Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239

RFC to be closed

RFC expired here, can an admin close Talk:Plasma_cosmology#Requests_for_comment_2? Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Article move request

Please move Thomas Frederic Cheeseman to Thomas Frederick Cheeseman - 'Frederic' should end in a 'k' Thank you Paul venter (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking quickly at the sources, it appears they are split roughly 50/50 between "Frederic" and "Frederick". I'd suggest starting a requested move discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this move in any way controversial? Starting a requested move discussion is a way of stalling any move for at least 7 days, and the current backlog appears to add a month to that. As the requested move page says, "In some situations, the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. It is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: you can start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead." However, some seem to think AT policy forces "Any potentially controversial" moves through RM: see the discussion at WT:AT#RM not required. This increases the admin workload for no evident benefit. . . dave souza, talk 21:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there need for haste? Is something happening in the next month that would require the article to be renamed immediately? The articles not going anywhere. We have nothing but time.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the backlog of about a month, we lack the time to keep moves up to date. Why overload the system with uncontested and uncontroversial moves? . . dave souza, talk 23:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well then be bold and see what comes of it.If its challenged then you are at no worse loss than you are now.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It it potentially controversial because (a) the person who created the article obviously thought this was a better title and (b) the sources are split. Making moves, instead of move discussions, when we know there's a reasonable chance someone might object is often how we get into shitty move warring situations. I'm not really sure why you're dragging up the WT:AT discussion when that has to do with using RfCs as a substitute for RM. As regards the backlog, we're struggling a bit at the moment, mainly (IMO) due to RM bot being down – any help from experienced admins such as yourself would be much appreciated. Jenks24 (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RM says it is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: you can start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead, so I've done that.[1] There are useful discussions at WT:AT on how to improve the wording: it's made me aware that this is a bit of a bureacratic fankle with procedures I'm unfamiliar with, but that at least moves this particular request forward. . dave souza, talk 09:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit filter

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

---

Judging by the number of requests in the last ten minutes, smth is wrong with the filter. Could somebody pls urgently have a look? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to second that. I got a false positive just a minute ago and didn't bother reporting it. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 13:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal Attack (2º)

User:Trasamundo not stop his personal attacks over me. Now accuses me 2 times that I "sabotage" wikipedia. I'm getting personal attacks before in Talk:Spanish_Empire, which are repeated in last Trasamundo intervention. In the same talk he called me "Sockpuppet" in 4 times In this latter occasion he accuses me that I "sabotage" wikipedia.

Cited (Trasamundo):

• "So any accusation by Santos30 to others about original research it is simply a comical childish tantrum as if a child is denied a candy.."
• "this is the strategy of this individual, so that the page will be blocked, and nobody can edit, which is a full-scale sabotage in wikipedia.."
• "I know that when the protection period expires Santos30 will recommence his sabotage in wikipedia.."

This is his last edition where he accused me twice of sabotage. Thank you.--Santos30 (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Being called a sock without filing an WP:SPI is uncivil, but not a personal attack. Being accused of sabotage is uncivil, but not a personal attack as per the definition. This is WP:WQA territory ... dangerouspanda 20:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, How I can stop "uncivil" behavior of Trasamundo in the talk?. Thank you--Santos30 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC). OK I will ask in WP:WQA. Thanks.--Santos30 (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Being called a sock without any evidence is, in my view, a personal attack ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."). That said, I did not look to see whether Trasamundo provided any evidence. In addition, I note that an SPI report has been filed by another editor concerning Santos30.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Jaontiveros: who supporting User:Trasamundo in the dispute ,"agree with Trasamundo", and tries to help him to stop the Talk,and impose their views through a banned from wikipedia english, repeating the uncivil behavior seek a penalty on me trying to find any improper purpose and here. I make a report in Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance.

Jaontiveros talk about User Retired in Wikipedia.es, not expulsed before and not involved in the discussion, and Jaontiveros not say that Trasamundo gives and recive in Wikipedia.es strong support from User:Durero, who said these ugly words about Wikipedia.en after revert me and delete the map, kick me and block the talk. Then, User:Escarlati, supporter of user Durero in Wikipedia.es, delete POV template.

--Santos30 (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AIV

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

---

Could an admin please help with the current backlog at WP:AIV? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Need an admin to undo a moved article mess

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

---

User:OZODOR performed some kind of complicated move between Roosevelt High, Roosevelt High (CTA station), and Roosevelt/Wabash (CTA station) which finished with the article at Roosevelt/Wabash (CTA station) (where I think it was to begin with), but the edit history at Roosevelt High (CTA station), which is now simply a redirect.

Can someone please reunite the article with its edit history, with Roosevelt/Wabash (CTA station) as the name of the article?

Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Uncle G seems to have straightened it out -- thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know whether Anthony Appleyard still patrols Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, but that's the place for this, not here. This was a relatively simple one. OZODOR did two renames, and then a copy-and-paste to undo them, instead of reverting the moves in the reverse order. Uncle G (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a page I've never heard of -- I'll keep in in mind for the future, thanks. (After 7 years, I'm still discovering new things about this place!) Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Mass U1 CSD

Resolved

 – Nobody Ent 13:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to request mass deletion (CSD U1) of a set of pages? Specifically my old user name subpages ? Nobody Ent 12:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I can if you would like. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Article: Paul Staines

I have taken some emergency action at Paul Staines. In view of the complexity of this issuie, including NLT, COI, 3RR, and maybe even SOCK, would one or more uninvolved admins please chime in. See Talk:Paul Staines, the the article history, User talk:Paul.staines, and User talk:Kudpung#Paul Staines. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This at BLPN in 2009 is also relevant - clearly this has been going on for a very long time, despite the subject approaching it in the correct manner before, and semi-protection was used previously but then expired. However, it's unlikely to be related to Ali G's battlecry of "We gotta save Staines!" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Also now at WP:BLPN again with a new entry, but not really adding much. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borce Ilievski

Resolved

Can an administrator please delete the article? The person who closed the AfD never bothered doing so. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

She did. It just didn't look like she did on the AfD. I purged the cache on the AfD page and everything seems to be fine now. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The interaction ban placed upon User:Nug and User:Russavia in the Eastern European mailing list case is lifted, effective immediately. The users are reminded of the discretionary sanctions authorized for their area of mutual interest.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Amendment requested for 'The Troubles' Arbitration remedies; input welcome

Hi all,

Interested editors are invited to review and comment on a request for amendment to the discretionary sanctions remedy (R5) of the The Troubles Arbitration case.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Beee theeere!!! (insert super gravely voice)

I am attempting to post the origins of the radio and tv call of, "Beee theeere!!!." I personally knew the man who was an active d.j. on am radio who coined this phrase. I believe it to be just as important as Sunday! sunday! sunday!(Also not mentioned on this site yet a phrase he mastered but did not coin)to the children of the 70s and 80s. Ted Henderson was a radio broadcaster throughout the 70s and should be recognized for bringing this term to the american vernacular. I know very little about his history in radio, but, of course, this is where the genius of your site comes into play. somebody else does surely. The problem is, he passed away in march and all the history that surrounds him may be dying off as well. He has two adopted daughters and a son who may stumble upon this and contribute. I feel it is a valuable addition to your site. To hear the man say it would literally bring chills up your spine and giddiness across your face. When he said, "Beee theeere", you knew to be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamsagrav (talk • contribs) 10:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Although not a topic for this noticeboard, I'll direct you towards WP:FIRSTARTICLE. Neither your personal knowledge, nor his children's knowledge meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing. If you're able to find sources that generate the appropriate notability, then perhaps an encyclopedia article is possible. Personally, I've here that exact phrase on radio thousands of times across many cities and countries over decades, so attribution to a single person might be a challenge dangerouspanda 10:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Role of admins in Pending Changes

Hoping for feedback from fellow admins; I think there's a danger here, for WP and for us individually, and I'd like to see us get out in front of this instead of being swept along with the tide. A recent RFA candidate was defeated largely over biteyness issues on one of their 50K edits. I couldn't help but notice that, in slightly different circumstances, the edit they reverted could have been seen as a negative unsourced addition to a BLP article, and in that case, not only would their revert have been okay, it would have been mandatory per BLP. What this has to do with Pending Changes is that the proposal that seems to have the most support at WT:PC2012#Promoting and demoting reviewers puts the burden on individual admins to revoke the new userright if someone is misusing it, which I assume means warning them first. It seems to me that, since different admins draw the line on both BITE and BLP in different places, very active reviewers are going to see their talk pages fill up with warnings from admins that they're in danger of losing the userright because they leaned too far in one direction or the other. The problem is that this type of warning, even if it's accurate, is likely to discourage and push away otherwise productive WPians; we're not just talking about a warning that an edit was wrong, we're talking about a threat to take away a userright that's being handed out like water, which is almost certainly going to be viewed as a slap. Even if we get 100% consensus and we all perform our warning and revoking duties perfectly, my sense is that we'll still get burned ... a lot of raw feelings have been generated over the last five years and more of squabbling over Pending Changes. So: what are some other ways reviewership could be granted and revoked, at least on an experimental basis? - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is any different than rollback, which operates in the same easy-come-easy-go manner. Yes, sometimes users feel that having their rollback removed is a slap in the face, and yes sometimes rollbackers have their rights removed because they have a very different idea than admins of what constitutes "vandalism". But that's...sort of how it works. Rollback-granting operates on the basis of "when you can show you understand how to differentiate a rollback-worthy situation from a non-rollback one, you can have it [back]". Is there any indication that this would be different for Reviewer? Would Reviewer, once removed, not be re-granted once the user can show they've fixed whatever the reason was that they had it removed? I guess I don't really understand whatever the important difference you're trying to highlight here is, Dank. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe so, I mention some things that seem pretty different from rollback to me above, and in my last comment at WT:PC2012#Promoting and demoting reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Can the reviewer right be removed from administrators, many of whom are frankly not competent to judge on matters of content, and all of whom were promoted before this right (in its present form) was introduced? Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

At one point that was possible, but somewhere alomg the line it was decided to bundle it with the admin toolset. I don't know how that decision was made but I would imagine if a consensus to overturn it became apparent it would be technically possible. It would also be possible to "topic ban" admins who had misused the permission evn if there was no technical limitation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That'll be a "No" then. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It does seem rather odd that it is a bundled sysop right... clearly that needs to be stopped before things go "live". Also what we should do is set up a community process for receiving/removing the right that is lightweight and involves content editors able to judge when someone needs the right added or removed. Then an admin can flip the button at their behest. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether the reviewer right ought to be bundled in the sysop bit is an interesting question, but one that should be raised separately. If we can return to the issue at hand, I agree with fluffernutter that there are some similarities with Rollback regarding how the removal may be viewed, but I think there is a fairly clear community understanding of what is eligible for rollback and what is not. Given an particular use, I think most admins would reach the same conclusion about whether the use was appropriate. In contrast, dank points out the interesting situation that one might identify a nontrivial class of edits where some admins would admonish a user for reverting, and potentially leading to removal of the right, while other admins might insist that the revert was necessary—not simply allowable, but required by policy. It would be most unfortunate if holders of the right were admonished by some if they did the revert, or faulted by others, if they failed to do the revert. (Of course, it is hard to detect that someone failed to revert an edit, so there might be a preference for letting BLP violations go. That would not be good.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

... which lies at the root of the problem. Administrators have no special competence to judge on content issues, therefore they have no special competence to judge who should or shouldn't have this new right, one they all bizarrely have by default. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

t=one? Or was that a typo? Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus here, or at least with what he is asserting about the role of administrators. We're expected to make judgements about editors based on behavior, to settle disputes, and enforce policies. But we've never been given any special status when it comes to judging the quality of content. Even when performing deletions, we delete based on whether or not an article follows the guidelines, not whether or not an article is "good". As you can see at flagged revisions, anyone with that right is intended to judge the "accuracy" of contributions to certain articles, which seems to be a purely editorial call and not something usually under the administrator umbrella. -- Atama頭 04:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to have a formal community procedure for removing the reviewer tag? Let admins grant it out to anyone with a modicum of clue, but require a community !vote to take it away? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We do expect admins to make judgments about content. Every BLP-based block is fundamentally a judgment about content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's a judgement about libel. But the point I was making is that administrators have no special competence to judge content; that's something regular editors do far more often than most administrators do. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There is far more to BLP than libel, but even if you consider only libel, a decision about whether the content is potentially libelous is still a decision about the content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion, but why don't you address my real point, which is that administrators have no special competence to judge content? Or do you believe that they do, and hence are the proper persons to be deciding who should and who should not be allowed this new user right? Malleus Fatuorum 11:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

We ask admins to judge content every day. They judge if edits are vandalism and thus warrant blocks etc. Not sure how that isn't completely judging content. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Any fool can spot obvious vandalism, that's not the issue. And why are you, like WhatamIdoing above you, deliberately ignoring my very specific use of the phrase "special competence"? Or do you really believe that administrators do indeed have some special competency in deciding on content issues? Malleus Fatuorum 11:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I do believe admin need to have competence in judging vandalism. Which is essentially what the reviewer right is. Though some like to think its also about the quality of the content. I am not sure it really goes that far. -DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Even spotting obvious vandalism is a decision about the content.

I also agree with Djsasso that the point of pending changes isn't to decide whether an edit is ideal, but just to determine whether it's so bad that it shouldn't ever be shown to readers. IMO it's about obvious cases like vandalism and serious BLP violations, not about whether a given change is slightly slanted or possessed of a mediocre source or demonstrating new and interesting categories of grammar errors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Malleus is absolutely right to say that admins have no "special competency" when it comes to content. Admins are trusted by the community to enforce policies and judge consensus; they are no more privileged when it comes to actual editing. This is the main reason for WP:INVOLVED - an admin involved in a content dispute should not use their tools because they have no extra right to make content-based decisions, nor to enforce one editorial view over another. However, I do not think that this is an issue with the reviewer right. Wikipedia:Pending changes says: "The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, or other obviously inappropriate content." According to this (and a similar sentence at Wikipedia:Reviewing), reviewers are there to check that edits are not vandalism, BLP violations, or otherwise inappropriate. This is nothing to do with content, so the fact that admins do not have "special competency" is irrelevant. Reviewing is about vandalism, BLP violations and similar disruption - that is certainly under the remit of adminship. Thus, I see no reason why the reviewing right - essentially another vandal patrolling tool - should not be bundled with the admin bit. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that's rather a naive view, but whatever. The reviewer "right" is of no interest to me anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I seem to be failing at the job of facilitating consensus, so now I'm working on a different problem: when Pending Changes goes live, I'd like to see some actually useful data collection. (We had a trial of Pending Changes a couple of years ago, but only sparse discussion of that trial during the RfC that ended in June.) The main thing I want to look at is editor retention, and I've started a thread at WT:WikiProject Editor Retention#Pending Changes. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Range block needed

Can someone who knows anything about range blocks take a look at Pico- and figure out the best way to go about this? I assume a range block of some sort is needed in addition to the page protection. Ryan Vesey 15:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the article; range blocks are not ideal, given the number of innocent parties that could potentially be caught up in it. I'll let someone with more skills and agils explain in greater detail. GiantSnowman 15:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Range blocks are one of the most extreme solutions to problems and should always be used as a last resort. JOJ ^Hutton 15:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but it would be good if someone can follow some of these then, User:220.255.2.118 has made multiple different vandalistic edits., I've made an AIV request for that specific IP. Ryan Vesey 15:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a very heavily used range with a high level of collateral. Also as an FYI, single blocks on this ISP are almost completely ineffective/useless as the IPs reassign very frequently. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone given feedback to the abuse address at the ISP? My experience with other ST subsidiaries is that they are very precise and image-conscious, as a matter of corporate culture. I imagine that they might check their logs to identify repeat offenders, if given the addresses/dates/times. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Has any communication to any abuse address ever resulted in a successful action? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Not all the time, but it does happen. (Caveat: My experience involves SOC work in the outside world, rather than reporting onwiki abuse) bobrayner (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Now here's an AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Kimberlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Concise.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And hot. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Goredblue123

This user, User:Goredblue123, has made many vandalism edits. Please check all edits of this user. I already restored some of them. --Stryn (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I would call it vandalism, it looks more like a WP:CIR problem combined with an apprent refusal to communicate. (0 user talk edits despite 30+ threads on their talk page) I have gone ahead and blocked them, perhaps this will prompt them to speak up and we can find them a mentor. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of topic ban

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

---

I, User: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) am under a temporary ban from starting new articles until I go through past entries to look for copyrighted material that are too long for fair use. I have been through my archive and reworded passages that were too close to the source material or that were cut and pasted that were too long to be considered fair use. I am hoping the ban can be lifted so I can create new content. Hundreds of entries from the Library of Congress collaboration have not been added because of the ban. I am much more careful so that I do not add copyrighted content. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• It is helpful if you link to the original ban discussion (so we can see the original terms), as well as link to some of the articles you fixed, so that a determination can be made with full information. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• original topic ban thread at WP:AN November 2011
• extension of the topic ban thread at WP:AN December 2011
• Block discussion for violating topic ban July 2012

• Oppose No thank you. You're were back at it very recently, even though you were under the restriction. dangerouspanda 16:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Bans aren't supposed to be permanent punishment but are to be used to curb active bad behaviour. If I have gone through my material as requested, what then is the purpose of the topic ban? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose No thank you. - En Wikipedia has plenty of rubbish content without your cut and copy paste creations of low note subjects - better if you go and improve those that are already created and ignored by editors.Youreallycan 16:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you point out a "low note subject" that I copy and pasted? If a subject doesn't meet GNG it would have been deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You are the creator of a massive amount of articles, yes? - they mostly will be of low note - that is just a basic fact - all the high/medium notable stuff is already written about, Yes?- you have been copy pasting content to the En Wikipedia project , yes? - so ... Youreallycan 16:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Terang Boelan, a mid-importance Indonesia article (higher if there were a Cinema of Indonesia project) was just created yesterday. That blanket statement may apply about topics regarding the West, but certainly not worldwide. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

In the process of writing a new piece on Howard Costigan, I just bumped into a former Mayor of Seattle who hasn't been written up. And he's not the only one. The mind boggles. YRC's obnoxious bile-spewing needs to come to an end. I sense that might be in the wind, fortunately. Carrite (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan asks: all the high/medium notable stuff is already written about, Yes? I do not know about what constitutes notability to Youreallycan. But in terms of what constitutes notability to me, no. Off the top of my head: redlinked Sakubei Yamamoto (also spellable as Sakubee Yamamoto, Yamamoto Sakubei, Yamamoto Sakubee), recognized by UNESCO (see this and this) but seemingly not by Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you point out at least one "low note subject" that I copy and pasted, instead of using the false logic you use above? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of topic ban. Support someone with more administrative oomph than I have reminding Youreallycan that there's no need to be so sharp about it; a simple "no" would suffice and would not contribute to his already-notable history of unpleasant behavior in discussions. GJC 03:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that YRC's comment was rather harsh, but you don't necessarily need an administrator to tell someone that they really ought to reflect on the potential ramifications of their words before saying them. Nevertheless, he is currently facing the prospect of an arbitration case over repeated comments of this nature. "Warning" him not to be so brusque at this point is not likely to alter his dispositions. Kurtis (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose given that you were blocked less than a month ago for violating the topic ban, removing it would appear to be attempting to achieve this via an alternative route. Black Kite (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per the recent block. GiantSnowman 16:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose — per recent blocks and extensive block log. Thine Antique Pen (public) 17:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Entirely too soon after coming off a block for violating the ban. You shot yourself in the foot by doing that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black Kite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Given that this was a ban with a specific "ending" condition, if that ending condition has been met, are we now changing the ending condition? A topic ban shouldn't be used in this way IMO. If the issue with the topic is resolved it should be removed. If there are issues that exist outside of that topic, we should be blocking. If we _are_ going to extend a topic ban and _if_ the topic ban's ending condition has been met, we should specify the purpose of the ban so we know when to lift it. Hobit (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • So if someone subject to a topic ban ignores it and violates it, it is ok then? Particularly since they have been blocked twice in the last month, including for violating the topic ban? When someone disregards the terms of their sanction, it isn't a good place to complain about the completion of the said terms. It is understood that if you violate the terms of a sanction, those sanctions may be extended until a time the community feels comfortable removing them. Maybe next week, or next month, but not today. Violating the terms is yet another form of disruption, and since the purpose of any sanction is to prevent disruption, extending the ban for a while longer seems consistent with policy. Had he not violated the ban to begin with, this entire conversation would be moot, so be sure and point the finger in the proper direction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Not saying it's okay. I'm saying a topic ban shouldn't be used as punishment. Does it really make sense to extend a topic ban because the topic ban was violated? "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia." I'm not seeing any evidence that extending this ban will be in service of that. But consensus is clearly toward continuing the ban thus far. Eh, if nothing else this will make a really good RfA question about how to appropriately use blocks and topic bans. Hobit (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the topic ban is to prevent the problematic behavior and give the user a chance to demonstrate that they can contribute without engaging in the banned behavior. If they instead demonstrate that they cannot it serves a legitimate preventative purpose to uphold and extend the ban. 99% of users are not under any type of editing restriction, it is not that hard to avoid. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The relevant CCI case is here - it does not appear to be anywhere near cleared. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not cleared. I spent a fair amount of time working on it, and was working fairly well with the OP (at least I thought so), but we got bogged down on length_of_quote_in_reference_issues, which haven't yet been resolved, so I moved on to other tasks. I still hope to revisit the topic, if only because RAN is a prolific contributor, and I'd like to see him contributing again.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

CCI brought it upon themselves to some extent with an overbroad investigation. In my opinion, RAN needs to forever STOP glossing quoted paragraphs in footnotes. Footnote just the author, title, publication info, and page number — do NOT recreate the referenced paragraph or paragraphs. It's unnecessary, it bogs down the footnotes, and it pisses off the copyright sticklers, all three. Carrite (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

How would you restrict the investigation? The general rule is that if enough problems are found, everything must be checked. That's a lot in the case of RAN, but "overbroad" implies you think there is a way to limit it in some way. I'd be happy to find a way to limit the review, what did you have in mind?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I'm not certain I agree with you here. A topic ban should be there to prevent problems within the topic. *If* we believe he's not going to recreate the same problems (and has fixed the old ones) I don't think a topic ban makes sense--it's not preventing anything that I can see. That said, it sounds as if there is still a lot of clearing to do so the point is moot. I'd encourage RAN to work with Sphilbrick and others to help get that cleared... Hobit (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I think RAN is an outstanding content creator. I think the copyright concerns around him were either overblown, greatly overblown, or much ado about nothing given the tens of thousands of edits he has made over the years. Close paraphrase is gonna happen from time to time when one looks for it with a microscope. The big majority of his created articles were clean, and when he says he's going to be very serious about following copyright rules, I believe we can take him at his word. This topic ban (article creation) needs to be ended for the betterment of the project. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Discussion unarchived for formal closure. Cunard (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Assuming that the concern is whether RAN can be trusted not to violate copyright with his new content creations, rather than the problem being some desire to punish the editor for past transgressions, I propose a six month trial period during which RAN shall be limited to not more than FIVE (5) new article starts per month (exclusive of redirects). This small number of starts may therefore be closely monitored for potential copyvio issues, with a block or restoration of the full ban forthcoming for any violation. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think there are two issues. #1 He violated the topic ban recently and there seems to be a strong sense that asking to have the ban removed/reduced soon after having violated it isn't going to fly. #2 There do seem to be a few articles that haven't been fixed that have had copyright problems identified. RAN should try to tackle those first. I'd say fix the handful of articles that have identified and unfixed problems, work well with those who are identifying problems and come back in a month or so. I just don't see the community supporting this right now given the above discussion. Hobit (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur. I'm open minded, but fix the existing problems and allow a little time since his last violation of the terms before asking. No matter how prolific an editor is, we all have to abide by copyright policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I have to agree. Whether or not there was a recent violation I will leave to others to discern, but it appears he still has much work to finish fixing past violations. Copyright is just too serious to let go until the community is shown that he has taken enough action to fix these problems and show a real understanding of paraphrasing and copyright. I feel the topic ban should stand for now and perhaps this proposal for a trial period is a good idea when consensus is reached to end the snactions.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Education Program extension RfC

I've just opened up a request for comment on whether to enable the Education Program extension for managing and monitoring Wikipedia educational assignments. Note that possible configuration options include having admins control access to the main features of the extension, such as creating new courses.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at a deleted article may help

Resolved

 – Another satisfied AN customer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IICCRD it has been suggested that the article in question may be substantially similar to Iiccrd which was speedily deleted. If someone with admin rights could have a look it may inform the discussion. Yaris678 (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The content of IICCRD is significantly different than the content of Iiccrd, which was a bare bones regurgitation if the organization's goals. No comment on the suitability of the current article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No prob. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A proposal to have two entirely different classes of editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – this proposal seems poorly conceived, but it is also innapropriate for this board as it has nothing to do with site administration. WP:VPR or WP:VPI, which is for undeveloped speculative ideas like this, would be a better place if you believe this idea has merit.There is also the copy editor's group which already exists. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia should have two entirely separate classes of editors. The first group could be called the Factual Editors' Group. This group would consist of people who wish to correct all manner of factual mistakes. The second group, an entirely separate group, would consist of people who, while they might be concerned about factual mistakes and might post as members of the first group, would primarily be concerned about the quality of the English in the English-language Wikipedia. They could be called the Grammatical Editors' Group. It is painful to say it, but the quality of English used is, in many cases, absolutely atrocious. Here is one example, excerpted from the entry on Arab, followed by my comments: The early Arabs were the tribes of Northern Arabia speaking proto Arabic dialects. Although since early days other people became Arabs through an Arabization process that could mean intermarriage with Arabs, adopting the Arabic language and culture, or both. For example, the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids which originated from Southern Semitic speaking Yemen made a major contribution in the creation of the Arabic language. The same process happened all over the Arab world after the spread of Islam by the mixing of Arabs with several other peoples. The Arab cultures went through a mixing process. Therefore every Arab country has cultural specificities which constitute a cultural mix which also originate in local novelties achieved after the arabization took place. However, all Arab countries do also share a common culture in most Aspects: Arts (music, literature, poetry, calligraphy...), Cultural products (Handicrafts, carpets, henne, bronze carving...), Social behaviour and relations (Hospitality, codes of conduct among friends and family...), Customs and superstitions, Some dishes (Shorba, Mloukhia), Traditional clothing, Architecture.. -0- proto Arabic needs a hyphen. The second sentence is terrible English; the sentence is incomplete. The third sentence needs a who between Yemen and made. The sixth sentence says, inter alia, ... local novelties. This, too, is bad English. The word novelties simply does not apply to this sentence and should not be used, although I confess that I do not know which word should be substituted. arabization needs a capital. In the next sentence, Aspects does not need a capital ... Some [dishes] does not require a capital This is only a tiny sample of the English used -- sentences with no verbs, sentences that are incomplete, misspellings, etc. There should be different policies and rules for members of the Grammatical editors group, although I do not presume to know what they should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.169.207 (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think fixing grammar and spelling requires a specific user-right? "Anyone can edit" applies to everyone, whatever they choose to do. Some write stuff, some do the under-the-hood infrastructure stuff, some make minor edits cleaning up other people's stuff - and most people do a mix of all three. Mogism (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Need a technical history merge of two articles

