator status. - they have only fifteen minor article contributions to en wikipedia in the last three years. Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point, although I don't quite agree with your timeline. Given the way Wikipedia and the policies change over time, I guess there's an argument for revoking admin privileges after a certain time of inactivity: you wouldn't want an admin from the days of yore to go on a blocking spree that's in violation of the current policies. Another policy would be to trust those admins (or those that have showed such sound judgement in the past) not to be that stupid and read up on current policy first instead. But bringing it up here and now might mean you see this incident as a reason to revoke admin priviliges from accounts like mine. However, I refuse to believe that any bureaucrat would have complied with this impersonator's request, so there wasn't a danger of my admin rights being moved and being abused. --JoanneB 19:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The timeline as presented by me is correct, you have contributed only fifteen minor contributions to wikipedia articles in the last three years. What do you want to be an admin for you are not contributing , please request the removal of your advanced rights and if you ever feel to contribute in the future ask for them back or present yourself for a reconfirmation WP:RFA. Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding the edits to articles. I misread your comment, I assumed somehow that you were referring to actually using admin rights. If there is a community consensus about me (or all admins in my situation) giving up admin rights, I will do so, but as long as that is not the case, I won't. --JoanneB 19:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Rob: starting a general discussion about activity levels required for continued adminship in the appropriate venue would be a far better approach that confronting individual editors whose activity levels aren't to your liking and making demands of them. 28bytes (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - OK JoanneB. While you are here perhaps you will consider when you have a little free time, contributing some more - we need all the experienced contributors we have and you clearly were extremely beneficial to the project. If you have a little time every now and again please consider returning to activity - that is my main point really, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been considering that lately, have mosty been trying to get a feel of things around here, because as I mentioned before, things change: poli.cy, people.. I never was and never will be a prolific article writer - English isn't my native language and these days I use it less than ever before. But if I come across an area where I can be of help, as in the past, I will (as time permits, obviously). --JoanneB 20:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm, via CU, that there is no relation between JoanneB and JoanneB temp account and hence concur with the indefinite block placed on the latter as an impersonation attempt. –MuZemike 19:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm, via Common Sense, that there is no relation between JoanneB and JoanneB temp account and hence concur with the indefinite block placed on the latter as an impersonation attempt. Fascinating how much Checkuser is used these days ... yet we still have the "checkuser is not for fishing" doctrine for us plebs, dolled out by our all-seeing masters. Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought we had RfCs that confirmed admins who were inactive for a year would be automatically desysopped? Night Ranger (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes (WP:INACTIVITY), but (a) "inactive" means "no edits or logged actions for a year", which doesn't apply here, and (b) if you are desysopped under this rule you can get your admin tools back on request, assuming there's no doubt as to your identity. Hut 8.5 21:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Besides making some minor edits, the real Joanne has done a bunch of deletions in the past few weeks. One very active account hasn't made any edits since April 2010, but is active by logging tons of deletions. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Verifying that two accounts are unrelated in relation to a possible impersonation attempt is not "fishing". There was evidence suggesting foul play, and hence a CU was appropriate. Something like this needs to be taken seriously, especially when users above hinted at the possibility that they may have been related (i.e. the stuff above about AGF). –MuZemike 21:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro: I can confirm, via What I've Read, that you talk too much. Seriously, what's your deal? The CU was completely warranted. Technical data is especially useful in situations like this. AGK [•] 22:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

How? The account was already block and the original account already made a clear statement that it was not them.--Crossmr (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps they were suspecting that the troll account was JoanneB after all. Jafeluv (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's happened before at least once - an admin creating their own disruptive socks and denying all knowledge of them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)