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

---

Two articles need a technical history merge

• Kluger Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created September 2008 and redirected to The Kluger Agency December 2008)
• The Kluger Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created November 2008)

Obviously both the same agency This should have been "merged" a long time ago, but better late than never.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Template:Lang-crh

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

---

Could anybody fix the error in the protected Template:Lang-crh? (The word "language" needs to be deleted) --glossologist (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

New watchlist feature

Hey all. So, we had an AFT5 deployment earlier, and one of the new features allows you to see feedback from articles you're watchlisting, via a blue link at the top of the watchlist. Hope people find this helpful; if you have any problems, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, I was really hoping there would be something like this when I first heard of AFT5. --PresN 02:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad to be of help :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not supported on the iPhone: "Sorry, your browser is not supported by this prototype. To see this page, please use a different browser." Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It worked for me on my iPad with a user agent switcher, so it doesn't appear to be a technical capability issue. Instaurare (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Great idea, just a shame 95% of the feedback is trolling from IPs - my two favourite comments are the simple "gay" and "no." GiantSnowman 09:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• This is absolutely great, and I found some useful stuff. Is there any way to show only unresolved feedback? I marked a dozen comments as resolved, but can not get rid of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree; we have all sorts of filters, but not that one. Lectonar (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to see a feedback queue option on the right side, something like "Add to queue". For one example of what I'm talking about, on my watchlist I see feedback from IPs requesting images. It would be helpful to add that feedback to a queue that feeds into a specific "photo requested" queue monitored by a WikiProject, patroller, or bot, that then marks the article talk page for a photo and links to the feedback, or takes it one step further and sends out a request to users who help add requested images. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Wow! This feature is awesome! I am getting real feedback from real people with real needs. I can actually trace shifts in tone to particular efforts, which is deeply motivating. Also this gives me quite a bit of perspective into the relative importance of the different articles in my watch list. Thanks! I love it! →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 10:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• I notice about half of the feedbacks on my watchlist are fairly useless, but I suppose that isn't such a bad ratio. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Justin Bieber is on my watchlist -- wanna bet on my percentage of "useless comments"? Try 98% or so. Collect (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I was just coming to comment about the exact same article. This feature is mostly useless unless we can choose to remove pages from it. I don't want to remove a vandalism magnet from my watchlist, but my feedback page is dominated by a couple of articles full of feedback that really has nothing to do with anything. --Onorem♠Dil 14:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Like —  an IP gave a feedback to one of my articles I am both watching and working on not sure if its trolling since the IP stated "less lies" :/ I did reply though =) Best, Jona^{talk to me} 14:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

About 85% of the feedback I've seen has been utterly useless, much it obvious nonsense such as "asdasdasd", or "piv gair ". So who is allowed to edit/delete this feedback? Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe all rollbackers have that access. Ryan Vesey 16:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's described at Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Help/Monitors. Apparently, feedback "monitors" are admins, rollbackers and "reviewers". Feedback posts cannot be modified, but they can be hidden (i.e. essentially revdeleted). Somebody has been drafting a guideline about how that feature should be used, but that's evidently nowhere near established yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Then like pending changes I will be ignoring this new feature. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems unlikely (and actually possibly detrimental to the project) that admins, rollbackers and reviewers are going to spend a lot of time editing this stuff, when they (and many, many rank-and-file editors) pretty much have their hands full protecting the encycylopedia from vandalism and improving its articles. Was it really necessary to create an entirely new class of text that needs to be looked after, especially considering even the most enthusiastic folks here rank 85-90% of it as worthless? Unlike the enthusiasts, I saw nothing that was particularly helpful, and nothing at all that couldn't have been dealt with via a comment on the article's talk page. Like WikiLove, I see this as an utter waste of time and energy, and, perhaps, an indication that the Foundation's focus is profoundly misplaced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly would we need to look after it? This is like a public dumpster. Sometimes people use it to donate useful stuff instead of going to the trouble of handing it over to charity, but what is the point of trying to clean it up? It's a dumpster! Nobody reads it unless he or she enjoys looking for the useful stuff that people donate next to the dumpster. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 04:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem. This feature has added a "Graffiti wall" to every article on Wikipedia, and we the community don't dare just ignore it. At best this will merely yield a whole pile of meaningless inanities and the feature will merely be a distracting embarrassment. But if we don't divert enough volunteers from improving Wikipedia to thoroughly patrolling this then we risk a major incident, and more importantly we will be enabling a whole bunch of cyber bullying incidents of the High school girl named as sex-worker on her school's Wikipedia page variety. ϢereSpielChequers 12:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I will say that while despite 90% of the feedback I see from my watched articles, the rest is potentially helpful and this is a great way for readers to get involved without having to become "editors" (even if it was as simple as editing a talk page). --MASEM (t) 16:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Same here. Lots of obvious junk, but the occasional useful suggestion in between. Only a few concrete, actionable suggestions, but also some general indications of what direction an article should be developed in, which, even if vague, might give an editor a useful idea in some cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that after reading it, the suggestion will sometime be forgotten. Can we somehow transclude or substitute featured comments onto the talk page? Ryan Vesey 16:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, depending on the article 50%-99% of this is crap. But that it good! Just read it the other way, 1%-50% are valuable comments. Notice 0% is not in the range. Ryan's idea is a great idea which deserves to be properly discussed. We need to be able to pull what we see as useful into the talk page. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 20:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm seeing a lot of this kind of thing: "some more info HARDCORE DAVID GET OFF MY KEY BOARD JEESE" - not very helpful to be honest. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Article feedback is such a joy to behold. And that's from just the last 30 minutes. Looking at feedback from my watchlist, I find the omnipresent "tits", alongside such wonders as "leave your job", "to learn more", "meep meep meep meep MEEP", and the almost unbeatable "I don't know, it's your problems to think about it!!!". To go to this from poring over what Nataliia L' vovna Zhukovskaia had to say about Tsagan Ebugen is quite a shock to the system. Uncle G (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've been gently suggesting for a while that the current approach is deeply flawed, lacks a proper specification/aim and is not ready for production. But that seems to be falling on deaf ears; I notice that today it has been noted this is expected to be rolled out to 100% of articles in the not very distant future. Given that the tool still requires significant development I don't see how that can even be on the roadmap yet! --Errant ^(chat!) 19:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• I do note that if you sort by relevance, the results are generally a lot more helpful. I do wonder if here's a case where an argressive spam filter could be used to hide (not eliminate) results, such as those under a set character limit, excess repeated characters/words, cussing, etc, hiding those inputs by default but still potentially available.
  Also, but this becomes more wish-list-y, it would be nice if there was a way to put perennial feedback and replies to the feedback users. For example, Grand Theft Auto IV is on my watchlist, and there's already like 3 calls for us to list all the cars in the game. I'd love to be able to have a box that, before readers leave feedback, can read and understand that we're not a strategy wiki and won't do this, and invite their participation further on the talk page if they have questions.
  I think does work but needs tuning. I don't want to see it go away just because 90% of it may be crap, because that 10% is actually pretty valuable. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  It is rather silly that there isn't much in the way of an edit filter on these results. This is *potentially* a useful idea, but separating the wheat from the chaff looks to be difficult enough to make the system unuseful. Resolute 19:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I am getting something very similar, but am thinking it might not be such a bad idea to comply. On the democracy article there are many feedbacks that say that it would be nice to have a list of all the democratic countries in the world. Now, it's just one click away on the Democracy index article, but if so many people can't find it, why not put in a box with all the flags and names of the democratic countries. I started putting it together in my sandbox and I must say that it is kind of neat, in a non-academic sort of way. I think putting color into the article makes a lot of difference and that sort of thing does that job quite well. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 05:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Could I get a off-hand straw-poll if you guys think we should respond to requests like that? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 06:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be required or even expected, but it does sound like some good has come from it, and that is encouraging. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• yawn. should be opt-in; to opt-out:

#articlefeedbackv5-watchlist-feedback-link
{
 display: none;
}

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• • I don't need a coded way to ignore it. It's not a large or distracting link. I don't need to opt-out from it. It just really doesn't seem like a very useful tool...kind of like the feedback tool it started from. Point people to the talk page. Mirror the responses to the talk page with some ability to check them off. Something has to be better than watching the page, the talk page, and the almost entirely useless feedback from this. I looked at this because this discussion was ongoing and actually, I think, improved an article. This is not something I'll look at regularly because the feedback is so overwhelming and stupid. --Onorem♠Dil 05:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

a singing piece of poop - Justin Beiber

somone cool - Justin Beiber

Who are Juatin Biebers Siblings? - Justin Beiber

about his family - Justin Beiber

JUSTIN IS UGLY - Justin Beiber

lisa marie's first mtv video - Lisa Marie Presley

justin bieber ishot - Justin Beiber

talk more about his "haters" and his relationship with Selena Gomez - Justin Beiber

Great content. Contained everything I was looking for. GO WIKI!!!!!!! - Justin Beiber

why toyota move manufacturing to europe' - Toyota

Those are the last 10 'feedback' items for me with a watchlist of about 2500 articles. This is not very useful. --Onorem♠Dil 06:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

How exciting. New feedback from a minute ago.

i love you - Justin Beiber

What exactly is the point of this feature instead of pointing users to the talk page? All it does is add another place for discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 06:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the Toyota question kind of usefull? Does the article have something on that? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 06:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that none of the feedback is useful. But this isn't a 'feature' when only 1 of 11 comments is useful...and that's assuming that the Toyota answer isn't in the article. I don't know if it is. I'm watching for vandalism on that article, not content...and I'm not going to read through the entire thing now looking for the answer. --Onorem♠Dil 06:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Now I get why you would carry a crap magnet like Justin Beiber. That must be one hell of a vandal honey pot! That would also suggest that this feature should be absolutely worthless to you. I am surprised you were not more negative about it. It is not designed to support your line of work, and should not be expected to be able to perform well under such conditions. If you are interested in assessing it I would suggest you copy paste your raw watch list to a text file, pick 10 articles which you have content interest in, and then take another look. One more thing: no BLP. I don't think this feature should be on BLP articles. That's just not right. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 07:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note that the Justin Bieber feedback is not exactly representative :). There's actually a bug - people should be being prohibited from leaving feedback on protected pages, and I'm going to find out today what on earth has gone wrong with that. On the more general point of abuse; it is fully integrated with the abuse filter :). If you see some misbehaviour that regex can kill, I would suggest throwing it at your nearest edit filter manager. On Br'er rabbit's CSS tweak to hide it - there's already a way of turning off the tool via the preferences menu: see the bottom of the second page. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Did you want representative examples that were not from Beiberites? Try these, from the past 3 hours:
    • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/YouTube/264441 — Someone is looking for porn.
    • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/SVDK/264970 — So is this person. Amazingly, this feedback was automatically marked as helpful.
    • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Toms Shoes/264983  · Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Raio Piiroja/265000  · Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/The Mahabharata (1989 film)/264722  · Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/William Smith (swimmer)/264695 — Total incoherence is amazingly useful as feedback.
    • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/LGBT/264826 — This is the English Wikipedia.
    • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Hydroxychloroquine/264742 — A person with a medical condition known as absence of spacebar is looking for medical advice.
    • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/George Washington/264729 — Our article lacks the important thing to know about this subject.
    • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/List of H2O: Just Add Water episodes/264663 — Indeed.
    • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Judge Advocate General (India)/264510 — Thank you for another place that we now have to police for advertisements …
    • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Jon Stewart/264829 — … and for BLP violations …
    • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Inductive effect/264438 — … and for this.
    • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Substance abuse/264792 — Just say no.
    • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Ouija/264566 — And if you cannot say no, just say "poo".
    • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet/264905 — Hey, let's Godwinize this!
  • Uncle G (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Most of which have in common "they are very high profile". "Judge Advocate General (India)" included, as well as the problematic one, several useful and high-quality posts. Indeed, that was the only problematic one I saw. I agree that this is an issue, though, and I've pushed through development of a "disable AFT5 on this article" feature, to be added to the protection functions. I'll hopefully have more details on it (when/where/how/who) in a few hours. We were planning to do this ages ago but it seems to have been lost in the churn. Bleh. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Are Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Great Conspiracy/266602, Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Korba, Chhattisgarh/263082, Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Ray J/266605, and Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Climate of Turkey/263117 all very high profile, too? And the only problem you saw was the advertisement? You didn't see the automatic marking of "more ass 'n titties" as "helpful" by your tool, or the BLP violation at Jon Stewart, as problems? Or even the fact that your tool can happily report "1 word (2950 characters)" and you still haven't put in a check to catch something so basic? Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How is this a new watchlist feature? My own watchlist seems unchanged. Searching within it for the string "feedback" brings nothing. However I learn from the above that any article can have feedback. I guess that the article on Obama will have feedback. Sure enough, Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Barack_Obama does. At least 80% of this can be summarized as Needs moar truthiness! and nothing that I notice in the remainder is of actual use. I tentatively infer that this new "feature" is something I can safely ignore but yet a Good Thing: adding worthless comments (see the plentiful examples above) harmlessly absorbs the time and energy of me-toos and nincompoops. However, isn't there a danger that somebody will write an intelligent comment that I'll miss, but that I'd have read and benefitted from if only it had instead been in the relevant talk page? -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Just chipping in that my feedback is also pretty much entirely useless. There's one "I liked it"; some gibberish as detailed above. The good faith comments constitute a significant proportion but they consist of requests for WP:HOWTO information (on currencies and programming) and statements that actually they don't want a detailed article, just a list of "famous" examples. Depressingly crap tool, tbh. bridies (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• There's no need to paraphrase. bar examination literally needs "more cheese" and list of Newspeak words needs "MORE BATMAN". Of course more porn is a staple request, because sometimes one is just simply "unable to masturbate to this article", but sometimes an article needs "more cowbell". The mind boggles as to what the writer of Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Rocky (film series)/267194 is looking for more of.

  It's Special:ArticleFeedbackv5Watchlist that's the new watchlist feature.

  You can of course view the fact that you won't be watching the article feedback for comments to be a form of negative feedback that will discourage use of the feedback tool for serious purposes. People who post useful comments in amongst the deluge of one-word incoherences, requests for porn, requests for telephone numbers (example), people just saying "poo", and personal revelations (such as this one) will find them ignored, and will learn to use the talk page. Think of it as evolution in action. ☺

  The downside to your absence is that the mean number of feedback items for the rest of us to deal with goes up. Close to 230,000 feedback items divided by approximately 7,000 administrator and reviewer accounts means 30 or so items for each and every administrator reading this noticeboard to review for advertisements, BLP violations, and abuse, already. And since we administrators are (wrongly) advertised as the "go to" people for just about everything, we can both predict where all the "please delete this feedback item right now" requests will end up.

  Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

  • A few hours after I wrote that, "more cheese" and "i was unable to masturbate to this article" were both automatically marked as helpful by the article feedback tool. Uncle G (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Yep, this is a known bug; it's attributing anonymous actions to the tool. We've got a fix and will be deploying it on Thursday. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
      • In the meantime, the article feedback tool has marked a request for child pornography as helpful, three times. Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Surely we should consider having User:ClueBot NG or some similar bot go through this first and hopefully filter out most of the crap? Is there an API interface for this? T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• I have only just got around to looking at this. I fear it it is just opening up a section of wikipedia for all the kind of crap that ones gets on facebook and the like. I thought we wanted to avoid that. I think this is a bad idea.
• The quality of the comments being left on the articles I have watchlisted is really, really low (and a surprising number of readers seem to think that the articles are the official website of the various topics...). That said, there does also seem to have been an increase in the number of IPs making good contributions to articles on my watchlist, which I suspect is linked. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'd agree that feedback quality is mostly low, but the nature of the feedback will tend to be influenced by the nature of the article. My watchlist includes a lot of articles with potential for neutrality problems; here, feedback often looks like "This article should show the TRUTH which is being suppressed by the CIA / Big Pharma / Global Media / UN". With goods & services that might be bought by consumers, common feedback includes "Why did you remove my website on the HOTTEST DEALS?" and "Where is the nearest branch?". However, there is some useful feedback. On less glamorous articles, there are often comments that dry prose should be supplemented with a photo / diagram / graph &c... bobrayner (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• The feedback feature seems to me to be a well-meaning but very much undercooked and poorly thought out idea. Its current format ignores the basic reality that while a huge number of people read WP articles, only a small number of people are actually active WP editors. Given that a substantial majority of feedback consists of crap that would normally be considered vandalism, we have to ask ourselves: do we really want WP to become essentially a permanent webhost for such huge amount of crap and vandalism? If the answer is "no", whose job is it exactly to clean up this crap and remove it from being easily accessible? Surely, we can't realistically expect the small number of active WP editors to take on such a large extra task on top of what they are doing already. When a "regular" vandalism edit is reverted (without being revdel-ed or oversighted), it does remain in page history, but finding it there requires some degree of knowledge and skill. With viewing feedback, it is just two easy clicks away. Also, while I don't like using WP:BLP as a club, there are actual serious BLP issues involved in feedback. For example, over the last few days I looked through feedback for Newt Gingrich, and there were definitely a number of comments there that were borderline libelous and slanderous. Even in its current limited experimental stage, feedback already contains quite a number of such comments which would never be allowed to sit that long in mainspace or projectspace (such as talk pages of the articles affected). Expanding the scope of the feedback feature to more articles would multiply this problem and eventually WMF will face legal flak and possible legal threats or even lawsuits because of it. It seems to me both unrealistic and unfair dumping such significant extra workload as cleaning up feedback on the already shrinking cohort of regular WP editors. Nsk92 (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't agree with you about undercooked, but yes it is poorly thought out and I'd add an inevitable traincrash. But overcooked is probably a more accurate description. Unfortunately after making several attempts in the last year or more to kill AFT I've come to the conclusion that nothing short of an RFC by the community will suffice. We've even had research showing that a call to action would outperform AFT at the thing it is supposed to do - getting readers to interact with us. Tellingly the cost to the existing community of handling the extra crap is completely disregarded in the WMF evaluation of the project. I wouldn't resent AFT so much if the equation was along the lines of "for every hour of volunteer time needed to patrol the extra crap we get 2 hours of extra useful volunteer time from our readers". But the stats haven't been done that way, and if they were I hold out little hope that it would be a net positive. ϢereSpielChequers 16:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I tend to concur; the tool has a "planned by committee" feel for it. What worries me is that whilst an OK idea it is still far from production ready - but they are talking about rolling it out 100% by the end of this year. The way it has set up means the feedback is of a mostly low quality and is being fed into a black hole where editors are unlikely to see it with no way to respond to the person giving feedback. I tend to agree - a banner that appeared at the bottom of the page as you scrolled down saying "You can edit!" would be more effective in editor recruitment :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I beg to differ on the argument that wiki-markup is too steep a wall to ask our readers to climb. Particularly considering that they know very well that behind that wall they will be required to face the infamous man-eating wiki-culture, with its five wiki-hands yielding head-bashing Pillars of scorn.→Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 20:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm a bit confused as to what you are replying to there - has anyone mentioned barriers to entry? FWIW I do disagree; Wiki-markup is voodoo to many people - even editors - and the idea that readers know anything about our community here behind the scenes is dispelled in about 30 seconds at an outreach/editathon session :) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
          • My apology for being vague. I was referring to what I thought was a suggestion that a banner at the article bottom would be a more effective way of inviting our readers to express their needs. By wiki-markup I meant just what you see when you try to edit, of which one prominent example of a high barrier to entry is the proper way of citing sources. →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 20:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Ah, this feedback feature is very interesting. I've read through a few hundred feedback comments and I think I've found it useful precisely once, during our coverage of the 2012 Summer Olympics. Looking over the recent stuff, I see that Barack Obama is a Muslim, Wikipedia is run by liberals, Paul Ryan once worshipped a female Russian atheist, WP:COMMONNAME does not exist (and saying that it does probably means you're part of the Illuminati), we have a moral obligation to be providing links to copyright-violating torrent sites... and also, masturbation!

  I'm too lazy to opt out of this now, but if it disappears, along with the new feedback tool, I will be very happy. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Beyond My Ken's stated comments above. Most of what I have seen is useless dribble. Kierzek (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't read feedback coming from the tool, but I submitted my own a few times and I find the instructions so patronizing and offensive that I consider the thing worthless. It really does make me want to submit sarcastic trolling like the stuff quoted above, though I haven't actually done that since I have better things to do. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Excellent, I have about a thousand medical articles on my watchlist, and about three quarters of the feedback is good faith, while more than a third is useful. If you don't like it, don't use it. --Anthonyhcole (talk).
  • But in medical articles you still get requests for more porn, requests for telephone numbers, more requests for telephone numbers, even more requests for telephone numbers, and people who have contracted absence of spacebar just like everyone else. I only looked at 8 medical articles to obtain those. I'm sure that I'd find people just saying "poo" if I looked at a thousand. Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think I've modified the feedback filters enough to counteract much of the constant outright vandalism (e.g. "porn" and "poop"). Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
      • People know that they can still ask for "pitchers" and tell you to "fck off" because "your gay" (all posted within the past hour). I can see another Reaper Eternal's Grand Unified Filter Out Everything appearing at this rate. Don't forget to answer this request for a telephone number, by the way. And this one. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
        • There's a limit to what can be filtered with the abusefilter extension—I am basically just disallowing posts with phrases commonly used by vandals. The rest is going to have to be filtered through by hand, which unfortunately means that when the WMF deploys this to every article, the quantity of generally useless posts will increase tenfold. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
          • My feeling is that since the WMF instituted this feature over the objections of the community, and has done a fairly poor job of implementing it, and since it's the WMF that's in danger of being sued over some piece of trash buried in the feedback, the WMF ought to police it.

            We didn't ask for this, and we don't appear to think it's worthwhile, so I feel no compunction to spend my volunteer hours cleaning it up. In fact, what I plan to do is to ignore it altogether, which I suspect the vast majority of admins and experienced users will end up doing as well. When we spend time cleaning and protecting articles, it's because we want to preserve the value they have to the encyclopedia. I don't see this "feature" as having anything but the most peripheral value, certainly nothing approaching the amount of time necessary to keep it cleaned.

            Get rid of it, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

            • One edit filter to add that is fairly obvious from what I've written in this section would be to match the strings "phone number", "telephone no.", and so forth, and put up a message about how Wikipedia is not a telephone directory. Perhaps all requests for telephone numbers, including Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Al-Arabi (Irbid)/285137 and Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Bison, South Dakota/282140 should be directed to Reaper Eternal until xe writes it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
          • You could probably have a filter on feedback that contains only punctuation marks, but you're never going to filter out the naughty words without Reaper Eternal's Grand Unified Filter Out Everything. People know how to write "ana lsex", and as Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Fluid ounce/281519 shows there are ways to ask for more porn without using the words "more" and "porn". Readers can be, will be, and are being inventive in their feedback requests for porn, 'phone numbers, and poo. Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
            • A filter on feedback with no punctuation would see a lot of action. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think that once we get bots to filter out most of the obvious junk, the usability of this feature should improve. My results are interesting. The sports articles I follow get few comments, but I also watchlist Muhammad. It would be nice to un-watchlist that article in AFT, but not in Wikipedia. Especially since the number of "hide pictures please" and "OMG LIEZ" comments that one article gets singlehandedly overwhelms the other 1000 articles I follow. Resolute 20:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You should try the other Islam articles. Perhaps you could deal with Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Muezza/284753 and edit the article to let the reader know whether kissing a cat in the kitchen is allowed in Islam. Or if Islam is not your thing, you could try giving the poster of Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Indiana Toll Road/280662 xyr money back, or supplying the missing vital information pointed out in Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Erik Per Sullivan/284946. None of these are porn, 'phone numbers, and poo. You were saying about 'bots filtering out obvious junk …? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A second time: At the very top of this thread, we're told: one of the new features allows you to see feedback from articles you're watchlisting, via a blue link at the top of the watchlist. There is no blue (or other) link at the top of my watchlist that seems to be relevant in any way. Additionally, the string "feedback" doesn't appear anywhere in my watchlist. So how am I supposed to know that there is feedback? ¶ Oh, I can guess that Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/ARTICLE brings me feedback on ARTICLE, and above I should have guessed that feedback on the Obama article would overrepresent the crawled-out-from-under-rocks demographic, but Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/London for example tells me that feedback hasn't been turned on. Which, to judge from Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/New York, is no loss whatever. New York -- an article whose third sentence reads This article is about the U.S. state -- has six comments:

1. Telephone Number
   • Of what?
2. Well i think you should put more on the agricultural status of NY
   • Ah, a comment that's at least intelligible. It's pretty easy to follow the links that lead here. If you know roughly how to use Wikipedia. And if you don't, you might as well instead comment I don't know how to use Wikipedia.
3. new york
   • Yes, good, well done.
4. ho is the major of new york
   • Even I know that states don't have mayors (though they assuredly have hos). Go to New York City, and there Ctrl-F-mayor or Cmnd-F-mayor
5. why is new york called the big apple
   • New York State is not called the big apple. But WP's best guess at answering the intended question is as elusive as Big Apple.

-- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Now, now! No repetitions. I've not repeated any of the links in this discussion. I'd already mentioned the request for the telephone number of New York, at User talk:Uncle G#Did you forget anything?, where you will also find the request for the history of an Antarctic mountain in Nuneaton. Don't make me repeat where I already pointed you to Special:ArticleFeedbackv5Watchlist or where M. Keyes already told us about the setting in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering that turns this off.

  If you wanted another request for a telephone number you need only have used Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Robinsons Place Metro East/286071. If you wanted a non-"high profile" article with zero useful feedback, you could have used Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Tiffany Taylor (pornographic actress) where we have more porn, total incoherence, and a reader looking for a new career. Now go and help the reader at Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Rikers Island/285240, and repeat no more! There are more than 170,000 visible feedback items where you can have your pick of porn, 'phone numbers, poo, advertisements, BLP violations, personal medical details, personal revelations, absence of spacebar, and total incoherence; repetition is unnecessary. ☺

  Uncle G (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• If we get someone to write a filter that disallows the letter "p", that'll sort out "porn", "poo", "phone number" and "pictures of Muhammad" in one fell swoop. Not sure why no-one's thought of that yet. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to interrupt the festival of back-slapping over having rediscovered Sturgeon's Law, but I actually rather like it, or at least certain aspects of it. My view here is colored by the fact that my watchlist has a fair number of small, low-traffic articles; while I do watch a few "controversial" things like some Crusade-related articles, I'm not looking at anything related to modern popular culture. It's already generated one article improvement I probably wouldn't have thought of on my own. I can think of several straightforward changes to improve the signal-to-noise ratio:

1. Drop the idea of universal coverage. Even if it does generate a few excellent suggestions on improving, say, Barack Obama, we don't have enough eyeballs to pick them out of the stream of partisan wrangling. Let editors opt into it on an article-by-article basis with a template.
2. Flush it regularly. Posts that haven't been featured in a certain amount of time are probably too marginal to save. Get rid of them. Even better, transclude the old featured posts onto the talk page.

I confess that I'm a little tender towards the tool because I feel it's supported a philosophical point I made some time ago, in the wake of TCO's controversial report on FAs: number of page hits is a very poor metric for encyclopedic merit, because we don't know if the hit came from someone using us as an encyclopedia. It's clear from looking over the feedback that a lot of our readers are—to be blunt—too stupid to know the difference between a Wikipedia page and an official home page. We can't give them what they're asking for within the bounds of WP:NOT, and using their page hits to drive our priorities is a first-class mistake. Choess (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• I like both these ideas :). As an interim measure we've got a feature that'll turn the tool off, which should be deployed on Monday or Tuesday (just another section on Special:Protect that allows you to turn off the tool). Hopefully that will solve the problem on those pages where noise comes outstrips signal. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you mean "turn off" per article? And would that be an admin thing only, or the admin, rollbacker, reviewer groups? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

View feedback link on article pages

(Moved from bottom of page. There was no need for a new section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

Are you guys crazy? Take it down now! →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Two questions:

1. Why?
2. Why did you start this new section rather than commenting in the open one a few sections up? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Because I am fine with this feature as long as the feedback is kept well hidden from readers. Otherwise, I do have to go and clean it up, which makes the feedback a very bad feature indeed. I just noticed this link, was it there for a long time? Feel free to close this discussion or move it to be a sub discussion of the previous one if you think that is better discussed in that context. →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 19:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In particular, the new link at the top of the talk page seems quite sufficient to me. But even for that I would hope that some template would be provided to allow us to hide it, say at the bottom instead of the top. →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 20:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It requires no more cleaning up than the same contents would prompt on the article's talk page, and t is harder for the readers to find these comments compared to talk page comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I was referring to a new link on the toolbox that allows a reader to see other readers feedback. It was put there today, I think, and I don't remember that something like that going to happen was mentioned before. Are we on the same page now? One click and they see all the junk, yes? →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 04:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I think the issue is that those types of comments don't occur on talk pages very often in practice. If it starts happening too often on a particular page, that page gets protected. But with this feedback stuff, it apparently does happen all the time, on vaster swaths of pages than have this problem through regular editing. So, arguably, something should be done. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure; see my last comment in the section above :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

User page and user talk page moved to template space

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

---

It looks like Template:Metro series was originally created by a new user from their user page and then both the template design and the user talk page were accidentally page-moved to template space [2]. An IP then copied and paste previous warnings from the now-template talk page back to the user talk page [3]. Is there anything that needs to be done to preserve accurate histories or something? -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What? I did that because I dont know another way to create an article template. There is nothing wrong with the template. It is a template showing the metro series not my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaCyanide666 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• The template is fine, as is the history because it was the only thing the user had used it for. The problem is at what is now the template talk page, which needs to be history merged with the user's talkpage. Which I'll do in the next few minutes. Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done

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

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:GA_banner

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

---

Can an admin close Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:GA_banner Thanks! Obtund^Talk 06:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That discussion has run for less than four days. Is there any particular reason to cut short the normal seven-day debate? JohnCD (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a unanimous keep. Obtund^Talk 16:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

At the moment. We give these things a week to run unless there's a good reason; a lot of editors are only active at the weekend. What's your hurry, anyway? It's barely used anywhere. Mogism (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

CBS Records

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – Clearly this is a content dispute. Seek WP:DR and/or Wp:PP as needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

For the article CBS Records, should the article only contain information on the current business entity that was created in 2006, or should it contain information on both business entities and include the division of CBS that existed under that name from 1962 to 1988? All the links coming into the article are for the the pre 1988 entity. User:Steelbeard1 insists that only 2006 information is to be at the article despite reliable sources showing a business entity of the same name from 1962 to 1988. He deletes all changes to the article back to his preferred version despite the use of reliable sources showing CBS Records existing prior to 2006 and despite all the incoming links being to the first business entity. He has now reverted to his version three times and is now removing links in other articles that point to "CBS Records", there are several hundred incoming links for the pre 1988 business entity. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Snow close request

Anyone interested in snow closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:StillStanding-247/RfC? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

pulp-pedia

Dear administrator,

My article "Ahmet Yalçınkaya" is copied by a website calling itself "pulp-pedia" at the address http://lohere.net/kulkapedia/samuel/Main_page . It is really annoying as they directly copied the article from Wikipedia and added profanities to it. Is not there any way to block them or at least to prevent them do this?

It is very important for my poet friend Ahmet Yalcinkaya and for me. I am the editor of the original article after his name. We need urgent help. Thank you.

A. Edip Yazar Editor of the article "Ahmet Yalçınkaya" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipyazar2 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The licence Wikipedia uses allows content to be reused for any purpose, provided the source is attributed and any derivative work (such as this one) is licenced under the same terms. It's just childish vandalism and the content has obviously been copied automatically, I suggest you ignore it. Hut 8.5 16:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That has got to the lamest Wikipdia parody I have ever seen. I agree, ignore it. I'm sure everyone else will. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I commented on this website a while back and my larger concern is why Wikipedia allows the trademarked puzzle globe to be defaced which is not part of the license agreement. Ignoring it is a viable option but action is in my opinion the better choice. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got a point there about the logo but there is nothing any en.wp admin can do about it. This is a matter for the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers. This guy is probably a good contact for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This was raised on Geoff's enwiki talk page last month, see User talk:Geoffbrigham#Pulp-pedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well in that case I'm afraid there is nothing else to be done from here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Work on this is in process. As Peter noted at Geoff's talk page a little higher in that thread, they are not always easily resolved. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

List of American Catholics issue

List of American Catholics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi,

I wanted to edit the pathetically short list of American Catholics. So, naturally, I go to look them up, list the names, and try to come back with the citation once ai have all the names down, to make things go faster. This guy keeps taking them off and leaves aggressive messages, like this one:

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to List of American Catholics.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC) It doesn't work that way. You don't add something to an article because you suspect it to be true. You find the sources before you add the names. And it doesn't matter how many Catholics live in a country. You have to source every name you add to that list. And the sources must be reliable; see WP:RS. You are still subject to a block if you add any more information to Wikipedia without proper sources. You've been given more than sufficient warning. Cresix (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC) And please note that someone must self-identify as Catholic as an adult. Being brought up in a Catholic family is not sufficient. Being "baptized and confirmed Catholic" is not sufficient. Going to Catholic school is not sufficient. Being "Irish and Italian" is not sufficient. BTW, I'm also Catholic; you don't have to explain Church policies to me; what the Church says doesn't matter here in identifying someone as Catholic. Cresix (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Regarding Alec Baldwin and Jimmy Fallon: Please stop it. As I clearly explained above, Baldwin stating that he has an "Irish Catholic background" does not mean that he identifies himself as Catholic as an adult. See WP:BLPCAT. This is your FINAL WARNING. Cresix (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Alec Baldwin has been married in the church and he is getting married again, seeking a Catholic wedding. The article I submitted about Jimmy Fallon mentioned him trying to go back to church in L.A., he was an altar boy, for heaven's sake! Matt Damon is married to a woman who is definitely a Catholic and so are all of his daughters...something tells me dear old Dad approved (and IMDB was not the only soure I had to choose from, hell, the man and Kevin Smith lampooned the church in Dogma to the point I peed my pants and I am from Boston: do I need to round up all the people who knew him before he was famous, including his mother, before I can get captain crankypants to back off?!.) Desi Arnaz raised all of his kids as Catholic, sent them to Catholic schools and colleges and his ex-wife Lucille almost converted for him; he married her a second time in, in a Catholic church. Every person I submitted may not necessarily be a GOOD Catholic, but all of them are baptized into the church, all of them have taken the Sacraments, which are the requirements for full membership, and none of them have ever once said anything about leaving the church and there is no evidence they have!!! Frankly. I am going bonkers-does this guy need to see a famous Catholic tear off the tux at the Academy Awards and reveal a cardinal's robe underneath for him to accept the criteria?! I myself am also a Catholic, and I fear the parish that has this crazy editor as its member!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.218.103 (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are getting good advice and should listen to it. Read WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R. "been married in the church", "was an altar boy" and "married to a woman who is definitely a Catholic" are not enough. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Two things:

1. You appear to be engaging in original research which is not in fact permissible

  −

2. You are most certainly engaging in completely unnaceptable personal attacks. It is unlikely anyone will be interssted in even talking to you if this is how you ask for help. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I was raised Catholic (baptized, first communion, confirmation, CCD awards), and my first marriage was in the church (so as not to alienate my future mother-in-law), but even then I did not consider myself to be Catholic. The only reliable indication of a person's reigious beliefs is a statement by the person: "I am Catholic." Anything else is interpretation or anaylsis, i.e. WP:OR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

To back up what the others have said and to directly refute some of your OR: I have a family member who had a Catholic wedding to a Catholic man; all of her children have been baptized Catholic. Using your logic, we'd assume she's Catholic she is not Catholic though. We absolutely require self-identification of a person as being in a religion to categorize/list them them in that religion. LadyofShalott 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it , this is strictly true only of BLP--but of course this is a BLP; it is probably permissible to simple state the relevant material in the bio without trying to draw any conclusion or use a category, & people will make of it what they will. DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP is simply a matter of priority. All biographies should follow the rules we assume of BLPs: it is simply that BLPs are more urgent, and thus we waive a certain degree of AGF when it comes to incompletely sourced additions to them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible attempted outing

Could someone please take a look at this thread? StAnselm (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Still redacted it, but either way I don't see the problem with this. Any user can log on to the WP IRC server and see a user named ArtRubin. It's not like he's trying to hide who he is or obscure the link between his WP account and WP IRC account. Its equivalent to pointing out someone's account on meta. Sædon^talk 09:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Except that I don't have an IRC client.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • And I don't think have an IRC "account", not that that matters much. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • While linking someone's WP username to an IRC account name isn't outing, I feel I should note here that alleging that so-and-so editor is "assigned to deliberately try to provoke you with incivility" (as the IP has done on StillStanding's talk) as part of a conspiracy among a group of editors is the sort of big accusation that needs to be either substantiated or removed. You simply cannot wander around accusing editors of conspiracy - if someone has evidence of such a thing, it needs to go to arbcom, now; if there is no evidence or the person who has the evidence is not willing to submit it for review, that sort of accusation must stop. Now. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
      • So how exactly is it "outing" if it is part of WP:WikiProject Conservatism? That is part of the project. I think you need to tone down the rhetoric just a tiny bit. Less fluff and nutter, and more thought and consideration. -- Avanu (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
        • ...What? If you re-read what I said, Avanu, you'll find that I said this wasn't outing. I then went on to say that while outing wasn't a concern here, personal attacks were. Not sure what your point about the Wikiproject is intended to convey - perhaps that collusion is the same as collaborating? In which case, no it's not. There's collaborating on articles, and then there's behind-the-scenes collusion with the purpose of getting users blocked, etc - and the latter is what people are alleging here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
          • And for the record mocking someone's username like that is the lowest form of argument and reflects very badly on you. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
            • How can someone named Beeblebrox not know that the lowest form of argument is "Belgium, man, belgium!"? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
            • If you're going to pick on me, Beeblebrox, at least pick on me for what matters. I didn't read what Fluffernutter said very well and responded too quickly. As for supposedly mocking his name, it wasn't done at all. I used the word "fluff" and the word "nutter" as plays on words, puns, if you will. And while those comments might not have been the lowest form of argument, they certainly are the lowest form of humor. -- Avanu (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned by such words as This would make it rather easy to share IRC logs with me and Could you email me some logs or evidence of collusion? In the past, arbcom has been willing to issue blocks when such evidence is provided. The more evidence of collusion you can provide, the quicker we can get this evidence to arbcom. I would prefer to see the evidence myself rather than sending it directly to arbcom, as evidence sent to them often gets lost due to their list filtering system. which appear to suggest using non-WP sleuthing to attack editors. Not to mention He was designated to the provocation group. Just FYI so that you know when you encounter him, he's assigned to deliberately try to provoke you with incivility. The "combination of ingredients" verges on being directly actionable by a neutral admin. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the IRC channel we're talking about public? That's kind of important when it comes to sharing IRC logs. I agree, the claims made are quite strong and require some evidence. Which leads us right back to the logs and the question of whether the channel is public. --Conti|✉ 18:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

To ensure that there's no suspicion of impropriety perhaps it would be useful for a couple of neutral adminms to idle the channel. 92.30.189.148 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the channel name? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the entirety of the accusation is that there exists a channel that's being used for collusion by nebulous people from a Wikiproject. Without actual evidence of what channel and what the problem behavior is, there's really nothing anyone can do to stop what may or may not be happening. Even if we did know the channel name, IRC is not Wikipedia - we don't deploy WP administrators to run things on IRC, and even if we did such a thing, people could just start a new channel where the admins weren't deployed. We can control IRC behavior only inasmuch as it affects onwiki behavior - which is to say, if you run a conspiracy on IRC to edit WP in manner X, WP admins can keep you from editing Wikipedia in that manner (generally by having Arbcom address the conspiracy), but we can't keep you from talking about it on places that aren't here.

All those things said, however, I would note that there is currently no evidence available of any conspiracy-style malfeasance, on IRC or elsewhere, and until such evidence is presented, it's moot to discuss handling a conspiracy that cannot be shown to exist. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that some editors are attempting to gather evidence of a conspiracy at User talk:StillStanding-247/RfC. StAnselm (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And I should point out that the RFC is not about conspiracy theories. It's rooted in diffs of actual edits, not anything imagined. Please be more civil when summarizing our efforts. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if the wikiproject has a public channel. I assume some wikiprojects do have them. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is possible to see if an admin can connect the ip to an account? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That was already done. It's connected to User:SkepticAnonymous which you can see in the block log here [4]. Now Viriditas has already confirmed that he has the IRC logs shown by his edit here [5] ViriiK (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, maybe you should have notified me about this conversation, since it's about the contents of my own talk page? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyhow, I don't know what to make of this IP's claims. My immediate response was to give them my email address so they could send me logs, but they have not done so. Without logs, there's no question of going to Arbcom or whatever. I guess it might be helpful if WikiProject Conservatism would address the claims, at least by telling us whether there's an IRC channel that they use. That seems to me like a reasonable request to make. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I asked Lionelt formally to confirm this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it me or is this crap a loaded question? Deny and Viriditas will bring out the IRC logs that he confirmed receiving from User:SkepticAnonymous and they go ahead and file an RFC against Lionelt. Confirm and they file an RFC anyways. ViriiK (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He should affirm or deny solely on the basis of what's true. The truth is a safe bet. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You're in no position to force anything on anyone especially Lionelt. Especially when you're collaborating with Viriditas on an RFC against Lionel and are sitting on an IRC log which is highly dubious coming from a banned editor. ViriiK (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Just so it's out in the open, the IP that purports to have these logs is an indeffed user: [6][7] He's not exactly a paragon of credibility. If there's any "safe bet" here, it wouldn't be one that hinges on the IP's honesty. Belchfire-TALK 06:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• And just so you know, the IP is no longer indeffed and is currently unblocked. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• The user is still indeffed: 15:54, 4 August 2012 Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) changed block settings for SkepticAnonymous (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Personal attacks or harassment)

The IP was, inexplicably, not indeffed: 23:07, 23 August 2012 Guerillero (talk | contribs) blocked 76.31.236.81 (talk) (account creation blocked, e-mail disabled, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of 48 hours (This is a duck: Block Evasion User:SkepticAnonymous/User:98.195.86.32)

He was given a 48-hour block that has expired. Viriditas, are you claiming that the expiration of the block somehow improves his credibility??? Belchfire-TALK 16:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As I predicted, it is a loaded question. Bad advice. Nothing would make him look guiltier than refusing to answer this extremely pertinent question. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC) [8] ViriiK (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I encourage you to simply tell the truth. Neither silence nor lies will work in your favor. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. ViriiK (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

ViriiK, I say "the truth will set you free" and you respond with "a-hah!". :-) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He's not required to respond to your loaded question because you are in no position to force him to do so. You have a genuine conflict of interest here since are you filing an RFCU in collaboration with Viriditas against the WikiProject that Lionelt is a part of and also are sitting on an IRC log that implicated an admin here. ViriiK (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I can't force him to answer. However, if he refuses to, that's going to look bad. That's why I helpfully suggested that he should simply speak the truth. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Going to look bad how? Oh right, crystalball here. Any answer will look bad since A) he denies and you in collaboration with Viriditas is sitting on an IRC log that implicates an admin and you file an RFCU or B) He confirms and you file an RFCU or C) Omission of any statement makes the accusation look true and you still file an RFCU against Lionelt and the WikiProject. Hence the point of the loaded question because you are expecting something to buffer your point. ViriiK (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't have a crystal ball, remember? It all depends on things that are not yet clear. That's why it's best to clear the air and end the idle speculation. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's best to clear the air and drop the issue. An admin was namedropped here. ViriiK (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, it would look bad for him if he didn't answer. For his own sake, he should answer. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

For his own sake, this isn't about him. ViriiK (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's about his WikiProject. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This report is about his Wikiproject? You're saying that the dubious and banned editor who namedropped an admin is about Lionelt's Wikiproject? You're the one here trying to pull the Wikiproject into the picture. Arthur already denied he has an account on IRC and yet you're doing everything in your powers to compel Lionelt to respond to any form of answer that you want because it's obvious at this point that you've planned out this loaded question quite carefully. ViriiK (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had that IP editor's comments on my talk page for about five days now, and I've done nothing. I asked them to mail me the logs, but they didn't. I left this alone until StAnselm brought it up here. Don't look at me: he did it.

Arthur denied having an account, but said nothing about this supposed WikiProject Conservatism IRC channel. I haven't asked him because he's not in charge of WikiProject Conservatism, so he's not the one who can give an official response. Note that you don't even need an account for IRC; any unused nick will do and I can't imagine there are that many ArtRubin's out there. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So do ask Viriditas for the logs. He has them. After all, you are collaborating with him quite intimately on an RFCU draft. The issue here is that an admin was namedropped here and it most definitely is not about the Wikiproject. Until now when you started commenting, no one cared about the Wikiproject. Are you here to accuse Arthur Rubin of being ArtRubin since you are trying to get confirmation of this obviously fictional IRC channel? You know who the focus should be on? SkepticAnonymous since he is the one that made the unsubstantiated accusation of this channel existing or Arthur Rubin being a member of especially you are the one using the accusation as evidence that this IRC channel might exist but it is extremely unlikely. Only Viriditas can give us the logs since he has confirmed that he has them at least according to his talk page. ViriiK (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It may well be the case that you know more about this than I do, as I saw Viriditas' comment and it seems ambiguous to me. It does suggest that the IP sent him a message, but it says nothing about the contents. The email could say something like "There are no logs, I'm just messing with them" or "Yeah, sure, I've got tons of logs, but I'm not sharing" or anything else. After all, if there is no channel, there can be no real logs, right?

Rather than playing guessing games, I'm going to open up my question to everyone. If anyone here knows about the existence (or non-existence) of a WikiProject Conservatism IRC channel, I would appreciate it if you would share the information publicly. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If Viriditas is acting as a proxy for SkepticAnonymous, should he be blocked? I don't think it's a good idea, but acting as a proxy for a banned user is grounds for an indefinite block.

And, even if that's not the case, I don't think Lionelt should answer. You (StillStanding) won't believe anything he says.

<redacted further comment about StillStanding> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP claims he isn't SkepticAnonymous, and I'm not acting as a proxy for anyone. If he wants to release the logs, he will. I have nothing to do with it. Further, the IP is no longer blocked, so it is safe to assume we will see him around here with a new account at some point. Or not. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt wouldn't be telling me, he'd be making an official statement. Clearly, he has declined to do so. And on that note, I'm declaring this bit of drama over. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You declare nothing. Now, Viriditas, you confirmed at least on your talk page that you received the logs or at least the email from SkepticAnonymous [9] with your comment of "Got it. Thanks." I'm sure any administrator (other than Arthur obviously for COI reasons) here can now investigate the email sent to Viriditas' email to look at the content thereof (with privacy given of course). The reason for this is because Viriditas did direct the IP/Skeptic to email him via the Wikipedia system [10] Also that's not what the blocklog says, Viriditas. How do you know it was not SkepticAnonymous on that IP address? The expiration on that block was not an indefinite one so it was likely an oversight on the blocker's part. ViriiK (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP, who is currently unblocked, says he is not "SkepticAnonymous", so please stop referring to him as such. The logs in question belong to the IP. You are welcome to contact him on his user talk page and talk to him yourself. The block was not an oversight. I requested the unblock because I predicted that an editor like yourself would make this request. As talk page access has been restored, you are free to request the logs from the IP yourself. Viriditas (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why your expressed interest defending in IP editor/SkepticAnonymous and defending his actions thereof? It literally says to me that he did email you the IRC logs. I request that you post these IRC logs publicly since that IP editor is accusing Arthur Rubin of being a member of a fictional IRC channel. Now I suggest that this IP editor also be blocked for namedropping an administrator. Do you object, Viriditas? If so, why? ViriiK (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be very confused about the chronology of events. Let me help you understand: I requested the IRC logs at 19:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC). The IP wasn't accused of being banned editor "SkepticAnonymous" until the next day at 6:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC), an accusation that was based on weak circumstantial evidence. Therefore, how could I be defending a banned editor when 1) I requested the logs from an IP who was not yet accused of being a banned editor, and 2) the editor is currently unblocked. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You realize I don't care about the chronology of events? You're stonewalling. ViriiK (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The logs don't belong to me. They are the personal property of the IP. You'll have to request them from him just like I did. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So you do have them? Thank you for confirming this. ViriiK (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please pay close attention: I have in my possession what the IP claims are IRC logs. I have no way of knowing if these IRC logs are real or not. They could be forgeries for all I know. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please pay close attention. You have in your possessions that accuses multiple people of collaborating in a likely fictional channel that also accuses an administrator of collaborating to affect Wikipedia. Post the logs. http://www.pastebin.com ViriiK (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is against policy and best practice to do such a thing, which is why I have not posted them. I should also note that it is not clear if it is real or fictional, so your claim that it is "likely" fictional is not yet proven. Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As you (Viriditas) should know, we don't indef IPs. In this case, the IP appears to be stable over a period of a month or so, so a true sock-block should have been for more than 48 hours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I said, "good day". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Anent which [11] shows an editor seeking to be Sherlock Holmes tracking down clues. To wit - asking folks at a wikiproject if such an IRC channel exists. Which seems to be to be quite outside the reasonable purview of any editor, as a matter of fact. BTW, before any editor decides to accuse me of anything at all, I am now over 25K edits, have a watchlist of over 2,500 pages, and my politics are shown <g> by such edits as [12], [13], [14] and [15]. Collect (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest logs if they have been received should be forwarded on to arbcom to look at and not made publics. Logs should not be made public due to any potential outing or other issues as they may contain information about IPs etc. (Personally if the channel doesn't exist I don't know why people aren't saying that it categorically doesn't exist) IRWolfie- (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, however, I believe the IP should be the one to forward the logs to arbcom. If someone could actually prove that the IRC channel exists, I might get involved, but so far, nobody can prove there is any such channel. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have purported logs forward them to arbcom, I see no reason why the IP should. They can check out the veracity of the claims IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The logs don't belong to me, and there is no indication of authenticity. If someone, anyone, can prove the IRC channel exists, then I will ask the IP if I can forward them to arbcom, otherwise I will let the IP deal with this as the logs belong to him. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

All I am reminded of is "I have a list" .... which is to say, absent any evidence you are willing to bring forth, you are willing to make charges about Wikipedia editors. Sorry Viridutas, that does not fly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be approximately the opposite of what Viriditas just stated. Hal peridol (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to hat this thread. It is an attempted outing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as the issue of the logs being real or not, I would point out that SkepticAnonymous has a known history of falsifying IRC logs and attempting to use them against other editors. I realize that there is some dispute here (at least by Viriditas) about whether the IP is SA, but if it is that person, the logs are extremely unlikely to be accurate, or even necessarily reflect a real channel. This is yet another reason these logs should be sent to arbcom by anyone who has them - we do not address the issue of off-wiki collusion by emailing logs to friends/colleagues, but neither do we address the issue of possibly-falsified charges that way. In both these cases, the proper action is to send the logs to a body which actually has the ability to investigate the charges in question. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I also asked an arb Newyorkbrad, see here: User_talk:Newyorkbrad#Possibly_fake_IRC_logs. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This entire conversation concerns me greatly; it appears that there has formed a a group of editors who are attempting to smear allegations against another group of editors who are connected to WikiProject Conservatism. I have seen a bunch of allegations in the past regarding such claims, but no proof. In the past those who don't like the efforts of the WikiProject to bring articles with a liberal bias in line with a more neutral tone per WP:NPOV have attacked userpage essays and specific editors, at times making blatant personal attacks that are not keeping with WP:CIVIL. This, and other witch hunts, need to stop,for the sake of the Project.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I think that some editors are concerned that the Conservatism WikiProject seems based on the belief that Wikipedia suffers from a liberal bias, and views it role as "correcting" that liberal bias by editing from a politically conservative perspective. In other words, as your comment amply illustrates, the project's founding concept is that Wikipedia is an ideological battleground where conservatives are "losing". That evident intent—to use the project to band together to advance a political ideology—is concerning to some Wikipedians. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if we pretend for the sake of the argument that you are right (you aren't), would that somehow justify and excuse the extremely flagrant battleground tactics being employed by Viriditas and Still-24? Belchfire-TALK 17:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I could be "right" or "wrong". I'm telling you how things look to me (and to a number of other Wikipedians), based on comments that WikiProject members have made about the goals and motivations of the WikiProject and its members. The WikiProject views Wikipedia as infested with "liberal bias", and its goal as coordinating editors to combat that perceived bias. That's the self-description provided by RightCowLeftCoast above, and repeatedly by other project members elsewhere.

My impression of Still is that s/he treats Wikipedia as an ideological battleground. And he's found the perfect foil in your WikiProject, which also treats Wikipedia as an ideological battleground. Arguably, the WikiProject brings up the additional concern of coordinating groups of editors to edit along ideological lines, which multiplies the problem. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think MastCell is quite right. It's pretty hard to interpret the discussion right here as anything other than a bilateral battleground. Whatever the merits of the claims about the IRC, I don't see anyone here trying to out anyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So to bring neutrality to articles is wrong? Is that what others are saying? So any bias that is already ingrained into an article should be preserved? So any material, that maybe perceived by others as being conservative, should be excluded?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Following Fluffernutter's suggestion above, I have emailed a copy of the alleged IRC log to arbcom, along with a couple of comments of my own which I will not repeat here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Demiurge, you need to be a bit more specific. You appear to be referring to IRC logs related to this incident, not the IRC logs under discussion as the main topic of this thread. I had to read your comment three times before I was even able to figure it out. For the record, unless the IP has sent the logs under discussion to arbcom, they have not been sent. Yes, I said logs, not log. Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I'm not referring to IRC logs related to that incident. I think I still have a log of that incident, but I see no reason why arbcom would be interested in seeing it. As for this discussion, the IP only sent me one log, and that's what I sent to arbcom. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • It's abundantly clear, on even a cursory inspection, that the log Demiurge sent ArbCom is not genuine and was faked (not claiming that Demiurge tampered with it, but rather assuming, based on the comments of others, that he received the already-faked log). Unless someone with access to the alleged genuine logs is willing to provide them to the Arbitration Committee, I would suggest that these allegations be dropped immediately. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. If I may ask, what gave it away? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've declined to provide details on this on Fluffernutter's talk page, where Viritidas was more-or-less asking the same thing. The reason I'm not going to answer that is the same reason we don't provide much detail on a sockpuppeteer's "tells" at SPI - there simply is no sense in pointing out what gives an abusive user away, as that makes it that much easier for them to note their mistakes and correct them in future. What I will say is that there were multiple errors, which were independently noted by myself, another arbitrator, and Demiurge in his comments when he sent the log. Any of these errors on their own would have made it blatantly obvious that the logs were fabricated. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Honestly, this is silly and should be closed. An IP was possibly trolling these editors or possibly sending valid evidence. One way or the other, there was no outing by suggesting Arthur Rubin was chatting with people and without these alleged logs being made available there is nothing anyone here can do about that issue either. All this talk about the Conservatism Wikiproject is straying off-topic and should wait for the planned RfC if it materializes. It would be nice if an admin would just close this on the basis that the only stuff that isn't settled already should be addressed elsewhere.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• This discussion thread should be closed. The discussion is no longer about the original topic, which was an accusation of "outing". That accusation is invalid because the editor who was supposedly outed has openly disclosed his identity. Since no evidence has been presented that there is off-wiki canvassing, that part of the discussion should be closed too and taken up with ARBCOM if any evidence is found. TFD (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Reminder concerning "review by ArbCom only" blocks

This is just a general reminder for administrators of a statement that has been posted in the past.

At times, in blocking an editor, an administrator will note that the block "should only be lifted by the Arbitration Committee" or that "any appeal from this block is to ArbCom or BASC only." This notation is appropriate in circumstances when the block is based upon a concern that should not be discussed on-wiki but only in a confidential environment. This could include situations where discussion would reveal or emphasize information whose disclosure could jeopardize an editor's physical or mental well-being, where on-wiki discussion would identify anonymous editors, or where the underlying block reason would be defamatory if the block proved to be unjustified.

In such cases, the blocking administrator should immediately notify the Arbitration Committee mailing list by e-mail of the block and of the reasons for it. This is important so that the arbitrators can evaluate such blocks as needed and will have the background to consider any appeals or if any further actions concerning the blocked editor are required.

If an administrator is unsure whether this type of block is justified, he or she should feel free to e-mail the Arbitration Committee mailing list before blocking.

Thank you.

For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point, and thanks for the notice. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Was there a situation that led to the need to post this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Mass creation of redirects to Wikitionary

I was tagging a bunch of articles for speedy deletion - but then I scrolled through the list and saw just how many Tinton5 created... It looks like they did not fully read the terms of Template:Wi, which specifically states, "This template is only for dictionary definitions that currently exist on Wiktionary and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form. Do not place it on every possible word." As the pages they created, (located here), were not previously created (at least the ones I looked at), they are therefore WP:A3 - as their only content, the template, can not be placed on them. Admin deletion assistance? Thanks. Theopolisme 23:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Long term problem user. Just needs the correct incremental warnings - which he hasn't been given yet - then finally blocking if he refuses to listen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And just pointing out that the blank the warnings. Final warning issued and user appears to decline to respond here. Check history before adding any more warnings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I am going through and deleting these. Dlohcierekim 03:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)`

No objections here, and agreed that a final warning not to create brand new pages for wiktionary redirects is the right call. Almost certainly overdue thanks to Tinton5's judicious use of the delete key whenever he's been warned in the past. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Obsequity, wackjob, macolyte... this guy has really swallowed the dictionary. One or two of them have been created in the past, but Template:Wi refers to previous recreations in the plural,and I don't think an isolated previous creation is enough. Done eighteen, will have another look later. JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done a few too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Theopolisme 11:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now tagged all the ones I could find. pablo 12:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I got taken to ANI for tagging Wiseass and Wisecracker for {{db-a3}}. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe I'll be taken there several times, I tagged loads. We'll see. pablo 18:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

AFD closing script

Could another admin who uses User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js for closing AfDs check if there's a problem with "relist"? It no longer appears as an option on my menu (using Firefox 14.0.1), although it still appears on IE8 and IE9. The closing script itself is still fine. I'd clearly prefer not to have to use IE :) Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm also on Firefox 14.0.1 and "relist" still appears on my drop-down menu. JohnCD (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Same. Relist is working for me on Firefox 14.0.1. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's really odd. Have rebooted, updated, tried changing skins. Still not there. Oh well, I knew IE would come in useful for something. Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Try flushing your browser cache. On Monday, the devs pushed out some changes that completely broke a number of scripts, but Timotheus Canens kindly fixed at least some of them. See T41699. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried that - didn't work - but interestingly switching back to Monobook after doing that has worked. So all good (but I can't work out why). Still doesn't work in Modern, which is what I was originally in. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, is it just me or does that Bugzilla report read like "yeah, we broke a lot of stuff that you use regularly, but we don't really give a shit?" Black Kite (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

More like, "Yeah, we broke a lot of stuff that you use regularly, but you shouldn't have been 'abusing' it like that anyway, so tough shit." ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nearly every deployment breaks some script or another these days, it seems. I suppose the devs are so used to hearing people complain about it that they kind of tune it out. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:MFD backlog

WP:MFD currently has a ginormous backlog dating back to the 5th. Anyone wanna take care of it? Most of the discussions look like they can be closed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I closed one, and it looks like Reaper eternal knocked out a bunch too. - jc37 19:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

While I'm here - WP:CfD has a backlog as well : ) - jc37 19:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If anyone really has the urge to knock down some admin backlogs, WP:CP has backlogs stretching back to June 15th. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Identifying Possible Suspected Sockpuppets

Hello everyone. I would like to know that what are the different methods and techniques of routinely finding, checking and identifying possible suspected sockpuppet user accounts ? I usually have to review random articles and check from their history, user's contributions and editor behavior before reporting them for the actual Sockpuppet Investigations for technical evidence. Also i have indeed initiated some Sockpuppet investigations which has led to confirming and blocking of many sockpuppets of different sock masters. Therefore i would be happy and grateful if other users can give any advice and useful information about this, and can also provide any other additional tips and suggestions that can help me in finding possible sockpuppet accounts in the future. Thank you. (Please note - I had originally asked this question yesterday on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations but no one has given me any prompt reply to that. I am not sure which noticeboard will be suitable for this type of question, so if anyone can provide me an answer or tell me about the right place to ask this question, I will be very thankful for that) TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid this should be subject to WP:BEANS; if sockpuppeteers are aware of how socks are detected, they will change their behavior slightly to avoid those detection methods. (And, I'm not good at it, anyway, so I couldn't help you if I wanted to.)

All I really have is behavioral evidence; if they edit the same type of articles, make the same type of edits, and/or use the same type of edit summary, they are probably the same editors. I'm not at all good at picking up good hand/band hand socks. The Michigan Kid, for example, makes only a few different kinds of edits, and used a distinctive style of edit summary. They've now changed back to (per REDLINK) for the edits the make which are clearly contrary to WP:REDLINK, rather than actually putting the link it the edit summary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And I'm not going to notify the Michigan Kid, even if I could figure out how to do so. He's the object of the discussion, not the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Arthur Rubin. I understand about the situation that sockpuppeteers could become more aware about how socks are detected if methods to identify them were openly given out. However if anyone can e-mail me about private issues like this then i would be really thankful for that, as it can possibly help me out to properly and easily identify and find out socks whenever possible. Anyways, can you elaborate on what is this Michigan Kid topic object you are talking about? As i don't know about it. Thanks again. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Questioning Mohammed Condé - is this an attack page?

Hi. The page Mohammed Condé was tagged as an attack page, as it apparently attacked the subject. However, it was sourced, and so I declined it. The tagging editor has just queried this on my wall, stating that these sources are single source and may not be ruputable. I am just about to disappear for the evening, and won't be able to do anything about this till tomorrow at the earliest.

Could someone please review the article and make the approprate decision? it is going to need more time than I am able to offer tonight - I'm already late!

Thanks, Stephen! ^Coming... 16:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've trimmed out the various weakly sourced, unsourced, and "it was rumored that" material, leaving the article a good deal shorter. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Stephen! ^Coming... 06:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, I am the creator of the page in question. I did not intend for it to be an attack page and apologise if it has been perceived in this way. Thank you for your feedback and removing the content you thought inappropriate. I will now attempt to objectively (and well referenced) rewrite some of the content that does merit being on the page. I look forward to discussing it with you on the Talk page. OscarK878 (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion help

Resolved

File:This is the cover art for the soundtrack Irvine Welsh's Beautiful World Ecstasy Remixes by the artist Various. The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, Toolroom Records, or the graphic artist(s), Mark Blamire.jpg can safely be deleted as R3. However, the tag won't show up when I try to tag it. Anyone wanna just put it out of its misery? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been deleted by CharlieEchoTango. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Approach to blocking

For information, there's currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:School and university projects#School blocked for meatpuppetry, now about the approaches administrators take to blocking IP addresses and its impact, that may be of interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Damage at CBS Records

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Moved from WP:ANI. Black Kite (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC) There was consensus to have an article called "CBS Records" as the landing page for the 1,300 incoming links form other Wikipedia articles. The previous landing page was an entity called CBS Records (2006) which was not correct. The discussion was here at Talk:CBS Records (2006) and consensus was to preserve the 1,300 links and give them a landing page. User:Steelbeard1 refused to accept the consensus arguing that a quorum of responders was required and he is now altering the 1,300incoming links to an inprecise synonym for CBS Records such as Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records. Since then he has made a series of changes that have damaged the article and requires an administrator to remedy. By cutting and pasting information to a new article called CBS Records International he has lost my edit history. In making some of the renames, talk pages are now not attached to article pages. It would also be great if an admin person would help enforce the consensus to have an article called "CBS Records" as the landing page for the 1,300 incoming links which Steel has now made a disambiguation page to two entities, one of which is not the target for the 1,300 incoming links. This was brought to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard which has gone of on a tangent and has not addressed the consensus enforcement or the damage to the article histories and article talk pages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've moved this to WP:AN where it should be. Requests for administrators to perform a technical function (i.e. a history merge or restore), or determine consensus etc. should always be at AN, as they are not matters that require immediate intervention. Black Kite (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is currently being hashed out in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Actually, the damaged WAS CAUSED by Norton when he altered the CBS Records article (which talks about the current incarnation of CBS Records which is now located thanks to his messing around and my trying to settle things to CBS Records (2006)) by inserting too much info about the former CBS Records entities which now go by the names Sony Music Entertainment and Columbia Records. The CBS Records article is now a disambig page intended to aid editors to fix articles whose wikilinks go to the wrong CBS Records entity. The CBS Records page was frozen for about three days which I believe is not sufficient time to develop a consensus which can take weeks. When the freeze expired, he went ahead and reinserted the objectionable material which was immediately reverted by myself. The votes regarding the revisions TOTALED THREE VOTES which you must admit does not count as consensus as well as the fact that other editors and admins were asked to add their input and Norton COULD NOT WAIT for their input to make his unwelcome revisions. I have tried to settle the matter by renaming the CBS Records article to CBS Records (2006), create a new article on Columbia Records' operations outside North America which I admit has its own history called CBS Records International as well as making CBS Records a disambig page. But that did not settled matters with Norton as I hoped. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If the only issue is the copying and pasting of information from an article to create CBS Records International then that is easily fixed. Where did you copy the information from? Black Kite (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all obvious what the problem is here, but this is my best shot:

1. There have been multiple entities known as "CBS records".
2. Until recently, the page located at CBS Records was an article on the current entity going by that name, which is a label founded in 2006.
3. There are over a thousand inbound links to this page, most of which actually want to point at a different article.

Steelbeard1's solution has been as follows:

1. Moving the article at the root title to a disambiguated name.
2. Recreating the root article as a dab page.
3. Attempting to fix inbound links individually.

So far as I can see, this is absolutely the correct approach. So what, exactly, is the problem here? Does RAN seriously want us to have some chimera article at CBS Records which deliberately conflates several different entities? Or is this simply a request to have a particular article's history moved? If it's the latter, then it may not be possible to do this properly, because if we have erroneously conflated multiple entities into the same page then the history will be too intermingled to cleanly split between disambiguated pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In response to myself, I've now read that train wreck of a DRN thread, and the answer is that yes, RAN does in fact want to conflate multiple separate organisations into one article because he disagrees with the premise of disambiguation pages ("Wikipedia requires a proper landing page for the 1,300 links, the term should not be going to a disambiguation page"). This is simply wrong, and I have no idea why So God created Manchester (talk · contribs) continued to humour RAN for so long at DRN when Electriccatfish2 (talk · contribs) and Czarkoff (talk · contribs) correctly stated the answer almost immediately after it was opened. At this point, there doesn't appear to be any need for further administrative action: the trout that RAN deserves for wasting people's time over an incorrect interpretation of the purpose of dab pages can be issued by a non-admin. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The attribution for CBS Records International does need to be fixed, though, so we need to know where it was copy/pasted from. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think RAN's argument was that CBS Records (1938-1991) is the primary topic for CBS Records, and not that he opposed disambiguation entirely. I personally have no objections to disambiguating the page.--SGCM (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, User:Thumperward is incorrect. None of the incoming links are for CBS Records (2006). All 1,300 links are for "CBS Records (?-1991)" as per the references below. While we can redirect the links to Sony Music Entertainment, traditionally we maintain articles on significant companies even when they are sold or merged. User:Thumperward please AGF and don't disregard people's good faith arguments as a "train wreck". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I want an article to entity known as "CBS Records" as it existed from up to 1991, that became part of Sony. We have articles on all the entities that became General Motors. None of the links leading to the disambiguation page are for CBS Records (2006). CBS Records (2006) and CBS Records International are now the disambiguation page as well as Sony Music Entertainment. CBS Records International ≠ "CBS Records", they each had their own presidents. Here are references about the "CBS Records" that was later sold to the conglomerate Sony Music Entertainment: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yetnikoff Stepping Down As Chief of CBS Records. No single replacement for Mr. Yetnikoff was named. CBS Records said Tommy Mottola, president of domestic operations; Robert Summer, president of CBS Records International, and Neil Keating, president of the Columbia Record Club, would run day-to-day operations, reporting directly to Mr. Ohga. It said the board would consider long-term succession plans." This shows that "CBS Records" ≠ CBS Records International if they each have their own concurrent presidents.
• CBS Records Inc., in the first significant management shift directed by its new corporate parent, the Sony Corporation, plans to move its classical music ...
• CBS Records Ex-Chief Barred at Headquarters‎. Walter R. Yetnikoff, the colorful former chief executive of CBS Records who suddenly stepped aside earlier this month, has been ordered not to trespass on CBS ...
• CBS Records' Dispute Seen. A dispute is emerging over the price that the Sony Corporation will pay for CBS Records, someone close to the negotiations said yesterday. Sony agreed to pay ...
• He's CBS Records' chief star-maker‎. As president of CBS Records, he has helped turn some of rock's hottest newcomers into hitmakers. President of the world's largest ...

The problem here is that you haven't been very successful at articulating your argument. Keep it short. If this is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC problem, then just state that it is. I'm guessing that it is, based on reading the mess of a discussion that was Talk:CBS Records (2006) and the DRN, and only kept responding because a dispute over the primary topic is a valid concern. Copy-pasting your arguments from the DRN is not helpful.--SGCM (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Then create one afresh, using the content currently located in Sony Music Entertainment#1938-1991: Columbia/CBS Records, and then argue tio have it moved to the root title. I have no idea why you thought the correct approach here was to hijack an existing article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What existing article did I hijack? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Cunningham. This would have probably been the best approach. Create a separate article for CBS Records (1938-1991) and request a move to determine if it's the primary topic.--SGCM (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Norton is skating on thin ice yet again. The trout he got is not convincing him how futile his pitch is. Once again, all material about the entity called CBS Records prior to 1991 properly goes to the Sony Music article unless it applies to CBS Records' operations outside North America which can go to the CBS Records International article. The material Norton is referring to above has to do with the CBS Records entities that existed prior to 1991 which now go by different names which are Columbia Records and Sony Music. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My solution is to move "CBS Records" to "CBS Records (disambiguation)" and have the history of CBS Records migrated from Sony Music Entertainment#1938-1991: Columbia/CBS Records to "CBS Records". That will bring the 1,300 links to the proper entity and we can have a link in the article to the conglomerate Sony Music Entertainment#1938-1991: Columbia/CBS Records. This will be one change, rather than changing 1,300 links to Sony Music Entertainment#1938-1991: Columbia/CBS Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It would have been a lot more helpful if you stated that at the beginning of the DRN. ;) --SGCM (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Norton did handle this dispute badly, and the trouting he got for it is deserved. What he should have done is exactly as Cunningham suggested. But whether or not CBS Records (1938-1991) deserves a separate article, and whether or not it is the primary topic, is a valid topic for discussion. Hopefully, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Summary of the dispute thus far restarts the discussion, so that we can have an actual meaningful discussion over CBS Records (1938-1991) .--SGCM (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

None of this would have been needed if Steel respected the original consensus on the talk page and he worked within the system.

Once again, there was NO CONSENSUS as there were THREE VOTES TOTAL in THREE DAYS and to get consensus can take weeks. Other editors and admins were invited to add their input but did not get the chance to within those three days. Norton's move regarding the CBS Records disambig page was overruled by an admin who restored CBS Records as the proper disambig page. As for "CBS Records (1938-1991), that is already in the Sony Music article in the section called (1938-1990) Columbia/CBS Records where it belongs. Besides, the "CBS Records" entity did not officially begin until 1961 when the international organization called CBS Records International was being organized. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You defied consensus and made it into a disambiguation page in this edit. There is no quorum requirement for consensus, just time limits to debate. We were given three days of lock down to come up with a solution. Consensus was made. If consensus changes in the weeks and months ahead then further changes can be made, but you did not respect the consensus and made unilateral changes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not immutable, and there's no "official" barrier as to when consensus is established.--SGCM (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, THREE VOTES TOTAL in THREE DAYS does not constitute a consensus. Norton gets trouted again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's stop going off track here Norton. Wikipedia is not a vote. Consensus can change and is not immutable. You should be focusing on the dispute over the primary topic. Does CBS Records (1938-1991) deserve a separate article? Is it the primary topic? This is what you should be concentrating on. Provide evidence to support your arguments. The discussion has been constantly muddled from derailment.--SGCM (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"CBS Records (1938-1991)" which should actually be (1938-1990) does not deserve a separate article because the CBS Records name was not used until 1961 when CBS Records International was being organized. The entity was called either Columbia Recording Corporation or Columbia Records until 1966 when the CBS Records organizational setup was established. That material belongs where is already is in the Sony Music article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, my mistake on the 1991 part. Anyhow, this is what both editors should be focusing on. Would a CBS Records article for 1938-1990 meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and guidelines on splitting? Now, let's stop dragging out debates over past consensus, and focus on finding a compromise. :) --SGCM (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it would have 1300 links to it. Rothorpe (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, let's leave that for the DRN case. :) I'm going to restart the DRN, because the previous DRN went way off topic over a dispute over conduct.--SGCM (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Richard, this s what, the third time you have posted anout this here or at ANI? Is there some part of the concept that AN and ANI are explicitly not part of our dispute resolution system that is escaping you? And of course the contention that the protection period I chose established spme sort of deadline for forming a consensus is unmitigated hogwash. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Norton has inserted a poll in the Talk:CBS Records page asking if that page should be the DAB page which an admin had made or should it be in the "CBS Records (disambiguation)" page which Norton wants it to be in. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable. There can certainly still be dispute as to whether there is a primary topic. The problem, so far as I can see it, is RAN hijacking an existing article to turn it into something different. if that's ended, then this is not longer of any adminstrative concern. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have given this notice in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#CBS_Records_2: If there is any attempt to make the CBS Records article anything other than a DAB page, it will be reverted in a New York minute. So can admins monitor the CBS Records page? Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible spammer

A user, specifically User:RAIDENRULES123 left me a very strange message telling me about games and said user also has a link to a youtube channel, I would like an admin to take a look at her user page and see if she is a possible spammer, thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 02:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this user has been bitten by ClueBot NG's message, at first sight.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Per this would an invitation to Tea be in order?--Robert Keiden (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. First, the user needs to unstick her caps-lock key. Then there's the issue of this: it looks like this user is here solely to promote her own book. Furthermore, the userpage doesn't look like one of a productive contributor. MER-C 03:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider the possibility that this editor is very young, i.e., 12 or so. That's the tone it has to me. Looie496 (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather than give her the usual alphabet soup, I dropped a summary of the alphabet soup that seems to be relevant. Hopefully, the light bulb of cluefulness flashes. Blackmane (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Gumbo

Hello, there is an IP contributor from range 80.102.xxx.xxx that has been spamming this article for several months now with information from Hurricane Katrina that is unrelated to the article. He keeps insulting the editors who revert his additions in his summaries, and has forced the article to be locked down twice. There are two insults in the history right now, could someone please remove these comments from the article history?

1. Diff 1
2. Diff 2

Thanks,
--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see those as meeting the requirements for removal. They're not "grossly degrading", etc dangerouspanda 11:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please take a second look, this editor has a pattern of insults and abusive editing.

1. Diff 3
2. Diff 4
3. Diff 5

Calling other editors halfwits, idiots, buffoons and other insults should not be allowed and is not appropriate. I personally do not like these types of insults being left in a permanent, public records. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summaries are rude and obnoxious, but as the previous admin noted, they do not fall within any of the criteria for revision deletion. I've left the IP editor a warning about their behavior, but I won't be able to monitor the situation this weekend, so please report them to WP:AIV or WP:ANEW if they resume. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Muangthong United F.C.

should semi protect about vandalism about stadium's capacity, there a lot of muangthong fan club to plus number of stadium's capacity

[16] should see about stadium with opinion about SCG stadium--โจ : แฟนท่าเรือ : เกรียนที่หน้าตาไม่ดีแห่งไร้สาระนุกรม : พูดคุยกับควายตัวนี้ได้ที่นี่ 12:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Recreating content

I am recreating {{NYRepresentatives}} and {{ILRepresentatives}}. Can someone restore the history and talk pages to the former and userfy the history and talk pages of the latter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Any reason why you are recreating these? Is the conclusion of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives no longer valid? As it stands, this looks like a perfect G4 speedy deletion candidate. Fram (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

From an examination of the current {{NYRepresentatives}}, it appears that TtT has taken onboard the scope concerns raised in the TfD and decided to rework the template to make this navigate the congressional districts alone, rather than every single representative. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Every single representative is still included in the 70K code though. We already have Template:USCongDistStateNY for a template just for the congressional districts alone, making this a duplicate (but badly named) template. Fram (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes this reworks the template into a new format. It is my belief that this solves the problems of page load time and wikilink overload for the template when in use, which were the main issues. I.E., the it solves the reasons for deletion. Secondly, it will serve as a navbox across biography articles making it non redundant with Template:USCongDistStateNY. I will adapt some of that template's content, however. P.S. see these in use below--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

{{NYRepresentatives|25}}

• Proposing to add a 70kb template into over 2000 articles is just as ridiculous now as it was three years ago. Adding a cute little switch to show only one district's past representatives does not alleviate the TfD's concern about size. Therefore, I would opine that you have not adequately addressed the concerns raised in that discussion. You're well aware of my significant hatred for navboxes of this type already, so I'll spare that from this discussion. But man, if you really insist on going down this route, create a template for each district and apply only to relevant articles. Resolute 13:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • As an aside, is there any reason at all why {{USCongDistStateNY}} needs to have duplicate links for districts 1-29? Redundant links never make navboxes better. Resolute 13:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression that the newly revised format above loaded a lot faster than the old format below since each page only calls a small portion of the template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

{{User:TonyTheTiger/Sandbox/NYRepresentatives|3}}

• • • • if you save the various variations of the template on separate sandbox pages, you can view the performance timings/sizes by viewing the HTML source. if there is a problem with the single switch, the solution could be to split it into subtemplates and have the main template selectively transclude the subtemplates. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
        • The load time was never a problem for me. Do you know if the switches should save load time?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. I appear to have invented automatic succession boxes. Uncle G (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, is there any reason not to create separate templates for separate districts? You are never going to show more than one district at a time, so what's the use of having them all in one template? Fram (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

1. It enables consistent naming across states for Congressional templates.
2. You will need to accommodate multiple districts on a single page (which may mean the template needs a tweak). Having two or three districts show in a single template would be superior to multiple identical templates for each district, IMO.
3. Rather than editing 46 templates to make minor formatting changes, a single template can be edited. Thus, as template MOS evolves and/or stylistic preferences change we can uniformly change all the districts at once.
4. It may even load faster and will add fewer links as a single template if multiple districts are included. The major objections were load time and wikilink overload in the AFD IIRC.

• That is all I have off the top of my head.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• The naming seems to be a non-problem, you can just create "NYRepresentatives25" instead of using "NYRepresentatives|25". The multiple districts is rather a rare occurrence, I think, but you may correct me there. As for the need to edit many templates instead of one, the main look of the templates can be stored in one template, and the different lists in other templates calling on the layout template when needed. No need to call on a 70K template when you only need a 4K one. Fram (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Multiple districts is going to be an extremely common occurrence. Probably, well over 100 instances.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure I understand the point about calling a 70k template. Does it means it takes the page as long to load as if all 70K be were being opened on the page?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know how to set up one template for the other 46 to call (which is not relevant to whether it is preferable, but is a fact).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • You already use one template to call, you use the template:navbox, which basically handles the layout issues. Anyway, I've made a quick mockup of one of the "divided" templates (size:2K), which calls on a header template (size:2K), to show you how it can be done (probably easier or better ways are possible, some of our template gurus may be of help). Multiple districts would require multiple templates in this solution though. Fram (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

{{NYRepresentatives25}}

• To give you an idea of how common multiple templates will be, look at the following list from this template: David Woodcock, John Maynard (New York), Theodore M. Pomeroy, Clinton D. MacDougall, James S. Sherman (3 districts), Lucius Littauer, Ralph A. Gamble (3 districts), Charles A. Buckley (3 districts), Paul A. Fino, Robert R. Barry, Richard Ottinger (3 districts), Peter A. Peyser (3 districts), Hamilton Fish IV (4 districts) and Sherwood Boehlert (3 districts). In my mind, this means that we want to have a single template that can call multiple districts rather than add two, three or four (maybe 5 or 6) district templates with repetitive header wikilinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Theodore M. Pomeroy is an example with two boxes. Considering that they are by default collapsed, I don't believe the repetitive aspect is too problematic. Fram (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • For a discussion that's supposedly driven by the concerns of large templates, you don't seem to be blinking an eyelid at the idea of transcluding the 18KiB (not counting nested transclusions) {{navbox}} twice. ☺ (Working out how expensive templates are is a bit more complex than just looking at their raw sizes, anyway.) Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It is interesting that David Woodcock is first on your list. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• Can I ask the obvious question: Why is this discussion here? There looks to be a decent discussion going on between two editors over the structure, use, and organization of some templates. There doesn't appear to be any need, or interest, in involving admins in this at all. Can we move this discussion to a better venue? --Jayron32 13:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Admin action was requested at the start, but if any will be needed (and which,restoration or deletion) remains to be seen after this discussion. Fram (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I still need the ILRepresentatives content userfied.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
      • It was userfied three years ago. It doesn't look like any additional editing was done to it which has since been deleted or needs restoring. See User:Erik9/ILRepresentatives. You could work on it there, or ask Erik9 if you can move it to your userspace. Anything else? Content discussions shouldn't really happen at AN. I am heartened to see it going on in a productive manner, but here isn't the correct venue. --Jayron32 19:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• A discussion seems to have been started at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#A 64KiB template and automatic succession boxes, but no one is responding there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving to commons without tagging

Wasn't sure where to put this, so am putting it here. I uploaded a number of free images but do not want them moving to Commons (long story). Thus, like this example File:Chavez - Alexandra Palace 260512.jpg I have been reverting the {{move to Commons}} template. Despite this, the image has been moved to Commons regardless with an edit summary that suggests it had a move tag on it, which it didn't. Given Commons I suppose I will be wasting my time trying to get it removed, so my question is - what can I do to stop this happening in future? Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• If the image is freely licensed, you can't prevent it from being moved to Commons. There is a template Template:Keep local for keeping a copy here too, however. WilyD 13:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, that's not the case. According to WP:MTC, images should not be moved when the uploader clearly does not want that to happen. I would have thought that removing the nowcommons template was making that clear, but obviously I'll have to add DO NOT MOVE TO COMMONS in capital letters in the future :( Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

  There is no way for an uploader to prevent a file being moved to Commons (assuming it is freely licensed of course).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps that should be pointed out to editors on the upload form, then. Because at the moment it isn't, which is clearly an issue for those of us that want nothing to do with the place. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It is pointed - "Step 3: Provide source and copyright information" - " I can demonstrate that it is legally okay for anybody to use, in Wikipedia and elsewhere, for any purpose. " Bulwersator (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Either this page (where?) or you mistakes two things: copying image to Commons (cannot be stopped for images free in USA and country of origin) and deleting file from English Wikipedia that is duplicated by file on Commons (may be stopped by tagging file on enwiki with Template:Keep local) Bulwersator (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hm, it contains suggestion "Do not transfer files when the uploader specifically requests that their files are not moved to Commons" Bulwersator (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I added explanation "**Note that you may still copy file to Commons, without requesting deletion of local copy" Bulwersator (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ok there are several things going on here, first Do not transfer is only really supposed to be used when there is a policy reason why the image should not be moved to commons. If the image tagging indicates the image is acceptably licensed for commons, then the do not transfer tag is inappropriate. As for {{Keep local}} it is a request to not move the image. As a matter of respect to the uploader, the request should be respected, but as far as I know there has never been a discussing about making the request binding. From a legal standpoint, if the image is creative commons licensed, there is no impediment to moving it regardless of the authors wishes. Jerk thing to do, but I think we would need a policy changing RFC to make it actionable. Monty₈₄₅ 22:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm unaware of any situation in which we have permitted people to prohibit transfers to Commons of images that are otherwise acceptable there. In copyright-safe situations, the only restriction that I've ever seen permitted is the {{Keep local}} exception to F8 speedy deletion. Users who upload PD or freely-licensed images have no legal right to restrict transfer to Commons, and if we decided to give them a policy-based reason to object, we'd be creating something new. What's more, we can't do that without action by WMF: Commons is a completely separate project under WMF, and actions such as uploading images to Commons are governed by Commons policies, not en:wp policies. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Fine, I suppose. In that case I simply won't be uploading any more free images. Oh well; I think Redvers said it best. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• For me this interpretation of keep local is quite strange - "The uploader or another editor requests that the local copy of this file be kept." - there is nothing about potential transfer to Commons Bulwersator (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Really, all that matters is keeping a local copy. That way, no matter how Commons screws with their copy of it, it won't affect its use here. Though I do wish that there was a method of making it so they aren't allowed to touch them if the uploader says so. Oh well. Just make sure to tag all of them Keep local. Of course, i've had incidents where they tried to move it wholesale and not keep a local copy. Even more bizarre, i've seen incidents where someone moved a non-free image over there and it was promptly deleted there, deleting it wholesale here as well, even when it was never meant to be moved over. Again, yet another reason why I wish they wouldn't touch anything. Silverseren^C 08:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • There already exists a perfect template for images which may not be copied to Commons under any circumstances: {{db-f3}}. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia policies only affect Wikipedia. Uploads of {{keep local}} files to Commons are actions made at Commons (where Wikipedia policies don't apply), so any RfC on preventing upload to Commons would have to be held on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for page move

Please can someone help us to move Woolwich Free Ferry to 'Woolwich Ferry'. The problem is that Woolwich Ferry already exists, originally as a redirect to WFF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You're all set. FYI, for the future, 2 factoids:

1. You would have been able to move it yourself, if you hadn't made the edit to blank the redirect. Anyone can move a page to another page if the target page is a redirect to the source page, and there's only one edit in the history of the target page.
2. You can also tag pages like this with {{db-g6}}.

Let me know if you need anything else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the move and for the info. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Eternity clause

I'd appreciate some advice and help from administrators over at Eternity clause. Editor User:Ofthehighest has been repeatedly adding POV analysis to the article, sometimes cited by a certain blog, but mostly using WP:Synthesis to promote certain political views. I've tried to discuss it with the editor at User talk:Lone boatman#Eternity clause and on Talk:Eternity clause. Note that other editors have also tried in vain at Talk:Eternity clause to point out the highly POV and essay-like nature of previous states of the article to this editor. The editor has also repeatedly removed maintenance templates from the page, including citationneeded, refimprove, originalresearch and synthesis. Note that the editor's account has been permanently blocked at German Wikipedia. I don't want to see him/her blocked at English Wikipedia too. Can someone explain to the editor about WP:Truth, WP:Synthesis and WP:NOR? I've clearly failed to explain them to the editor, and the conversation is starting to turn a bit tetchy on both sides. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If he shows the same behaviour on the English page that he did on the German one, what hope do we have of a different outcome? A stern final warning seems more appropriate than more explanation. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've got to stop reverting the re-additions now, or I'll be in breach of WP:3RR myself. Lone boatman (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I should mention that I've already issued final warnings at the editor's talk page. But I don't want to just dump the problem onto WP:AIV, unless it's really necessary. Lone boatman (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Just found this thread in the archives. I have blocked Ofthehighest today for one 1 week for repeatedly making personal attacks und false accusations against other editors. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ofthehighest. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Need some talk page edits looked at for possible deletion, per WP:BLP

I'm not even going to bother with the editor, but User:Rogue 9 made two potentially harmful BLP comments here, and here. Calling a living person a "Nutcase" in one comment and an "ideologue" in another. The person referenced is Thomas DiLorenzo, who is still alive and whose article and talk page should adhere to WP:BLP.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand by the content of my statements, but if they must be deleted for policy reasons, I have no objection. Rogue 9 (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you're not allowed personal opinion in encyclopedia articles, or original research, and the WP:BLP policy can lead to blocks for doing so, does that mean that you also accept being blocked for policy reasons too? dangerouspanda 11:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No. I have not put personal opinions into articles, and was unaware BLP applied to talk pages; the second part is why I don't protest Jojhutton's proposal (which was not to block me). If I could delete the edits myself, I would, but I can't. After seven years on the wiki (today, actually) I have no plan on pursuing this issue any further if that would be the consequence. (I wasn't going to anyway, but still.) Rogue 9 (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

@EatsShootsAndLeaves — No need to block in this case. It's a common enough misconception for people to not realize that BLP extends to talk pages as well. Rogue 9 has learned from this, and I'm confident he will not repeat this mistake again. Kurtis (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's OK?

It's OK----->User:Pandukht and User talk:Pandukht? --Pallerti (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Is what ok? --Jayron32 19:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably the political statement at the top of both about "Hungarian Justice". What's not ok is the failure to advise them of this ANI filing :-) dangerouspanda 19:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on their user page, Pallerti's mastery of English appears rather limited, so his brevity could be excused. As for the topic at hand here, it's surely not the most collaborative user page I've seen (on an international project), but probably not outright actionable as violation of any WP:UP rules except the very vague WP:UP#POLEMIC. The link shows that it's a protest directed at a specific incident rather than some sort of generic hate speech. One also has to consider that it's a very recent event (31 August 2012), so in time the poster would probably reconsider having that banner at the top of his user page, even if he feels strongly about it. Perhaps he should phrase it like the State Department: "[...] extremely troubled by the news that [...]" ;-) Also, the article linked quite squarely falls under WP:ARBAA2 and should be marked as such on its talk page. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers – and sorry for my english. I think it's a protest against an action of Hungarian government -----> see the Ramil Safarov article. It was a defective action of the Hungarian government, but – in my opinion – people should not use the Wikipedia for loudspeaker. --Pallerti (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It is true, Pallerti, that Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for political advocacy, but simply expressing opinions on something is perfectly fine. In my view, it may even have relevance to their editing patterns and potential biases to mention their viewpoints on their userpage if they feel inclined to do so. So long as it's not expressed in a tendentious manner, there is nothing wrong with it. Kurtis (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, I understand and agree. --Pallerti (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merge and delete

Does anyone do this any more? I have a page in mind. Don't know how community feels about it. Dlohcierekim 20:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should one merge and delete. If content needs to be preserved, then attribution needs to occur, and for that reason a page history needs to be maintained so we know who contributed what text. If you merge content, then delete the history of the merged from article, then you lose the record. I can't think of a conceivable reason to need to completely erase the history of an article whose content you wish to merge into another. --Jayron32 20:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that what the essay is saying? That the closing admin should interpret "merge and delete" as "merge and redirect", or "merge and attribute another way, as listed in that essay". Dloh, I'm not an XfD expert, but I'm fairly sure I've seen someone do this fairly recently. They then protected the redirect to kind of "enforce" the AfD decision. Can't recall what page it was so I can't prove it, however. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

<<ec>>I guess no one know's about this anymore. Merge and delete has the purpose of preserving the edit history and content. It moves content not strong enough for an independent article to an existing article. It might be helpful to follow the link in the title, where the process is described. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 20:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, not enough tildes above ;). I generally do as Floq says above: merge, blank the article, redirect it leaving a comprehensive ES with a link to the target article, and protect it if there is a strong risk (due to content dispute, edit warring, vandalism, etc) of the redirect being undone to restore the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

So then perhaps it would be best for that policy page to be renamed to "Wikipedia:Merge and redirect"? Or does such a page already exist? Kurtis (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

A page named WP:Merge and redirect seems redundant to WP:Merging and WP:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a point there. Kurtis (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The essay serves two purposes: 1) correcting a mistaken AfD recommendation and 2) if it wasn't a mistake, describing possible implementations. Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Merge and delete shows approximately 484 incoming links (including those to its shortcut WP:MAD) and as recent as WP:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 13. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

More responsibility

Not ready for prime time
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I've been on wikipedia a long time, but as an editor, I've only started on her recently. But I feel like I want to take some more responsibility on here. If anybody has any tasks or anything like that for me, feel free to post on my talk page. I'm pretty knowledgeable about wrestling and Hip-hop by the way, Thanks, K. Kane (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC) (If you want anything done, don;t be afraid to ask here, Thanks, K./How I've helped so far!)

Meta Request for Comment: Legal Fees Assistance Program

Copied from the Wikimedia Announcement mailing list with modifications to links, because this proposed program would apply to all administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, arbitrators, OTRS volunteers. Risker (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Many Wikimedians take on key support roles that help ensure that the community’s projects run smoothly and effectively. The Wikimedia Foundation -- under the lead of the Finance Department and the Legal and Community Advocacy Department -- is proposing the Legal Fees Assistance Program. This program is intended to help find qualified lawyers or pay for the legal defense fees of eligible users in specified support roles. The assistance would be available in the unlikely event those users were ever named in a legal complaint as a defendant because of their support roles on any Wikimedia project. The program would apply to all projects and languages.

We have started a request for comment to see what the community thinks of this proposed initiative, and we would like those who are interested to look at the proposed program itself and let us know your thoughts. If you have further questions, we have prepared an FAQ, and we will be available to discuss via the talk pages.

Many thanks,

Geoff
wmf:User:Gbrigham

Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

Garfield
wmf:User:Gbyrd

Garfield Byrd
Chief of Finance and Administration
Wikimedia Foundation

Please let me encourage those of you with an interest in this program (whether seeing it implemented or killing it dead) to participate in the RFC. :) Whether or not this is presented to the Board for consideration will depend on strong community consensus. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked but still editing from the same IP

User talk:77.86.88.235. can someone please explain to me how this persistent vandal is still editing although I blocked the IP? Have I missed something? Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure the IP is still editing? Other than the IP's talk page, I don't see any activity after the block of 77.86.88.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - SudoGhost 08:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Except for the edit to his talk page, he last edited 3 seconds before you blocked him. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I was confused by the strange IP number. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Insults and death wishes on user page

User:Johorean Boy

I warned this user on his talk page to remove the insulting content from his user page, but he didn't done that.

His user page contains insulting text: "DEATH TO SHIA & IRAN!!!"

--Wüstenfuchs 20:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it and warned - let me know if anything like that gets put back, and I'll block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I will. Thank you. --Wüstenfuchs 20:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up redirects after deletions

Can an admin delete the redirects at Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken redirects? Or better still admins should delete any redirects to pages that they delete. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a bot could/should {{db-redirnone}} them? I'm currently manually tagging them as {{db-g8}}. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, using a bot to tag them is another idea. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No, not a bot, and no blind tagging either. Some are a redirect to a deleted page, some are on the other hand results of vandalism, errors or bot problems. Taggings like this one shouldn't happen, people should look at the history of the redirect first to determine whether there was and is a good target that somehow got lost, like in this case. For the same target, we now have incorrectly deleted redirects Talk:Lurish language, Talk:Luri Language and Talk:Lori dialects. This was all caused in the first place by a strange move by Kwamikagami, [17], and a move back without leaving a redirect, which orphaned the bot corrected redirects. Fram (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've restored and corrected the three deleted redirects mentioned above, and two other deleted ones that were only redlink targets because the creator made a small typo in them. Fram (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

St. Louis Geonotice

WP:Geonotice#WP:Wikipedia Takes St. Louis has been languishing there for awhile. can somebody place it on MediaWiki:Geonotice.js? It is time sensitive. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

More accusations of "libel" coming from employers address

Two IP addresses registered to CBS were blocked because they were "warning" about "libelous" content in an article about one of their employees were blocked under NLT. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive766#Potential_legal_threats_at_Sharyl_Attkisson

another IP 170.20.248.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also from CBS is continuing the use of "libel" [18]

Whack them, and point out to them that so long as they keep alleging libel they will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia whatsoever. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that, if after further threats occur this IP address is blocked, that their entire /16 is blocked. Anyone who wants to edit should make an account at home.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Major backlog at WP:CFD

There's a backlog of over 100 discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, including 2 which should have been closed in July. Can some admins please help out there? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Backlog is still over 100, although a few (including the July ones) have been closed. More help is still needed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CON

• WT:CON

Due to going on a a wikibreak of indeterminate length (it could be as short as a few hours, but as I am not certain...), and because there seems to be a start at actually positively contributing with each other (Perhaps in part by somewhat uniting in animosity towards me : ) - I am going to unprotect WP:CON. Anyone interested can read the talk page there and my talk page.

I'm leaving this notice here so that some other admin can keep an eye on things since I may not be around.

Happy editing : ) - jc37 15:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocking user

Resolved

 – user blocked Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Frida1983 is continuously removing content from the artilce Ramil Safarov and needs to be blocked ASAP. Thank you. Chaojoker (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing content isn't a blockable issue in and of itself. They have, however, been blocked for edit-warring. Note also that edit-warring issues are dealt with at WP:AN/3RR, vandalism at WP:AIV and other types of blocks at WP:ANI dangerouspanda 18:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of the venues, I should've reported it at WP:AIV. I'll keep that in mind. Chaojoker (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

An open proxy?

After I blocked 88.251.95.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), someone with the exact same writing style continued the conversation with me at 88.251.95.84's talk, but using the IP of 198.144.107.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 88 geolocates to Istanbul, while 198 geolocates to California, but they're clearly the same person: could the latter be an open proxy? This person is dedicated to edit-warring for the purpose of inserting far-from-NPOV text into the Kurdistan Workers' Party article — much more likely to be a Turkish editor using a California proxy than a Californian editor using a Turkish proxy. Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:OP? --Jayron32 19:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Was about to suggest that. Hash.es doesn't have anything on that IP, but WP:OPP is the best place to check. Secretlondon (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not familiar with them; thanks for the pointer. I've since been told that another admin already asked them, so I guess we can close this thread as being resolved-as-much-as-possible. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to the edit window (please read)

Hey all :). So, we're making some design tweaks that should simplify the edit window a heck of a lot. Unless you're on Vector (and, for some elements, not only on vector but using the enhanced editing toolbar) you shouldn't particularly notice, but I wanted to give some advance notice. The full explanation is at the Village Pump (Technical); these should go live aroundabouts the 17th of September, so there's a while to discuss things, give feedback suggest changes for future projects if you're interested. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

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

---

I'd like a review Regarding Jc revoking my Rollback rights. First of all, I've already discussed how much experience i need before Gaining the reviewer flag with another admin. Second, I don't think that was necessary becaue i did not abuse this right by reverting constructive edits. The right should only be removed if a user abuses it by wrongly reverting edits. I feel that revoke was unnecessary for my actions, Because i didn't realize my request had been declined a second time.--Anderson - What's up? 21:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Rollback and undo are not the same thing. Rollback can only be used for certain types of reverts: see Wikipedia:Rollback --Rschen7754 21:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• If you want someone to look into this in detail, you're going to need to provide links to the various discussions I see hinted at on your talk page. However, my initial understanding is that due to too many requests for "reviewer", and not linking to previous rejections in new requests, jc37 took away the "rollbacker" right as well, because of "lack of trust", not because of misusing rollbacker. If that's what actually happened, then I disagree with the rollbacker removal. User rights aren't shouldn't be sticks or carrots used to reward or punish someone. I say give back the rollbacker right, but agree that reviewer isn't needed and should probably wait the 6 months recommended by Keilani. But again, this is all based on the assumption that I've understood what happened here. Flesh this out with links, please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Anderson--Anderson - What's up? 21:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

My TP is the only source of discussion. I'm more then happy to wait 6 months before re-requeting reviewer rights.--Anderson - What's up? 21:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well... yes, I know where your talk page is, that's how I pieced together what I pieced together so far. There are obviously other relevant places, though. Links to your requests for reviewer, for example if nothing else. Also, could you confirm my reading of the situation is correct? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Still awaiting further diffs, and comment from Jc37, but anyone who does that sort of deception should not have the rollback tool. --Rschen7754 21:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't think you're overstating the case just a little? Rollbacker is the most innocuous thing there is. It really ought to be handed out to everyone automatically after, say, 100 non-vandalism edits, and removed only upon misuse. If he was over-enthusiastic, or even "deceitful", in his reqest for reviewer, fine, tell him to knock it off. In fact, they did, and he said OK. But taking away the rollbacker bit when it hasn't been misused is just punishment. We aren't supposed to do punishment here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:PARENT. I consider anything like that to be deception, and that would include forum shopping. From what I can see, that is what this looks like, but still awaiting further diffs. --Rschen7754 22:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:YESIKNOWABOUTPARENTIVEBEENHEREAWHILETOOANDIMNOTANIDIOTALSOTHATSADISAMBIGUATIONPAGE. You didn't address my main point, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with what "It really ought to be handed out to everyone automatically after, say, 100 non-vandalism edits, and removed only upon misuse.". After all, that is an opinion. --Rschen7754 22:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Noting that there was a period of >21 days in between requests. Probably not deliberate deception, but a bit careless. --Rschen7754 23:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• I really don't see the point in removing the rollback right in this case. There is no indication that rollback has been misused and the unrelated conduct hardly justifies it in light of the rarity of rollback abuse and the limited harm caused when it does occur. Absent some evidence the right was abused in some way it should be restored. Monty₈₄₅ 22:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I'm here - Give me a moment to add some diffs. If we try to take this in the best light, this is essentially a case of WP:IDHT, by what appears to be a hat collector. I've tried to disengage from the editor since the last notice, but they seem intent on pushing this along.

Anyway, bbiab. - jc37 22:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't abused the tool, As i said above.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make a point, I just feel the removal of rollback was unjustified.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been following the situation, so I'd like to comment on my perception. Anderson initially requested reviewer rights. Keilana said that she'd rather differ to another admin, and Armbrust closed it on her behalf. Later, Anderson re-requested the flag and Jc closed it saying "Reposting the request after being declined causes me to wonder whether we should be assessing whether to trust with any additional tools.". Cyan Gardenvoir put the closure templates on that request. Next, Anderson requested it for the 3rd time, and Kudpung declined it. I believe that Jc thought that not linking to the previous two declines was a bit deceitful. Jc revoked rollback with the summary "Abuse of trust". Also, you can see Anderson's requests here. Electric Catfish 22:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(my interpretation) If he deliberately deceived admins, that WOULD qualify as "Abuse of trust", and correspondingly diminish AGF, but it seems as likely that he was somewhat confused about the process, and maybe a little careless in his "reviewer" requests. Regardless, being enough confused about the process implies issues with WP:COMPETENCE. Revoking rollback rights shouldn't be a punishment. Granting them shouldn't be a reward. Granting them should be an measured extension of trust, pursuant to WP policy. If the trust fails due to abuse, or even good faith efforts based on a lower level of competence than was assumed, it merits reevaluation. Seeking to develop better competence would probably make User:Anderson a more effective reviewer and a more effective rollbacker in the future. Asking for help (and following advice given) could be a good path toward getting there.--Robert Keiden (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know i requested RW 3 times. Revoking rollback when someone re-requests and then stops after being told to is no good reason to revoke a user's access to RB. I guess i just wanted it to edit with the return of the PC.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned my rollback rights were revoked for no reason, Because JC did not respond to my comments on his TP.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you accusing me of trying to deceive admins? I would never deceive anyone.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My RB rights were not revoked due to WP:CIR.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you, but noted that others made that accusation. I disagree, but my comments were framed around that assumption. Your actions were interpreted as "deceptive", by some of the admins and users because they match up neatly with some of the things that deceptive people do. But ultimately its the behavior and not the reasons for it, that admins act on.--Robert Keiden (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If you weren't trying to deceive them or game the system, the reason "Abuse of trust" may sound equivalent to "no reason", but when you made multiple requests without finding out why they were denied/closed implies Parent shopping, even if that's not what you meant. If rollback were an earned reward, and revocation really was punitive, then it does seem petty and undeserved. But I don't think that's what Jc meant, either. Hope you can still find some good faith here.--Robert Keiden (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• OK, first, Electric Catfish, thank you very much for the links to the previous requests. I'm not sure why Anderson wouldn't provide them. I also saw the attempt at a conversation at Jc37's talk page, which was ignored. I'm not sure why Anderson didn't provide that. As annoying as this lack of help from Anderson is, it has nothing to do with rollback. Neither does the rather clumsy attempt to request a separate (completely meaningless!!) user right three times. (Sidenote: why on God's green earth is WP:PERM even accepting requests for reviewer?? It is 100% useless right now! Not 99%, 100%.) He's not being deceitful, he's being new. When we say "lack of trust", the only thing that makes sense is that we mean "lack of trust to use the tool you're requesting". I've seen no reason not to trust Anderson to use rollback correctly. If there is evidence of rollback misuse, please present it now. If not, I'm going to restore rollback in a little while (I'd really like to wait to hear from Jc37 first, in case there's some other aspect I'm missing). --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• @Floquenbeam: Isn't "reviewer" one of the classes of user who can delete/edit/feature items in our wonderful new "Feedback" feature? (Also, is pending changes really totally, completely, 100% dead? - 'cause that's what the "reviewer" function was supposed to be for, no?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• It is one of the classes who can do that, but rollbacker can do it too, and I don't think anyone without rollbacker has been requesting reviewer; rollbacker is easier to get. I suppose it's possible that pending changes is only mostly dead, but it still has no purpose right now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• endorse restoration per -Floquenbeam if nothing further turns up that is concerning. Dlohcierekim 00:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the light dawns. I agree with Jc37 that this is annoying. However, If they've not abused the rollbacker, I would be inclined to restore that to only one count. I assume the public account is for non secure public editing. Perhaps the rollbacker should not be on that account. Dlohcierekim

Amen. If being a little annoying was a rejection criterion, then there'd be a bigger problem. But it isn't. And lots of people have rollbacker on main and public accounts, I don't think we need to only add it back to one (if it's added back). Really, there is no real damage someone can do with rollbacker. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Switch to withhold RR for now per Keilana's diffs and Kudpung's illease. I think Anderson would benefit from decrease in stress and time away from maintenance tasks. There ae othe ways to contribute. Dlohcierekim 02:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Since I've been mentioned here and reviewed at least one of Anderson's and User:Anderson (Public)'s applications for rights, I'll chime in here.

Anderson is keen and enthusiastic but since quite a while I've been watching his contribs and have been indirectly 'mentoring' him with helpful tips. However, although he answers them, he does tend to ignore them. Even assuming good faith, I have to admit that his maintenance actions and PERM requests are beginning to look like hat-collecting, and based on his edits and lack of knowledge of some basic policies and guidelines, on reflection, I do not now believe him to be ready for any rights just yet. I'd be happy to restore his Rollback if and when he has demonstrated that he has gained more general editing experience and stayed away from maintenance areas for a while, except manual vandalism reverting. It stands to reason also that a right revoked on his main account should also be removed from his secondary account.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Nod per: "user-rights are granted to a person, not an account" - jc37 01:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung, he's had rollbacker for 2 months now. Has he misused it? If we see someone who appears a little overeager/headstrong/etc, I can understand how that might give us pause to give them rollback, as it gives us a hint of the possibility for misuse. But we don't have to guess; we can look at his past 2 month history. Has it been misused? Even once? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The conversation got a little disjointed, this is answered below by Keilana. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Some chronology

Req for rollback:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&diff=498560543&oldid=498558046

Result:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=498563958#User:Anderson9990

Done by Keilana

First request for reviewer

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&diff=prev&oldid=499524377

Slight canvassing (To keilana who granted rollback)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keilana&diff=prev&oldid=499525954

My intermediary note for Keilana:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keilana#Reviewer

results:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&oldid=499554878#User:Anderson9990

Anderson's note to keilana, following this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keilana#Requests_for_Permissions.2FReviewer

Later giving her a barnstar (11 July):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keilana#A_barnstar_for_you.21

Next req for rev

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&diff=prev&oldid=503334948

(Though in this case anderson initially notes the decline)

But then

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&diff=503540650&oldid=503521900

Anderson removed the note about the decline

Results:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&diff=503540650&oldid=503521900

I happened to notice it, and declined it

He was informed by others in this request that he didn't need reviewer for AFT due to having rollback.

Somewhere between the first request and the third request, anderson started to try to clerk on various pages, including request for permissions, AN/I and elsewhere, appearently causing disruption along the way, which others attempt to explain/stop (easier to just ask you all to read through anderson's talk page history and the subsequent discussions started at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions).

He also had some issues/confusions concerning his (presumably legitimate) sock.

And in the meantime has had his account renamed. (Nothing necessarily wrong with that, just noting it.)

3rd req for rev:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&diff=509005537&oldid=508998751

No notice about past declines and not noting for AFT this time but just PC. (Looking more and more like a hat collector.)

results:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&oldid=509189421#User:Anderson

Declined (by a different admin) due to lack of experience (again)

At which point, I notified him on his talk page "enough's enough", and removed his other "extra tools" as noted.

Just like before, I notified keilana.

He then apologises for not knowing that he needed more experience (even though this was explained to him at every step of this journey), and then asks me for rollback on my talk page, even though I suggested that if he continued asking for any tools he could be blocked - So I decided to disengage, rather than respond, and try to (hopefully) let it drop. (Trying to keep things from becoming any more confrontational than they already were.) (Though I did re-thread it, which should indicate at least that it was seen.)

He then attempts to ask keilana again, who says she supports the action for now, but if anderson really wants to have this reviewed, to ask for review at an admin noticeboard.

He, still not getting it, and continuing to push this further, deciding to this AN thread.

And so here we are.

(And as EC noted above, this shouldn't be a surprise to Anderson, as this possibility - possible removal of "extra tools" - was noted at the second decline.)

Removal of tools (similar to most admin actions) are to be preventative, not punitive. And removing extra tools from a user who is showing a repeated pattern of deceptiveness, of WP:PARENT (yes I know it's a dab page : ) - clearly abusing Wikipedia process, and also continues to disrupt through other actions, who obviously should not be trusted with "extra tools" at this time due to (at least) clear lack of experience or understanding, is preventative.

And note, "abuse of the tools" is not the only reason that they may be removed. Abuse of the community's trust is just as valid. And since all admin granted tools are granted at any admin's discretion, they may be removed per the same discretion by any admin.

As I said in my note above, this would seem to be a case of I didn't hear that, from someone who is apparently a hat collector. With the deceptiveness clearly abusing the community's trust; and the inexperience, continuing lack of understanding indicating good reason to not trust the user with "extra tools" as well.

Keilana gave him the rollback tool initially, and I'll happily defer to her judgement (as I have said before).

And I of course welcome others' thoughts on this.

But in the meantime, I'll stand by the removal. - jc37 00:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

ECF already provided the requests above. The community has decided this is no reason to revoke rollback.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Would not be better to continue the discussion above the chronology? Anderson, I understand how you feel, but you need to settle down a little. The perceived impatience is not helping. And the community has not decided. The discussion may have just become. Dlohcierekim 01:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Er begun. Dlohcierekim 01:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, Anderson, are you trying to sabotage this request? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

@Floq-- Indeed! Dlohcierekim 01:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I would prefer to leave this decision to the community. I don't really have time to go through his contribs in exquisite detail right now, but I did find some things that give me pause. unblanking a user talk, and the whole exchange on User talk:Newmanmu sparked by this newbie edit (which Anderson reverted). I also have general concerns about his judgment, evidenced by his talk page. I hope this helps Floq and others make a decision, and of course feel free to ask for further explanation. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, Keilana, that's exactly what I was asking for. Those are both clear misuses of the tool, and when combined with poor judgement elsewhere, I no longer think restoring rollback is a good idea. Not because of "lack of trust", which I really think wasn't a good metric, but because of incorrect usage combined with evidence of poor judgement. Jc37's comment about 6 months before re-requesting rollback seems extreme, but I personally would want to see a decent length of time (2 months?) of manual reverts before I would restore it myself. Anderson, make sure to point to this thread whenever you re-request rollback, or it will really, really be frowned on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  "Lack of trust", presumes: ...in the user's judgement, I would think?

  The 6 months was because he couldn't seem to wait the initial month and a half that he even commented on, and due to the several requests. But shrugs, I'll happily leave this to you all to figure out. - jc37 02:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• I thoroughly concur with Floquenbeam who is actually reiterating my earlier comments in the 'disjointed' thread above. I was attempting, as unpointedly as possible, to demonstrate that in hindsight I do not generally feel comfortable that Anderson is ready for any rights just now. He's been gently advised several times to consider staying away from maintenance areas that he may not yet fully understand. It's not simply a question of whether his vandal reverts have been trouble free. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Tinkering around here just a couple of hours ago also demonstrates that general competency is required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see this. JohnCD (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

_{Replaced John's link with a link to the actual revision, as Anderson just archived their talk. Theopolisme 16:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)}

My feelings are that, if the rollback right was not removed for abuse, and there was no evidence that he did not know how to do it, then perceived hat-collection is not an issue: if a user is hat collecting (and I am not commenting on whether Anderson is or not), but is using rollback well, there's no reason to remove rollback. However, the recent diffs also raise issues that are directly related to rollback, which would leave me hesitant to support reinstating it. At the moment, I would suggest that Anderson does not have rollback restored, but spends the next few months using the normal tools for anti-vandalism. If, after a few months, he wants to request it again, then the reviewing admin should check if he's improved since this incident, and make a judgement. I would advise Anderson to link to this thread if he requests rollback in the future. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That was an accidental revert, Because the mouse slipped.--Anderson - What's up? 03:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't relly an incident, I wanted the remaval of rollback reviewed.--Anderson - What's up? 03:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Everyone's mouse slips occasionally, but you need to be aware that a discussion here will examine all you work in order to determine your level of experience and competency. Despite repeated requests you are still messing around at PERM within the last 24 hours during this AN discussion. Do you really think that's wise? Remember that a lot of applicants for tools are new too, and your editing there may convey the impression that you are someone with experience, and it's not apt for an editor who has had their own tools removed. I see too much WP:IDHT here, and if you can't/won't take good faith advice, you're not really in a position to judge the performance of others. In addition to Zippy's suggestion, I would recommend that you are formally asked to stay away from PERM and also from RPP where you have been commenting just 2 hours ago (and if my memory serves me right, even closing some requests); admins will do all those checks themselves and recheck any NAO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree w/ Kudpung. It would be best to refrain from further activity at PERM or RPP. Also, your tenacity and persistence is calling into question your judgment and makes withholding rollback seem much more prudent. There are many more constructive activities one can undertake in article space. Dlohcierekim 18:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Anderson, you do realize you can look at the new articles and repair any deficiencies w/o wearing the reviewer hat? I would recommend going through the new articles and finding sourcing and expanding and otherwise making improvements. Dlohcierekim 19:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to contribute in these areas for the following reasons: 1. It's not going to do anyone any favors. 2. You won't really learn anything from doing so, 3. Kudpung says on his User Page he doesn't want anyone except admins handling requests.--Anderson - What's up? 05:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

By misreading and putting your own interpretation on the comment on my userpage, you have unfortunately demonstrated yet again that your judgement is not accurate enough to be evaluating the work of others. To save people looking it up: '....An effort to gently dissuade univolved inexperienced users from hat-collecting and clerking or commenting in areas that are strictly admin-only ', and I believe that applies clearly to you. Most editors gain their experience from doing straight content work, and perhaps some manual vandalism reverting and new page patrolling. They'll get some of it wrong - we all did - but they learn eventually. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I Think that clerking isn't really necessary anymore since admins are watching the PERM pages.--Anderson - What's up? 06:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note: Anderson has now stated that he will leave those pages alone. I think that he doesn' need the rollback tool back just yet, but when he has demonstrated that he has done some content work and some significant manual vandal reverting, I would be prepared to consider a new request for Rollbacker in a few months (per Zippy) but he will need to be patient.

I think we can close this discussion now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've started using Twinkle again until i can show i am ready for Rollback again.--Anderson - What's up? 06:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And that, my friends, is why it makes no sense to make anyone apply for rollback. Five seconds after you register an account you can go into your preferences, turn on Twinkle, and BAM, you have the rollback right. No disrespect to my colleauges and friends who put their time in reviewing requests of course, but rollback is essentially a worthless user right in that users who are demonstrably incapable of using it wisely (not saying that is the case here, just making a broader point) can just turn it on and there is no way short of blocking to prevent it. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There is one difference - Twinkle "rollback" allows you to add an edit summary, and is not restricted to vandalism-only use. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That's right. Rollback in blue colour can be used to revert link spamming, Unexplained section blanking, Some BLP issues, And unexplained removal of images from an article.--Anderson - What's up? 01:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What you forgot to mention Beeblebrox, Is Twinkle can only be used as a non-vandalism tool if you are Autoconfirmed.--Anderson - What's up? 01:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that anderson is still editing on WP:PERMS (which he was asked to stay away from and agreed to, if I am correct). Anderson, as much is this discussion is about rollback, it is also about community's trust; doing what you said you would not is not helping the community, trust you. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 02:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I must have forgotten. I'll remember this time.--Anderson - What's up? 02:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no way you could have forgotten. Also, you have been asked to stay away from areas that need responsible decisions and actions, and that means also your interference with this ANI discussion. If you continue to ignore advice and be disruptive, you might end up being formally banned from some areas, and I'm sure that's not what you want. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to ignore advice, I just saw the Wikimedia software does not allow anyone to change user rights for an IP editor.--Anderson - What's up? 02:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Anderson, from my view, you are failing to get the point. It is not about the why you closed the request, this is about you abusing the communities trust when you specially said you wouldn't. Besides, you made two edits to close that request, with the second edit you could have reverted your closure and mentioned at the AN/I that you forgot and accidently made the edit. Saying you unintentionally made the edit is not helping your situation nor the communities trust. To understand the last sentence, you must read this post on Kudpung's wall-- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 02:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, y'all. I had the twinkle angle figured out 3 days ago. Which brings us back to what Beeblebrox said. Dlohcierekim 03:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

AND, I often use undo instead of rollback 'cause I want to reduce the risk of errors, get a second look, tailor an edit summary. Dlohcierekim 03:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a script that allows you to add a summary when rolling back an edit or multiple edits.--Anderson - What's up? 03:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I find Anderson's continued editing at PERMS troubling. Which is worse-- the thought that he forgot, or the thought that he is being disingenuous? Dlohcierekim 03:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm definitely going to stop because i don't want to end up being topic banned. I had noticed Proposals for XFD topic bans for User:TenPoundHammer.--Anderson - What's up? 03:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Anderson, I don't think you should be using other users for examples, specially when an example is not needed. TenPoundHammer has been informed that he has been mentioned in this discussion. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 03:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have mentioned him, He isn't part of this discussion.--Anderson - What's up? 03:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As you haven't taken any advice or maintatined your promisses, with this edit again to PERM today the official warnings start now on your talk page. I've tried hard to help you and I'm sorry that it has come to this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have suggested a plan of action at Anderson's talk page. Since there is no current topic ban proposed, and assuming he accepts my plan of action, I believe this can be closed. Worm^TT(talk) 09:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Protecting article Ramil Safarov

The subject of this article is in the news these days, and as of today, it's been subject to multiple unexplained source removals ([19], [20], [21]), POV pushing ([22]), and edit warring ([23]). The user Reality006 alone has removed the source for the motive (which is a court document) three times. I am afraid the POV edits will be on the rise as the Azerbaijani news website day.az has directly asked its readers to edit in the mentioned article in Wikipedia. The news page is in Russian; here's an excerpt from the page translated by Google:

Day.Az encourages its readers to participate in the editing of this page. We appeal to those who care about the image of our country, our officer - go to "Wikipedia" and actively fix any inaccurate information on Ramil Safarov.
Make changes to the materials "Wikipedia" is technically possible. However, this process requires the user's experience of the resource is above average. This is easiest to do the people have edited this "Wikipedia." Recall that, thanks to our joint efforts have repeatedly been able to seek to fix the errors and distortions related to Azerbaijan, who were admitted to a particular Internet resource.

I ask that the article be protected and carefully watched, and POV edits reverted and the POV pushers disallowed from editing the article. Thank you, Chaojoker (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I just revert nationalist, biased and emotional edits. Chaojoker is unfortunately affected by ultra-nationalist opinions. If you look at the history of article, you can see the situtation. And please see [24], [25] and article's talk page. Thank you.--Reality 18:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: Unfortunately I don't know Armenian language and its letters. In addition, I have no idea about that web site. I just read neutral Turkish and English news sites.--Reality 18:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Serious question: Are there neutral Turkish sites when Armenian subjects are involved? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are. Radikal, Hürriyet, Taraf and maybe Bianet etc. You can use these reliable and unbiased sources.--Reality 23:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ultra-Nationalist? :) Ever heard of Godwin's law, my non-nationalist fellow with a big red waving flag on your page? :) Website, as mentioned is in Russian not Armenian, it's one of leading Azeri news websites, basically requesting calling Azerbaijanian readers to start "protecting The Truth" also called "POV pushing". That's just one of many, public and hidden groups, calling for POV pushing on articles in different langs:WPs. So I strongly support request to put this and related pages under special attention by neutral users.

Dear Reality006, Turkey is also involved in this story, and if you find Armenian and Azerbaijanian sources to be biased, then so are Turkish ones. And here they have at lest 2 reasons to be biased - "Armenia" and "Azerbaijan". Last, not least I would expect much higher wiki-ethics and discussion standards from a sysop, and less labeling. Kind regards. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't understand your first and second sentences. I'm not native English speaker so I can't understand some sentences. Please clarify these sentences. Yes some sites call its users for that things, probably some Armenian websites call its users for same reasons. You got me wrong. I support to protect this page but a user blamed to me because of my edits are harmful. Actually his edits are harmful and biased. Also how this story involves Turkey? This story is between Armenia-Azerbaijan and Hungary not Turkey so Turkish sources may be unbiased and I read Turkish and English sources generally but I didn't use Turkish sources for this article. Finally, don't worry, I have high wiki-ethics and I was a good sysop in Turkish Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there are many lobbies in English Wikipedia and they affected the articles badly. Anymore I am sure that Turkish Wikipedia is more neutral than English Wikipedia which is larger wiki and it makes me sad. Sorry for my bad English. Regards.--Reality 23:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Do your "high wiki-ethics" include lying? You claim "I'm not native English speaker so I can't understand some sentences." and yet you put {{User en-5}} on your user page. If your English is so bad you can't figure out how to correctly use a template and stop you from making edits like this, your "high wiki-ethics" must tell you to refrain from making edits you don't understand and then go trolling on people's user talks for reverting them. Chaojoker (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, this answers is not to you, I think Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen can answer. Also I'm not lying. en-5 means upper-intermediate level in English language education in the world and I know English that much and I do not practice for months I may be forgot and serious do you have any critism? Are you interest only my user page? Please focus my edits and I think there is no problem with my edits generelly. I don't refrain edits in article I try but immediately a user revert my edits so I can't continue my edits because I get frustrated. If you stop your nationalist and biased edits, maybe I can fix the article/articles. For example, this is a tragicomic proposal. Also why removed the word of lieutenant? Isn't Safarov lieutenant? Please, while you editing articles, be neutral.--Reality 07:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If there's an effort to slant the article by an outside party, the article should be semi-protected immediately and all relevant users blocked. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Semi-protection and 1RR/week

The article been fully protected for one week (as of yesterday night UTC). I wasn't aware of this discussion so I opened another thread yesterday at ANI that has now been closed to not spread the topic over too many pages. To continue over here, I've copied the original content from that discussion (in italics). De728631 (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This BLP is currently the subject of an edit war involving multiple editors, obviously due to the international controversy Safarov's treatment at home has caused. I have dealt with the edit war at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Brandmeister reported by User:George Spurlin (Result: warning, article protected, one editor blocked 24h) where I announced a full protection of a week's time for the article, since there were frequent mini-wars about the subject's crime, whether to call him a murderer, and whatnot, so immediate action was needed per WP:BLP. Discospinster endorsed the protection. Of course I have now gotten a few direct requests to change the protection level. I declined a simple request for semi-protection but then it was suggested by another user to combine a semi-protection with a 1RR restriction and possible 1 week sanction since the article is actually in need of neutral editing. Let me quote MarshallBagramyan from my user talk:

"Might it not perhaps be better to put semi-restriction on the article and impose a 1RR/week sanction on all editors who edit it? In its current state, the article is a mess. The grammar is terrible and the article is in dire need of some copyediting. For a topic that is now being fervidly discussed all over the news and internet, and even appears on the Wikipedia main page, I think that at least some edits should be made, at least under the supervision of some experienced third party editors. Just saying."

I think this is a workable solution that allows for copyediting grammatical errors and will keep potential edit warriors at bay. The details however need to be worked out here. De728631 (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What about a 6 month duration 1rr/week rule with an exclusion permitting uncontroversial copyediting without regard to the 1/rr rule and authorization for any administrator to place editors abusing the copyediting exclusion on full 1rr/week? Monty₈₄₅ 22:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would also be useful to define the parameters of the content that is to be edited. I think we can all agree to fix spelling errors and adding or removing a definite article which doesn't belong in front of a noun. But I also think it would help to determine what content might be added, removed, or modified and how to prevent a general, simultaneous free-for-all whereby all the editors take advantage of this opportunity to make a few edits. One way to start might be to have editors place a request at the talk page to edit a certain section and cite the reason, which can then be evaluated in length on the talk page in case there are objections.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That is essentially a 0rr rule, its been done, but only in the most extreme cases. A 1rr/week rule would be a better starting point. Monty₈₄₅ 22:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the big problems with having multiple users editing at the same time is that not all are willing to participate in discussions. How are we supposed to enforce them to discuss? And how is consensus going to be reached without a neutral, third-side "negotiator"? I support the idea of 0rr only in case if you can find a neutral user who is willing to be a negotiator and his decision will be acceptable for both sides. I can't see any other way of avoiding edit wars. --Yerevanci (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The article has been fully protected one week by User:De728631. That seems to be a reasonable step. When protection expires it would be fine to put on semi-protection and to impose a 1RR/day restriction, in my opinion. If you want there to be enforcement of discussion then one admin will probably have to assign themselves to watch the article constantly. Another option is to freely hand out WP:ARBAA2 warnings to anyone who shows extreme nationalist bias on the talk page. I see at least one comment in the section at Talk:Ramil Safarov#Neutrality that causes concern. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that one week is going to change anything. In my opinion, the best option for now is to restrict the number of reverts to 0 or 1 and move the discussion of controversial issues to the talk page. And it would be great if there will be some kind of negotiator there, because as you may know Armenian-Azerbaijani relations aren't perfect and so are the relations between the users from those countries, including me and the extradition of Safarov didn't make it any better. I mean, you have to understand that there is a huge emotional things going on and you can't simply ignore that. So, what I suggest is some admin to be there and work on the talk page, listen to both sides, and make neutral decisions that will be acceptable for both of us. That's the best I can think of, otherwise time isn't really going to change anything, other than making the article be out of date. --Yerevanci (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is a current event. There are requests to edit the protected page. Therefore, I suggest to do the following right now: (a) replace full protection by semi-protection, and (b) place WP:ARBAA2 warning in the article (something like here) and at the article talk page. If edit warring resume, place 1RR/day and hand out WP:ARBAA2 warnings to specific editors. My very best wishes (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Drew Peterson

It doesn't need protection... yet. However, with the recent guilty verdict, that article could get ugly and I'll be offline. It might not hurt to get some more eyes on it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It needs work. This was a big story in the U.S., mostly due to the repulsive smugness of the now convicted killer. Help would be much appreciated. Doc talk 06:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a moratorium on undiscussed diacritics-related moves to Vietnamese articles

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. As some of you may be aware there has recently been a lot of debate about whether Vietnamese diacritics should be used in article titles. There has been at least one RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) and plenty of RMs. What I'm asking for is consensus that no undiscussed (i.e. no RM) moves that involve that addition or removal of Vietnamese diacritics should be allowed until an uninvolved admin judges there is a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) (or a similar venue, if there is an appropriate RfC). This will still allow these proposed moves to go through a full requested move discussion. The way I envisage this being enforced is if someone makes one of these moves they would have one warning (pointing to the discussion) and if they made any more moves after that there would be a series of escalating blocks. Requests for admin intervention, whether requesting the warning or block, should be made at ANI. For anyone interested, the straw that broke the camel's back is at User talk:Jenks24#Numerous Vietnam articles moved. To end on a lighter note, how 'bout them Cowboys? Jenks24 (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC) @Jenks24, even though you are heavily involved here as having been against Vietnamese geographical names in Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 closed 07 Aug 2011, support of Vietnamese geographical names confirmed by results per RMs 1 and 3 at Talk:Cà Mau, so 3 out of 3 RMs on Vietnamese geographical names have come up with a result counter your personal view. However you are very welcome to have your moratorium. Not least because, in my view anyway, it should be your job as an RM admin to restore moves made counter RM results even if you personally disagree with the RM results and agree with the undiscussed moves. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, I debated putting it in my original statement (decided not to so as to focus on the proposal, but perhaps that was a mistake), but I am involved in this mess and will not be using my admin tools on anything related to this issue, including blocking, warning, etc. if this moratorium proposal gains consensus. I'm glad it has your support. To repeat, I will not be using my admin tools in this, so I will not be reverting your recent moves or Kauffner's year-old moves. Jenks24 (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC) @Jenks, yes I'm in favour of a moratorium if it means that someone will actually look at the body of 1600 undiscussed moves and take some responsibility. Secondly, I'm actually less concerned about the 800 or so BLPs which were moved because at least there was some support in RMs, I think the only way those can be undone now is by further RMs. However it is the 800 or so geographical articles where the clear problem lies. The problems of (i) continuing with undiscussed moves after Talk page requests not to (AjaxSmack, Gimmetoo, and Prolog), (ii) logged-out IP archiving of contrary RM, (iii) deletion of RM bot tags to contrary RM, (iv) misuse of G6 "uncontroversial move" proxy moves contrary to RM results, (v) redirect locks preventing reverts, ... these are all disproporationately concentrated in the geo articles area, and this is the area where RMs 1 2 3 at Talk:Cà Mau, so 3 out of 3 RMs on Vietnamese geographical names, should be upheld. If "moratorium" means "confirm the moves counter RM results" then I for one will still abide by it, but it sends a message that (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v) are all acceptable, then why should the rest of us abide by RMs at all? It completely undermines the element of trust. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC) If an uninvolved admin wants to look at the whole mess, they have my blessing (and my sympathy). Secondly, your time lines are all mixed up – you can't make a move "counter" to a RM that will happen a year in the future. Lastly, Kauffner has stopped making these moves and so should you. Jenks24 (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC) @Jenks24, Sorry but I have to note that you are again equating making 800 undiscussed geo moves counter RMs with reverting 80 according to RMs. In reality, it's now irrelevant to say "stop moving" since Kauffner has none left to move, and other editors will be lucky to find any which haven't been protected by redirect-lock, but all the same I am not happy with making the 800 = the 80. You should be able to see the difference. As regards timeline, there are 3 RMs: Please check the time line again at Talk:Cà Mau on place names: RM1 Ca Mau → Cà Mau, Moved, Billinghurst 14 July 2010, RM2 Cà Mau → Ca Mau, No consensus, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 7 August 2011, 800x geo article moves counter RM, template deletes, IP activity, redirect edit locks etc made in this gap RM3 Ca Mau → Cà Mau, restored, Anthony Appleyard, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 80 reverts from those not redirect-edit-locked among 800 made after RM3. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Didn't we just have a giant arbcom case about diacritical marks? I think it was mostly about Czech hockey players and Latin American baseball players, but do we need a new policy for every language or does the earlier case contain any guidance for how to procede here? --Jayron32 04:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay is the only thing I can think of, but that was more about a specific editor (who is not involved in the current disputes) than about diacritics in general. The only thing that really stands out to me is: "Repetitive or voluminous edit patterns—which present opponents with a fait accompli and exhaust their ability to contest the change, or defy a reasonable decision arrived at by consensus—are disruptive." I'd say both "sides" are guilty of this (look at the move logs of In ictu oculi, Kauffner and possibly others), though, so make of that what you will. Jenks24 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC) @Jenks24, a question for you, do you not see any problem that virtually the entire body of articles in a given subject area (we're talking 1600 articles total but can concentrate on the 600-800 geo articles which are at issue here, since no undiscussed moves to bios have been reverted) has been moved by one User counter the only RMs on the subject. Do you in principle believe that RM results should be upheld, or that undiscussed moves against RM results should be upheld? In other words can you see a difference between (a) making an undiscussed move counter a RM, and (b) reverting an undiscussed move counter an RM? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC) You're asking questions that, IMO, do not accurately reflect the issue at hand. You knew the moves you recently made would be controversial, you knew Kauffner in particular would be very irritated by the moves (and, presumably, so will the other 50% 40% of editors who favoured non-diacritics), you knew Kauffner would complain to me about them, and you probably also knew there was a reasonable chance this might end up at a noticeboard. I'm failing to see why you thought it would be a good idea. Your time would have been much better spent making a strong multi-move nomination. Jenks24 (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC) @Jenks, with respect I consider this a completely pertinent question: Can you see a difference between (a) making an undiscussed move counter a RM, and (b) reverting an undiscussed move counter an RM? ...because you're making it sound as if anyone who reverts a move counter to RM is the problem. As you can see by looking at the recent RMs, those who were not happy with the way these 800 or so undiscussed geo moves happened counter RM1 Talk:Cà Mau and RM2 Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 went by the book in having RM3 Talk:Cà Mau even after the IP activity, notification deletion etc were discovered and still went through the RM process. I had to stop KarlB requesting an admin revert so that we would have the legitimacy of an RM. Not everyone was happy; see RM3 "It shouldn't take repeated RMs to enforce a previous RM. AjaxSmack", and now you're saying what appears to be that every single one of the 800 geo article moves must go through an additional RM, and that not even WP:BRD can be invoked to revert these undiscussed moves? You do realise that the maximum load an RM template can carry is 30x names. That would require 26x multi-RMs to revert the 800 undiscussed geo article moves counter the 3 geo RMs. That's before even considering the rest of the 1600 undiscussed moves. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC) If 26 RMs is what it takes, then you can either have 26 RMs or get consensus at a RfC. It's a bit rich to claim BRD for things that happened a year ago. Jenks24 (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC) @Hi again Jenks, okay, that's one view, and your view is noted. Personally I don't welcome a situation where some Users can make 800 undiscussed geo article moves counter a geo RM, but other users must make 26x 30 RMs to restore those moves. I also note your comment which suggests that you think reverts should have been made in reverse order, from the recent undiscussed moves backwards. Maybe, in an ideal world. The problem you seem not to have considered is that almost all of the more recent ones have been, as you put it yourself "fait accompli", edit locked thereby preventing any chance of WP:BRD, let alone any enforcement of a RM result. an exception was this one from August 17, caught before it could be locked by redirect edit, but this is an exception. Also it made sense in my view to start with reverting the geo article undiscussed moves on the timeline which were made immediately proximate to and counter to RM1 Talk:Cà Mau and RM2 Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1. But even with the older geo article moves counter RM so many are redirect-edit-locked that talk of WP:BRD for more than 80 of 800, which had apparently been missed in the recent redirect-locking, is academic. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Look, you're trying to claim BRD as a reason to mass-move articles. It's not on, Kauffner could make the exact same argument because most of his year-old moves that you were technically reverts of undiscussed moves themselves. The point is, even though you both have reasonable arguments, it is disruptive. I'm withdrawing from this conversation now. I brought this to a noticeboard so that other editors could express their opinion. Jenks24 (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC) @Jenks24, of course not, definitely not, as I said "that not even WP:BRD can be invoked" I have reverted 80 of 800 undiscussed moves as per example Ha Long: (In ictu oculi moved page Ha Long to Hạ Long over redirect: revert another undiscussed move contrary 3 of 3 geo names RMs see Talk:Cà Mau) (top) I'm going to go off to the gym now. But I am very disappointed that you cannot see (a) making and redirect-locking 800 undiscussed moves counter a RM, and (b) reverting 80 of those undiscussed move counter RM and not redirect-locking them. But all the same, all the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC) @Jayron32, you may be thinking of User:Dolovis. No, this only concerns Vietnamese. All other en.wp articles are at Latin-alphabet spelling. There evidently is consensus on European Latin-alphabet names. The last significant bunch, and it was a big bunch of User:Dolovis' edit-redirects, were moved at Talk:Dominik Halmoši two weeks ago. That leaves, amazingly, 100% consensus all over en.wp as regards French, Czech, Slovak, etc. Latin-alphabet names. As you can see from where en.wp's articles are there is consensus support for diacritics outside Vietnamese. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I'm in favor of a moratorium too. You can see some reasons why diacritics in article titles are not a good idea here, here, and here. You can see previous discussions on diacritics in article titles here, here, here, and here—and in many other places. GoodDay is just one of the people in favor of a diacritics-neutral Wikipedia who has been threatened and blocked by the pro-diacritics mob (you can read his appeal to Jimbo)—GoodDay was one of Wikipedia's 400 most active contributors. His main concern seems to have been the blanket use of diacritics in article titles. MakeSense64 has been bullied and is "On Strike", but there are many others. It's time this never-ending war was stopped. Note here (17 Aug. 2012 (-4,598) of User talk:In ictu oculi conversation with Deryck Chan snipped by IIO) that In ictu oculi appears to be bragging that he has made sure that Swedish and Czech articles all use diacritics in the article title even though he is well aware that such usage is in the minority—and that he intends to do the same for the all of the Vietnamese articles, regardless of common English usage or any other reason. In European articles, after changing the article title to use diacritics, In ictu oculi has been stripping the often-more-widely-used version-without-diacritics out of the article lede, so that there's no indication that the plain English version is the more popular and preferred version in the majority of English sources.  LittleBen (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I am fluent in Japanese, but if I were so arrogant and fanatical as to insist that Japanese be used in all Japan-related article titles in English Wikipedia, without exception—to satisfy my big ego and show off my language skills, regardless of the effect on the majority of Wikipedia users—and even recruited mobs to support this, it would surely be fair and justified to at least block me from such tampering with article titles. LittleBen (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Interestingly enough, In ictu oculi is insisting that there never have been any "diacritics in article titles" wars—and, even if there have been—they are all over (presumably he has won, and Wikipedia users have lost?). Except perhaps for Vietnamese, he doesn't mention Vietnamese. LittleBen (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC) To make the following statement clear. What I write in the next paragraph will be of no surprise to user:In ictu oculi (Iio) as I have written something similar to Iio on talk pages on numerous occasions and here at ANI a number of times. Iio you write above "There evidently is consensus on European Latin-alphabet names." English is a European Latin-alphabet so yes there agreement on European Latin-alphabet names. It is to use the procedures laid down in the policy article titles to decide what the appropriate title is. For the title of those articles about a subject of an entity originating on the European Continent, Wikipedia has more detailed policy section (WP:UE) and guidance Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Also for geographic features Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), as well as more specialised guidance such as that in WP:NCROY. For some months you cherry picked obscure sentences out of context from the MOS to justify ignoring or contradicting the AT policy to spread FUD about used reliable English language sources for deciding article titles. -- eg picking from MOS:PN -- even though it was repeatedly pointed out to you that MOS covers content while the AT policy and its naming conventions cover article titles), and then after you failed to get changes to the AT policy and guidance (see talk AT archives 36 and 37) you have been ignoring the heart of AT policy and guidance by latching onto a sentence from WP:IRS to create Looking Glass world where "When I use a word", Humpty DumptyIn ictu oculi said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less". So instead of following the spirit AT policy and its naming conventions (guidelines) which says follow usage in English language sources, you choose to ignore the heart of that policy and guidance, by arguing that any reliable English language source that does not use the spelling you prefer is not a reliable source (per WP:IRS "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context".) I find Iio's Humpty Dumpty approach with WP:IRS a nagation of the whole intention of basing article titles on the common name in reliable English language sources, as contrary to the letter and spirit of WP:AT (because Iio's opinion on what constitutes suitable context can be turned around -- it could be argued that any source that does not base its spelling on the 26 letter of the English alphabet is not appropriate and should be ignored -- so Iio's usage of IRS is flawed and disruptive because it precludes compromise. If editors work in good faith from the sources, then it is usually possible for editors of good faith to agree on the common name while disagreeing on whether that is the "correct" name. So I think Iio should take a long sabbatical from anything to do with naming articles on Wikipedia. I do not think a "moratorium on undiscussed diacritics-related moves to Vietnamese articles" is a solution to the underlying problem, because if agreed Iio is likely to simply either to start to put in lots of requested moves, and/or start similar disruption in another area where there can be similar disputes over diacritics. -- PBS (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I think the issue is not just article titles. I think the issue is that idealistically the user should be provided with a choice. To use an analogy: a monolingual English map is quite useless in many countries—because if you stop a local person and point to where you want to go on the map, the local person cannot read your English map. A bilingual map solves the problem. Likewise, on Wikipedia, article titles cannot realistically be in two languages—so plain English should be preferred. Foreign words in the lede or body are acceptable if the Wikipedia user is presented with a choice: (1) either the foreign word and romanized equivalent presented together, or (2a) a Wikilink from the plain English version to an article where the foreign version appears in the lede, or vice versa ((2b) a Wikilink from the foreign word to an article where the plain English equivalent appears in the lede). Stripping out important foreign words that somebody has painstakingly added to an article, without any attempt to Wikilink, could be considered to be vandalism. But I don't think it's acceptable (in case (2b)) for every second or third word in an article to be a diacritic-heavy or other foreign word, even if the foreign words are Wikilinked—this would be just too difficult to read. (Maybe IIO can show us some of his articles that meet this criteria?) Of course there are going to be trivial exceptions like Pelé, where the widely-known accented version might appear in the article title and the plain English "Pele" version is not required—but, in the majority of cases, surely it is preferable for the plain English version to appear in the article title and for both versions to appear in the lede. PS: Probably IIO is going to counter that this is contrary to his universal rules for "Latin alphabet" articles on Wikipedia, even if it doesn't contradict Wikipedia policy. LittleBen (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC) @PBS, I, and other editors, have already replied to your views on sources, French names etc. above during the Talk:Édouard Deldevez RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC) @to any admins who pass by later. None of the above has any bearing on whether the 800 Vietnamese towns moved counter Talk:Cà Mau be restored. Nor on (i) continuing with 1,600 undiscussed moves after Talk page requests not to, (ii) logged-out IP archiving of contrary RM results, (iii) deletion of RM bot tags to contrary RM, (iv) misuse of G6 "uncontroversial move" proxy moves contrary to RM results, (v) redirect locks preventing reverts. However, Jenks24 wants these 1600 undiscussed moves to stand, at the moment his is the only view addressing those moves, I will check in again after 12 hours. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Quote: "at the moment Jenks24 is the only view addressing those moves": Jenks24 has said quite clearly that he wants an uninvolved admin to look at the whole mess. LittleBen (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Hi everyone. Administrators have no special authority over content issues and cannot impose a moratorium on a certain type of page move. I think an Wp:RFC would be the best way to go about evaluating consensus on this issue, it is not going to be decided here. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Surely this is not a content issue, this is an edit-warring (or move-warring) issue. Jenks24 has proposed that a stop to the edit warring (move warring) be enforced until the content (or policy) issues are resolved by an RfC or the like. You can see previous complaints about this behavior—continuing to force changes when there is no consensus on policy—here. There is surely no sign that this behavior will ever stop without an ANI ruling that both sides stop it until policy is resolved. Surely that is perfectly reasonable. LittleBen (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC) If there is edit warring, warnings and blocks can be issued by any admin. The moratorium seems to be on moves, not on move-warring. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Exactly, we already have a permanent moratorium on move warring. What it seems is being asked for here is a formal ban on moving a certain type of article. That is not an administrative decision, it is a content decision and as such is in the hands of the broader community, not just admins who happen to be watching this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Right, Elen: because of move warring—one person moves an article, and the other then repeatedly proposes that it be moved back, as per here, here and here—the proposal is that a stop to this perpetual fighting be enforced until policy is clarified. This could be a temporary topic ban on adding diacritics to article titles for one party, and a temporary topic ban on removing diacritics from article titles for the other. Refer to the GoodDay case. LittleBen (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC) The thing is, AN doesn't do dispute resolution. So you need to have a community discussion at whateverrelevant talk page to establish a consensus on what this moratorium is for exactly, what articles it applies to, how long it is intended to last, etc. Then come back here and let admins know what the consensus was so we can respond accordingly if that consensus is not being respected. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Beeblebrox, are you saying that such a dispute resolution discussion happened in the GoodDay case? If so, would you please provide a link to such a discussion. LittleBen (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC) short answer:yes. more details posted way further down. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC) (ec)Actually those links you point too are what we as a wiki want to see. We want people to take things to requests for moves so discussions can occur. This is how consensus is achieved and then guidelines form based on those consensuses. I think the problem here is that consensus over the last couple of years has slowly started to shift towards the use of them. (based on the very large number of RfMs I have seen over the last year that have closed in that direction compared to the past where it was largely split 50/50) Which then seems to have caused this thread which appears to me as a last ditch attempt by some of the most vocal opponents of using them (Jenks24, LittleBenW, Kauffner) to try and stop the momentum of the building consensus that diacritics are not evil. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC) DJSasso, isn't it fair to say that you have been using your Admin. powers to assist IIO in his crusade to impose diacritics on the whole of Wikipedia? You are surely not a disinterested observer. I have good reason to believe that you and IIO work together, is that correct? LittleBen (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Umm no? I have never used a single admin power when it comes anywhere close to the diacritics topic. Precisely because I do get involved in the debates surrounding them. I suggest you provide a diff of me using my admin powers for anything regarding diacritics or strike your comment. In fact I have barely even used regular editor powers to do anything with diacritics. I believe the count last time someone checked was roughly 40 edits out of 100,000 of my edits had anything to do with diacritics. (other than discussion). Jenks24 on the other hand has closed countless RfMs and unblocked editors that supported his view that were involved in disputes surrounding diacritics. If anyone has used their admin powers inappropriately I'd suggest it was him. As for working together with IIO, no not in the slightest other than I have been in various discussions that he has been in, just like you have. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion on your talk page surely confirmed that you are far from a neutral observer. You didn't mention that fact when you came here to support IIO. LittleBen (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I didn't come here to support IIO, I came here to point out that the preferred thing we like all editors to do is to discuss issues. Taking moves to RfM is the optimum situation here. Even Jenks24 in his request above says RfMs are good still which is why I pointed out your links were ridiculous. I never claimed to be neutral. You aren't exactly neutral yourself, if anything you are quite extremist in your views. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC) As I have explained above with my bilingual map analogy, I am very much in favor of a multilingual Wikipedia. Fanatics who want to remove all foreign languages from English Wikipedia, and fanatics who want every second word on English Wikipedia to have diacritics, are both problems. But, as I have also explained, I agree with Jimbo that foreign languages in English article titles are idiotic—and the combination of a Vietnamese name with the English "city" that IIO has recently added (as an undiscussed but "uncontested" Article Move)—and even revert-locked—has made even a Vietnamese contributor protest. This stupid warring really has to be stopped. LittleBen (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC) The silliness of your "bilingual map" analogy is that such a "map" already exists. It does not matter if you type in Carlos Pena or Carlos Peña, you will end up where you want to go. The arguments against using diacritics in article titles have always been lacking, and frankly, rely on the flawed argument that the reader is stupid and unable to process that, even though he typed Pena, Peña is still what he wanted. Resolute 18:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC) That is totally beside the point. The questions are: (1) can the average Wikipedia user remember a title with complex diacritics. (2) can the average Wikipedia user remember the same title without complex diacritics. (3) is the version without diacritics far more widely used in English sources. If the answers are (1) No, (2) Yes, (3) Yes, then the article title should not use diacritics, because the use of diacritics is going to cause problems to the majority of Wikipedia users. If the answer to (3) is a resounding Yes (without considering (1) and (2)) then that is surely sufficient reason for not using diacritics. It is not appropriate to dictate that "diacritics must be used wherever possible in article titles" (as IIO says), or "diacritics must never be used in article titles". Both these "rules" are contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Editors who refuse to follow Wikipedia guidelines, or refuse to be flexible—they insist on winning every battle, controlling everything, and are always bad losers—are not just unsporting but a big liability to Wikipedia. LittleBen (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC) We don't introduce errors just because it might be easier to remember a title of an article. We are here to educate, as long as the user gets to the page they intend to get to then we have done our job. And redirects solve that situation by having redirects from non-diacritic versions to the proper spelling with diacritics. If our goal was just to have the easiest to remember titles then we would start using all kinds of leetspeak for article titles. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry but I don't agree that not using foreign language titles on English articles is an "error", or that using Japanese, Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese titles is "educational". If the majority of Wikipedia users and Wikipedia supporters cannot read it, you are just forcing your POV on them and making life difficult for them, that's all. You can "educate" them by using both foreign-language and romanized versions in the lede, then they have a choice. They don't have any choice if you present them with a title that they can't read, write, or remember. LittleBen (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC) The problem is that you believe they are foreign language titles. I don't believe they are. They are English names. A person's name doesn't suddenly change just because they walked across a border. Your name is your name no matter what. Now if they were using a different alphabet like Japanese or Chinese, then of course they need to be romanized. But as pointed out to you by others before, names with diacritics are romanized names because they use the latin alphabet. (aka the roman one). And since you changed your comment above after it had been replied to, I should add that guidelines are not set in stone, they are developed by what the community does in practice. They don't prescribe actions they are intended to describe actions. So if the community moves towards one end of the scale or the other then the guidelines change. That is how wikipedia works and how it is intended to work. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Surely you will agree that the Extended Latin alphabet (including diacritics) is (1) not taught in schools in the majority of English-speaking countries, and so most English Wikipedia users can't be expected to read, write or remember words with complex diacritics, (2) is reserved for foreign (non-English) words, and (3) only a few words with diacritics have become accepted in English. How can you possibly make the ridiculous claim that all words and names with diacritics are "English"? LittleBen (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Question for Beeblebrox posted above. LittleBen (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I don't know how many different ways to explain to you that AN is not part of the dispute resolution process. Maybe try opening the collapsed box at the top of this page that says "are you in the right place?" I'm not sure why you are so fixated on this point, but since you asked, yes there was an RFC regarding GoodDay at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoodDay, closed by one of our finest, most reasonable admins. (hehe). RFC is part of the dispute resolution structure. So is ArbCom, if there is a behavioral issue. If there is move-warring going on, report it at WP:AN3. Admins cannot simply dictate a new content policy. I'm not saying we don't want to, I'm sure there are those that would love to do exactly that, I am saying we can't. We're not allowed to. It is not permitted for us to do so. Policy does not provide an avenue for us to complete this request. Need I go on or is it starting to sink in? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you for finally explaining the procedure, though it took a lot of asking. It's easy to understand why so many good editors are saying that Wikipedia is no longer a fun place to contribute—the tone of your reply amply demonstrates why. LittleBen (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC) It didn't take a lot of asking, just a little bit of listening. I told you straight up several hours ago what the proper procedure was. [26] This was my first post in this thread and is perfectly polite. You then chose to continue arguing about it. Don't blame me for your own poor decisions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page access

User:Penyulap requests talk page access to his own page.--andreasegde (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the WP:BASC mailing list not working? --Jayron32 05:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. He e-mailed me to ask if I could put a message here.--andreasegde (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not going to get re-instated that way. After the latest block hardening for sending abusive emails I doubt it is going to happen at all anytime soon, but a user on their position needs to contact WP:BASC. That is their only current avenue of appeal, trying to get you to do it by proxy is not going to cut it. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll pass on the message. I'm only the messenger, as they say. :)andreasegde (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth I still think the original block he received that started it all and is essentially the reason why we lost a good and productive editor was a very bad one. Pen certainly made mistakes too though. Kumioko (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we never got the chance to correct that issue because Penyulap's following behaviors quickly became the more pressing problem. In other words, the initial block would have been dealt with had Penyulap not made further disruptions that made dealing with that impossible. No one but him pressed the keys on his keyboard. I have no objections, in principle, to eventually dealing with this, but I think that, given his refusal to so far follow reasonable procedure in dealing with his objections to being blocked, we need to start from following at least one expected procedure. At this point, where we are at this minute, WP:BASC is the proper venue. If they feel it is appropriate to unblock, or to restore talk page access, then we can deal with the next step. --Jayron32 13:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:EncycloPetey

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

For using his administrator tools while involved (see evidence), the administrator permissions of User:EncycloPetey are revoked. To regain administrator permissions, EncycloPetey must make a successful Request for Adminship (RfA).

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Eternity clause (part 2)

Problems again with editor User:Ofthehighest at Eternity clause. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive239#Eternity_clause for my previous posts on this. Again, I don't want to see the editor blocked: he simply doesn't understand some basics about Wikipedia. I'm probably not the best person to be explaining it to him at the moment. Can someone who's a better explainer please have a gentle word with him? Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Lone boatman is vandalizing the eternity clause article, because he insists on his political views being read first, i.e., his opinion that Germany's Basic Law is a "constitution". He has repeatedly and in violation of the reference he cited removed the word "democracy" and supplanted it with "constitution". And when I have brought it to his attention that the reference cited is not about changing a "constitution" or the "Basic Law," but about changing "democracy," he has now added the material about other countries which already in Wikipedia's article "entrenched clause". He has done this only to stop people from seeing that the article is about the 'eternity clause' in Germany. Lone boatman has also been vandalizing this article by censoring me. He claims that he is able to "paraphrase" things even though he has plagiarized (and after I correct it) claims he made new changes to paraphrase -- but is instead attempting to synthesize by supplanting the word "democracy" with "constitution". He has done this repeatedly even though the article he initially referenced is not about changing a "constitution" or "Basic Law," but about changing "democracy". And now, by adding material about entrenched clauses in other countries, he is attempting to conceal the article on German's eternity clause which has the Deutsche.de comparison article called Ewigkeitsklausel (or Ewigkeitsgarantie). The 'eternity clause' is the colloquial description of this entrenched clause in Germany. And Lone boatman has also found my blog and told me in Wikipidia talk that I had the wrong opinions and he then falsely and repeatedly accused me of using my blog as a reference. He has still not apologized for doing so after I repeatedly informed him that he had falsely accused me. His intent is to stop readers from reading what I have written on Wikipedia's article on the eternity clause. He has repeatedly deleted accurate paraphrases I have made which have been referenced correctly. I hereby request protection for this article. I would like to complete writing it without it being vandalized. Once it is written and approved by Wikipedia I would like Wikipedia to protect the article as it protects other articles here on Wikipedia. Why? Because the Deutsch.de article is totally false. The German people and people around the world need to know about the 'eternity clause,' the history affecting it and the fundamental principles of Germany's democracy it intends to protect.--Ofthehighest (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no comment on the content of the article (admins have no higher say than anyone else on content issues), but please both be warned that if you continue to edit war at this article, you stand a very good chance of being blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies: I was under the impression that reverting deletion of referenced content wasn't considered edit-warring. I will refrain in future. Lone boatman (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Ofthehighest, when you are involved in a content dispute, you must not accuse the other party of vandalism - Vandalism has a very specific definition here, and disagreement over content or points of view is not included. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor Ofthehighest, I have at no point told you that you have "the wrong opinions". I note that you have also posted about me at the Dispute resolution board, claiming in this edit that "he has written to me saying that he disapproves of my views". This is bizarre fiction: I have never written to you about anything, ever, and I do not disapprove of your views. If you review my edits to the article, they clearly show that while I have indeed changed the wording of the article several times, I have never attempted to "censor" anything, only to revert repeated attempts at re-adding unreferenced WP:Original research and essay-like analysis. Other editors on the article's talk page have (before I turned up) expressed similar concerns about the WP:POV, WP:Editorializing tone of the article, but because I actually tried to edit the article for a more WP:Neutral point of view rather than simply complain about it, you've accused me of all manner of bad conduct. I don't expect to see a retraction of any of your accusations, but if you expect your claims to be taken seriously by administrators, then I suggest you provide WP:DIFFs here, showing a shred of evidence to support them. Lone boatman (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This has also been brought up Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ofthehighest where I have blocked Ofthehighest for 1 week for repeatedly making false accusations of vandalism against others. De728631 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotection not working appropriately

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

---

It seems that semiprotection is no longer working correctly in that non-autoconfirmed users can edit semiprotected pages. (See this edit.) Requesting his user groups returns only "*" and "User". Furthermore, new users can also apparently move pages (this was stopped by an edit filter), and requesting his user groups returns the same lack of autoconfirmed. Am I missing something, or have some bugs managed to get committed into the codebase? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, here, but Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested appears to only be move-protected and not semi-protected... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I apologise for confusing you with the wrong template. The page is rightly not semi'd, but I could not edit it. There were so many brightly coloured boxes on the edit page, that I couldn't distinguish the problem. 78.146.252.101 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You can always use a {{Help me}} template to request help for issues where there isn't a specific request template. Monty₈₄₅ 19:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Gustave

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

---

this hurricane was in 2008 not 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.74.20 (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

See Hurricane Gustav (disambiguation); there have been 3 Hurricane Gustavs, and 2 tropical storms. Storm names are routinely recycled as long as they don't cause particularly large amounts of damage or loss of life. Monty₈₄₅ 15:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Motions regarding discretionary sanctions and Falun Gong 2

Pursuant to two motions voted on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, the following actions have been taken:

• Mandated external review (MER) has been explicitly adopted as a form of discretionary sanctions. In brief, editors subject to MER are restricted from making more than minor changes to an article in the area of conflict without first gathering consensus on the article's talk page.
• Users Homunculus, Ohconfucius, and Colipon, who were subjected to MER in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2, may only appeal their sanctions to the Arbitration Committee. Editors who are sanctioned by individual administrators in the future may appeal the sanction as they would any discretionary sanction.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 16:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

Remedy 5 (Standard discretionary sanctions) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is amended as follows:

The words "and British baronets" are stricken from this remedy. The Committee reserves the right to restore sanctions to this area by motion, should a pattern of editing problems re-emerge. Existing sanctions which were placed prior to this amendment remain in effect (and unmodified) until they expire or are lifted via the normal appeals process.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 19:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Grant Shapps

..might be worth keeping an eye on. According to the Guardian, he's been naughty. Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Uncontroversial pagemove

Okay, we have a page at Usharal, and a page created back in March at Ucharal. The former has been around 4 years and has more info, but it turns out that Ucharal is the right spelling. Since Ucharal has less content, and nothing but a Wikimapia link, it can be safely speedied to make way for the page move. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that the "ch" spelling is the correct one? Cyrillic ш is generally transliterated in English as "sh" (e.g., "Shostakovich"). "Ch" is generally the French way of transliterating it (e.g. Chostakovitch). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And anyways, ain't there an "non-controversial" section on the Requested Moves page that should be where to place this discussion? pbp 04:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Requests for closure page

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

---

The Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure page has a significant backlog. Posting here for any administrators interested in helping to bring it up-to-date. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This section wouldn't have been necessary if you hadn't accidentally hidden that subpage. I have corrected your change here. Fram (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, I accidently removed the closing </noinclude> in the intro when editing. The page remains significantly backlogged. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually think what is out of hand is the idea that an admin is needed to close a lot of these discussions. But as someone who does close a fair number of them I can tell you it is no mystery why it gets backlogged. It's work, and you tend to get yelled at a lot if you do your job right. And some of the stuff that has been there a long time is still there because nobody can figure out how to close it, or because it it is an extremely long discussion of an extremely trivial issue that is probably only of any interest whatsoever to the three or four people participating in the said discussion. Kind of a "what's the point" scenario as no matter what tou do they will just keep arguing about it anyway. However I will have a look through it and see if I can't knock down part of the backlog. Anyone else care to give it a go? By the way it is always helpful to use {{closing}} to avoid two admins working the same discussion at the same time. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've knocked down four or five but now RL is calling. Still plenty on the pile for anyone who wants to do some reading. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that an Admin is not required to close these sorts of discussions. Any uninvolved experienced editor should be able to do this - perhaps the problem is that this list is on the wrong page. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Crash message inside pages. "Failed to parse, cannot write to folder..."

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

---

Error Message: Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory): V_S\

Seen on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_signaling

Example message inline:

To see why, consider a single-ended digital system with supply voltage Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory): V_S\, . The high logic level is Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory): V_S\, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.35.208.21 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a Java failure. Yesterday I got an update to Java version 1.6.0_35, so I suppose most people installed this too. Please be sure to enable Java Console for your system and then reload the Wiki page in your browser. That should fix it. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, looks an edit conflict between RE and me. So apparently it was on the server side? De728631 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Happiness Mkuthawasi

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

---

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

---

I am the agent for Mr Happiness Mkuthawasi and I have created a page for him. An admin has placed a speedy deletion saying it is a hoax? Why is this? Thank you. --HisHealthAndWellbeing (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it is a hoax. You uploaded a picture of Steve Harvey, along with several other hoaxes you created using copyvio pictures, which you claim license to. I've indefinitely blocked the user. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Also  Confirmed:

• Jimme-Retchet (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• QuestionableThesis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

--MuZemike 17:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, all three accounts are sockpuppets of Technoquat (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 18:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

3 revert rule breaking and Sock-puppet (?) tag-team continual bullying

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

---

I am suffering some personal attacks on the Talk:Karaims page [27], [28], [29], I want to confess that I too am no longer guilt free as I also slipped into this revert war as this user seems to be a sock puppet of Toddy1 who sometimes confuses Nozdref's edits with his own I lost track. As Toddy1, Nozdref's reverts include [30], and [31]. As sockpuppet (?) Toddy1, Nozdref is also deleting my discussion comments and inserting them in inappropriate places. Nozdref has already been warned by admin on the discussion page concerning ad-hominem attacks. I have continually asked for assistance and called for constructive contributions to arrive at consensus instead of bullying, but top no avail. These two IDs are dead-set against a change even when they themselves bring up evidence calling for the rename. The final resort of these folks is to deteriorate the whole thing into personal attacks. I have an impeccable 9 year edit history on wikipedia. I would like something to be done about this please.If I have placed this message in the wrong place please can someone help. Kaz 18:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

My initial take is that you are all acting in a reprehensible manner and if the mudslinging, which you have particpated in as much or more than the users you complain about. And edit warring. You've clearly been doing that. I think some short blocks or in order here to settle this nonsense down. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Nozdref and Kaz both blocked for 24 hours. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

RFC closure

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

---

Moved to WP:ANRFC. Jafeluv (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Battle of Raab

Resolved

 – Both editors blocked Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello! There is an edit war between users Doncsesz and DITWIN GRIM. The Kingdom of Hungary was NOT part of the Austrian Empire (or Holy Roman Empire), but there was a personal union between the two country since 1526. Please, protect the article. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have source (in Hungarian and also in English) about the presence of separate Hungarian forces in the Battle of Raab: [The last Hungarian insurrection in 1809. Doncsecz^talk 11:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just blocked both editors for 24 hours (which may be being generous to Doncsesz given their history). However, please note that a) reports of edit warring should be made at WP:AN3 rather than here and b) you must notify editors you report here and at WP:ANI (and it's good practice to post notifications of reports to the other central noticeboards). As a comment, the extent of the edit warring here was horrible. I've also watchlisted the article, and will follow up on further edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

User:IronGargoyle has broken Wikipedia rules

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

WP:BOOMERANG--Jayron32 01:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

---

You do realise that User:IronGargoyle has deleted the Fantastic Shabalanga page while the page was still in the middle of an articles for deletion discussion? See this please.

Also, under the reasons User:IronGargoyle has to delete it, this user wrote "Speedy deleted, vandalism" even though the page was not under a speedy deletion template and there was no evidence that there was any vandalism there. No one complained of vandalism, not even any admins. They just complained of notability, even though I provided an external link. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Notability (people) yet? I assume not, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting our time with nonsense like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have read that, but I invite you to tell me what part of what I have said is nonsense? In essence all of what I have written above is true is it not? There was NO speedy deletion notice, and was NO complaint of vandalism and this user CLOSED the debate before it had finished! Please comment on that User:AndyTheGrump. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reviewing the article and discussion, this seems to meet both WP:CSD#A7 and WP:SNOW in spades. I see nothing that was done wrong here. --Jayron32 00:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment suggest you review WP:AN#Happiness_Mkuthawasi too.--Robert Keiden (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Jayron32- The snowball clause is not policy, it reads that in the article therefore your comments do not read much. I have linked Jimbo Wales to this debate on his talk page. Clearly this is a serious matter and we need a higher power to resolve this. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

However, WP:CSD#A7 is policy. I don't see how involving our founder in this will help matters.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, please don't post this in too many places, because otherwise it looks like forum shopping and/or canvassing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Someone please block this chap as a sock. His behavior, coupled with Robert Keiden (talk · contribs)'s link, makes it beyond obvious that he is the latest incarnation of Technoquat (talk · contribs). Goodvac (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflict) Kijoorete-Bahnhof sounds an awful lot like the latest Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Technoquat. Another sock User:RouteLeader recently posted to the help desk about adult diapers [32] and so did Kijoorete-Bahnhof [33]. RouteLeader also filed a silly complaint here [34] as a brand new account, and posted to Jimbo [35]. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well isn't that interesting. Kijoote-Bahnof just edited Jimbo's talk page by inviting him to this thread.[36] --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Regardless of socking or not, the canvassing and the failure to listen here seem to be leading to a a hard hit for the OP, especially if they post at another place about this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am indef blocking Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk · contribs) for general disruption. He may also be a plausible sockpuppet account, but his general disruption is sufficient cause for the block. If he can convince someone at his talkpage that he is here for constructive purposes, anyone is welcome to unblock. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You will be surprised to find that I have no idea who User:Robert Keiden is. Nor do I know what a Technoquat is either. And 'block as a sock' makes no sense to me. I believe this discussion is going off course which is why I invited Jimbo Wales. Can we please get back to the point of why User:IronGargoyle did what he did? Thank you. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

'block as a sock' is short for "account block because you are using a sockpuppet account". I think we've explained to you enough about why IronGargoyle did what he did and didn't do what he didn't do.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note:  Likely this is Technoquat, i'm running checks for sleepers and an IP block now if possible. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Moving from Paralympic volleyball to Sitting volleyball

I ask if an administrator, please, can make the move required, as seems to have been reached a consensus. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Might be best to let the RfC run at least a week so more people can chime in. Not that I have any objections, just seems to be a very quick "consensus", and there is a redirect already in place. — ChedZILLA 06:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The question is: it's so obvious (the name is officially recognized by the IPC), and this topic is not very common here on Wikipedia, could spend weeks without anyone intervening in the discussion. --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If nobody has moved it by the end of the week, and the RfC is still that way (unresponsive) - ping my talk page and I'll log into my admin. account <sigh> to move it for you. — ChedZILLA 08:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism in Tusi article

Resolved

 – no admin action warranted at this time, edits are not vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Please take action against vandalism in the article. Participants take away a Stamp of Azerbaijan dedicated to the 800th anniversary of Tusi. They say that the stamp states Tusi was "Azerbaijani". But there is no so information on the stamp. The stamp refers to Iranian Azerbaijan, where Tusi spent most of his life. --Interfase (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dipute, it is not vandalism. Vandalism is editing designed to damage Wikipedia, npt just any edit you happen to disagree with. Please engage in the discussion on the talk page. please do not continue to edit war. If needed, ask for page protection and/or dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Stubes99 is not Doncsecz

Resolved

 – user advised hoe to properly appeal a block, block-evading IP now blocked as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Administrators! I'am blocked because the user:Stubes99, but this is not my sockpuppet! I'am not sockpuppet-master. 81.183.39.173 (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.49.41 (talk)

(Non-admin comment) You were answered here: User talk:Callanecc/Archives/3#Stubes99 is not my sockpuppet LlamaDude78 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is this happening to me?

deny
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I feel dumbstruck. User:DAJF placed a speedy deletion notice on my article, Sokkupapu claiming that my article was a hoax. Now I do not believe my article to be a hoax and I was surprised that this user had come to this conclusion. I decided to remove the speedy deletion notice in favour of a AfD template as I strongly objected to my article being called a hoax. User:DAJF removed my AfD template, which I believe is against the rules and re-instated the speedy deletion template. This user has not even responded to any of my messages regarding this article nor has he responded to my defence on the talk page for Sokkupapu, yet he still continues to remove my Afd templates for a civil discussion? Help please! --AitarouOmutsu-TUY (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC) According to his summary, "Requesting speedy deletion as blatant hoax (image says "Sockpuppet" and Japanese Wikipedia article was deleted instantly)". I can't tell you what the bag says, perhaps someone else can help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Looking at your contribs [37], particularly your first couple of edits, reminds me why I work at SPI. Any CU around want to peek at those contribs? His user page image is problematic as well. [38]Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC) That "bag" is something made in MSPaint in 5 minutes. This idiot is performing crosswiki vandalism and needs to be blocked post haste.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC) :: Update User:Ryulong placed a speedy deletion on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sokkupapu? That makes no sense at all. Why don't people want to discuss this topic? User:Dennis Brown :The name of the brand is 'Sokkupapu' which is a small Japanese non-woven puppet character, which resembles the potato figure on the bag. Not exactly sockpuppet, but something similar. --AitarouOmutsu-TUY (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC) WP:DENY —Kerfuffler 00:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Newer update I've indef blocked for vandalism, although trolling is just as apt. Would still like a CU to consider, and everyone else, feel free to review. The more I looked at it, the more obvious it became. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC) His creations need deleting.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC) I prefer another admin does that. I don't like to block, erase and deny someone without another hand or at least oversight (we do have that here at a very public page, granted). I'm funny that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC) They are all gone. GB fan 01:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of Threat to Resolve Dispute

It has caught my attention that, as on the surface it appears, threat was used to resolve a dispute, and, thus, I would like to bring the following for your kind perusal.

User H tan H epi tas had threatened, "Watch your mouth and accept a third opinion. If you don't, User:Chaipau should file a complaint at the appropriate section" ([39]) - while user Chaipau did file complaint as per the threat against user Bhaskarbhagawati.

To assist further, I would like to add the following as well:

• User H tan H epi tas account was created just hours ago before giving third opinion in Assam talk page.
• User H tan H epi tas account became inactive again for few days after complaining against user Bhaskarbhagawati, which shows that H tan H epi tas was created for purposes. Here is his activity log ([40]).
• User H tan H epi tas threatened and user Chaipau implemented the threat - both users are same individual.

As per the requirements users H tan H epi tas and Chaipau are notified thru their talk page.

User Bhaskarbhagawati is also notified.

Appreciate it very much for your times. Thank you, --130.65.109.101 (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

H tan H epi tas (talk · contribs) has not edited in about 2 months, absent a positive finding at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaipau, I think the matter is stale. Suggesting someone file a complaint if behavioral norms are not followed is probably not wrong anyway. Monty₈₄₅ 20:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Re- supposed "use of threat": I think you need to get a life. I haven't threatened anyone. User:Bhaskarbhagawati was being rude, aggressive and accusative. I told him/her to watch their mouth and I advised User:Chaipau to take it further as per wikipedia regulations, since User:Bhaskarbhagawati did not accept the third opinion I provided. If anything, User:Bhaskarbhagawati and everybody else who stirred this up owe ME an apology. It's User:130.65.109.101 who should be checked out.

Read my reply about sockpuppetry here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaipau

I really don't have the time or the mood for your games.

--H tan H epi tas (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can't say I care for either parties tone or all the uneccessary bolding in that discussion, but there is no "threat" and the SPI is utterly without merit. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• As suspected, IP 130.65.109.101 belongs to San Jose State University, California. It has been blacklisted by dnsbl.sorbs.net and SORBS Dynamic IP Addresses. Another student who abuses the university's resources and hides behind them. --H tan H epi tas (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggesting someone file a complaint if behavioral norms are not followed is probably not wrong anyway.

Appreciate it very much should you please post the link where such complaint may be filed for investigation.

abuses the university's resources and hides behind them

I am not hiding. I will be there to meet defendant face-to-face when needed. I see defendant already acknowledged "payback" - a return on an investment he made - this is good for him as penalty may be less. I am waiting for hearing.

It is not new thing that SJSU IPs have been hijacked where hijackers have been found to have come from countries like China, Burma, ...

Thank you

130.65.109.101 (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reading your text again, IP 130.65.109.101, are you or are you not writing from San Jose State University? Because your IP is that of said University. If you are not writing from the University, this means that you are hacking/using a proxy that hacks the IP and use it as a cover. Explain. --H tan H epi tas (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Does anyone not involved in this dispute even understand what is going on here or is it just me that doesn't get it? Who is the "defendant"? We are not in a court of law here, this is Wikipedia. If SJSU's IPs are being hijacked surely that is their problem, although we do not allow editing from most open proxies. It seems like what we have here is just two users trading insults. Currently there is no need for administrative involvement. I would suggest you take your content dispute to WP:DRN and that you all brush up on your civility. If there actually some legal proceeding here you need to keep it off Wikipedia or involved parties will be blocked pusruant to our policy on legal threats. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The defendant has a right to face me and I shall be present when needed. 130.65.109.101 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No one is a defendant here. Perhaps I was not clear enough. Don't even suggest anything that could possibly be construed as indicating you intend to take any kind of legal action or you will be blocked. This is not a judgement on the actual dispute, we just don't tolerate legal threats here. Period. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. 130.65.109.101 (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

After examining this matter further it seems clear that 130.65.109.101is in fact Kurmaa evading their block. I have therefore extended Kurmaa's block to indefinite and blocked the IP for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Arzel consistently poor behavior

Having been subject to snide remarks by Arzel and witnessed him make such comments to others, I am making a formal complaint here. The conduct of this editor is questionable. For example, just from his last 100 edits we have:

• battleground behavior, assumptions of bad faith, uncivil discourse: [41][42][43][44][45][46]

• pettifog retribution: [47][48]

• clear political agenda: [49][50][51][52][53]

I repeat: that's just cherry picked from the last 100 edits. There are so many violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BATTLEGROUND that it's not even worth counting. Also see his talk page for more.

I would very much appreciate it if admins could take a look at this and issue whatever warnings/topic bans/blocks they feel appropriate. Kerfuffler (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It is quite clear that this editor is a WP:SOCK of either a previously banned user or a current user. This editor has had almost no edit history until one week ago, and has the audacity to try and get me blocked even though I have had almost no interaction with him? I think it is probably a retaliation from the Still incident a few days ago. Arzel (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This report is about your conduct, not mine. —Kerfuffler 02:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(It can very well become about you at any moment. Be aware of that Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC))

I am curious, since I have basically no interaction with you why the sudden interest? I havn't even hardly made any edits today much less any interaction with you. Only one of the edits listed above even remotely involves you. Arzel (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If you must know, I believe the behavior I cited harms Wikipedia, wastes many people's time, and drives away positive contributions. Thanks for reminding me to state that here, but the evidence speaks for itself. —Kerfuffler 02:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well now you are wasting my time if makes you feel better. Also, your signature removed your talk page link. Not sure if that was intentional, but you might want to fix it to make it easier for other editors to talk to you. Arzel (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I also was amazed and on their talk page complimented Kerfuffler on their amazing progression, able to use policy to do battle by their 20th lifetime edit, and offer complex policy reasons for deletions in battle by their 60th lifetime edit. Also by that time they were expert enough to say that the did an overall review of several experienced editors (via reviewing their talk histories) and declaring their (negative) findings on those editors overall as fact. North8000 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of bad faith assumptions from Arzel and North8000 here. Is there any evidence that Kerfuffler is a "SOCK of either a previously banned user or a current user"? If not, the both of you should shut up. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's pretty damn obvious. Regards, — Moe ε 03:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Might be obvious, but you need to tell us the "of whom"-part; otherwise, the suspicion is useless. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not only is this empty sock claim a useless suspicion, it's also a transparent attempt to change the subject away from Arzel's bad behavior. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I find it quite problematic that Arzel has not even recognized the problem. —Kerfuffler 06:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a side note: Kerfuffler's edit history also seemed troublesome to me, and I was the one who asked on their talk page if they had any previous accounts. Based on my experience I don't believe Kerfuffler is a sock of StillStanding (which may have been unintentionally implied above). That's all. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not quite clear on why this venue was chosen or what results are being asked for, but regardless of where it's being discussed, the topic of Arzel's aggressive behavior seems like a fair one. I would only suggest, in advance, that we avoid crude tools such as blocking. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I was hesitant to name a specific sanction because I felt the discussion would quickly derail into the specifics. As for why here, there are pretty much only five options for conduct issues, two of which are not yet applicable, and this is serious enough that I felt it needs admin attention. —Kerfuffler 08:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No offense intended to Arzel, but statisticians and industrial engineers are quite possibly the most stubborn people on the planet. Considering Arzel is both, I would say this thread is a waste of time. You should file an RFC/U if you think it is needed. Otherwise, this will go nowhere. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Without in any way defending Arzel, I have to agree that this is not the procedurally correct approach. Not sure that an RFC/U is better, but it can't be worse than this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

1) Not all "knowledgeable" accounts are socks: some are former IP's, some are cleanstarts, some are legitimate alternate accounts.

2) When an AN or ANI is filed, all parties will have their interactions reviewed.

3) As the OP is trying to show a pattern of behaviour, WP:RFC/U is the best place for that.

dangerouspanda 10:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Guys, WP:RFC/U specifically says I must attempt to resolve it other ways first. Not applicable… yet. —Kerfuffler 10:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kerfuffler stated on their own talk page that they have No. As far as I can recall, I have never used any other Wikipedia account. I have noticed that it makes some people nervous that I've actually read many of the policies and guidelines, though. Kerfuffler (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC) I suppose this is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. I have been here long enough to identify legitimate new users, and he is not one of them. Arzel (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So does ANI :-) Did you try to resolve issues directly with them on their talkpage? Did you take civility issues to WP:WQA? Did you take any content-related issues to WP:DRN? It's pretty easy to have hit the other ways first (before even bringing it to ANI) dangerouspanda 10:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, this isn't WP:ANI. There are far too many of these pages, and it's absolutely unclear what the right one really is; e.g. WP:WQA seems to be for current issues (not long-term patterns), WP:ANI is for problems that need immediate attention, etc. This seems to be a long-term pattern of abuse, and really should be a WP:RFC/U issue, but I felt I should make a good faith attempt to bring the issue forth before that. So here we are. Now, would anyone like to comment on the substance? —Kerfuffler 10:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that some admins gave Belchfire a stern warning, and he seems to have backed down, so I was hopeful that it might work here. —Kerfuffler 11:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that this was purely an attempt to intimidate me? Arzel (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh Arzel, that was not helpful - but indeed, if you were indeed being a WP:DICK, then proper warnings/change of behaviour was pretty important. Kerfuffler: AN is for admin announcements, this filing actually did belong on ANI, so we're treating it as if it was. Good faith attempts to resolve take place in the places I noted - AN/ANI is for immediately urgent things dangerouspanda 12:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Arzel seems to have made his position clear. (Check the summary.) —Kerfuffler 14:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To save anyone from clicking the link I called this action that of a WP:TROLL since I have had basically no interaction with Kerfuffler to this point, and I find it exrememly dubious that such a "new" editor have such an extensive knowledge of WP policies and tools to have never edited at WP before now. Arzel (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a type of back-handed accusation we are seeing more and moreof lately, and I must say I find it quite troubling. There are multiple legitimate reasons for a new accoint to have some knowledge of policy right from the getgo. Perhaps they editied as IP, or are a lagitimate WP:CLEANSTART account. One of the things Kerfuffler says about you is that you fail to assume good faith. Taking knowledge of WP policy and assuming it to mean that the user is evading a block or whatever it is you are implying is a clear failure to do so. Bottom line: If you can't identify a pupeteer and there is no disruptive behavior such comments are out of place and without merit. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This editor has stated that they have NEVER edited on wp before on any other account, and now has inticrate knowledge of several WP areas. It is a clear WP:DUCK what amazes me is that any admin reading this page is ignoring the obvious, and my response is troubling? Arzel (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait, am I a WP:DUCK or a WP:SOCK? I've lost track. —Kerfuffler 02:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What may be germane here is that you are going to battle here on something that you have not been involved with the person on, sort of on behalf of the person who was involved, and who doesn't have to answer for their culpability because of that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It really says something that so many people assume the only valid reason to bring this up is retaliation. —Kerfuffler 02:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Since no action is forth coming, can this be closed? Or at least block Kerfuffler for disruption. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• While I share the concern that this isn't the right venue, I don't want the end result to be "logged," so to speak, as a vindication of Arzel through failure to condemn his behavior, so I'd like to state in brief and for the record that, while I've always found Arzel to be a POV-motivated editor with little concern for policy, his recent behavior, seemingly in the run-up to the American elections, has got worse and worse. Without crossing the "bright line" of 3RR, he has nonetheless edit-warred in article after article, blanking well-sourced material with specious references to policies that did not support his tendentious editing and where he clearly lacked consensus for his edits. He has also consistently reacted poorly to users pointing out problems with his behavior, as displayed in this section, in his responses to (required) AN notifications [54], and to other personal warnings [55] [56]. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Relaxation of restrictions for Barts1a

Hey folks. I've been talking to Barts1a (talk · contribs) recently about relaxation of his current restrictions. They were put in place by community consensus at the end of 2010, and I do believe he's improved since then. His four current restrictions are:

1. He is topic banned from all noticeboards
2. He is not allowed to use Huggle
3. He should avoid contentious articles and their talk pages, and
4. He is subject to a 1RR restriction, i.e not allowed to revert more than once per day in a dispute

Regarding the contentious articles, I'm not sure why this one was originally put in, as that's not where his issues lay. I am proposing the provisional removal of 1) noticeboard topic ban and 3) contentious articles.

The provision (which Barts1a suggested himself) is that if any report is lodged by him which an uninvolved administrator sees as frivolous and/or trivial will result in the noticeboard ban being reinstated indefinitely with a minimum term of 18 months. I would go further and suggest that an uninvolved administrator believes he is being disruptive at noticeboards or contentious articles in the next 6 months, then the topic ban should be reinstated. Regarding the other two restrictions, I don't really see a need to formally remove them, as I'd recommend he stuck to them even if they were removed.

To allow Barts1a to comment on this proposal, I am giving him leave to comment in this section on this noticeboard. Worm^TT(talk) 12:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've had a look through all of Barts1a's talk page archives, to get an understanding of what the problems were. As Barts1a has successfully been through mentorship (for which I offer my congratulations), I'm largely in favour of this relaxing of conditions. But I think I'd like to see a continuing agreement to not try doing "admin" things on noticeboards (like AIV). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Remove all but one of the restrictions. If he returns to his old behavior he won't be doing it for long. I agree with Boing on AIV--there is no reason for him to be there. In fact, I'd favor keeping the topic ban for all noticeboards in place unless he's filing a case or is being dragged there, or otherwise explicitly invited, like for the annual admin hopeful Christmas cocktail party. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Per Boing, I'm largely willing to give relaxing the noticeboard restriction a try, as I think Barts has made some large strides recently. However, he should definitely keep in mind that trying to do "admin things" seems to be his prime path to trouble, and avoiding those, especially while commenting on noticeboards, is best. I'm a little more wary of lifting the contentious article ban, because I still have the sense that tact and restraint are not his biggest talents, but I'm willing to give him a crack at proving me wrong, especially with the suggested provision that the bans can be reinstated by an uninvolved admin if necessary.

  Pretty much also in line with Worm's suggestions, I would prefer the Huggle restriction not be lifted at this time (when you're on uneven footing wrt judgment, Huggle is a recipe for disaster waiting to happen) and that 1RR stay in place (gotta crawl before you can walk - once we see how he handles himself on contentious articles, then we may want to discuss whether this restriction can be lifted). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth the new Cluebot has pretty much made Huggle obsolete and 1RR should be followed by everyone anyway excepting obvious vandalism reverts. I'm for deleting all of the restrictions and giving Barts full responsibility for his actions. He has made major strides since these restrictions were put in place, but at some point he must sink or swim. After two years and two mentors I'd say it's time. N419BH 19:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

can you explain about cluebot? Huggle use requires good judgement, so how can a bot manage that, unless the programmer has achieved a remarkably sophisticated version of AI that surpasses the intelligence of most human WP users. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll field this one... The new cluebot has a feature that few know about which is the review interface. This allows for edits reported to be incorrect reversions and a random selection of non-reported edits to be audited by a team of volunteers. As such cluebot is ALWAYS learning more about what is and is not vandalism. There is less error with every passing day (AFAIK it is very near zero as I type this!) Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 05:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Also. I would like to thank my mentor and former mentor as well as the community for having faith in me and for helping me get this far. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 05:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• I was the first admin to block Barts for his his disruptive behaviour in regards to the admin noticeboards. Like Boing, I agree that removing the restrictions as proposed is sensible, though Barts should voluntarily continue to stay away from the admin boards, at least initially. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Invoking the standard offer

Evangp (talk · contribs) would like to invoke the WP:Standard Offer. He has been blocked since 29 Sept 2010 and his only sock was immediately after that block. It's been 2 years since that block and 2 years since he socked. Below is his message:

It has been 2 years since I was blocked and have learned my lesson and understand why I was blocked. I will no longer abuse email and talk pages or use sockpuppetry. This block is not necessary anymore as I promise not to disrupt or damage wikipedia anymore. I hope you reconsider and unblock me....I was a lot younger when I was blocked and have since matured....My behavior was inappropriate because it was damaging and disruptive to wikipedia. I intend to take make proper edits and to create appropriate articles. I intend to edit concert venues, but may find myself editing other articles if my interests change.

The "..." are because the quotes came from different field in the ticket. Anyway, I asked for more information:

In the past I've never threatened or used profanity - all I've ever done was create articles about concert venues that (according to some) didn't meet wikipedia standards. Honestly, I created many of my articles in hope others with more knowledge on the subject would contribute. I want the ability to create articles under "evangp" and not be considered a sockpupet. I think being banned for two years is sufficent punishment and my ban should be lifted. My past shows I am not here to damage wikipedia - I think that is very evident. Please unban my account. Regards, Evan

Please discuss an unblock and under which, if any, conditions.--v/r - TP 14:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• 2 years already, and nothing nasty in the past - let him back, with no conditions other than those we all work under. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

  Withdrawn, after discussion below. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can I gently suggest that you consider the contributions of Buttchunker (talk · contribs)? Mr Stephen (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

  I see lots more creating of unsuitable articles, but is there anything more than that? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, a user who was socking three days ago can't exactly claim to have met the terms of the standard offer, so if that was him that option is off the table. And engaging in the exact same behavior that led to the initial block is not exactly encouraging either. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't spotted that it was so recent - in that case, what Dennis says, below... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• How comfortable are we in the linkage between Buttchunker and Evangp? He was blocked for disruption, not socking. MuZemike added the tag afterwards. If a CU was run and we know they are linked, then this is a non-starter. Otherwise, I'm a forgiving guy and would have said yes without reservation. We need to ask Muze how sure he is of the linkage, however, as that is entirely too recent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing their edits and the timing of this request I feel pretty comfortable with that linkage even without CU evidence. Too many coincidences. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The answer is pretty clear then. No use in even discussing this further. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even see that or realized I blocked the user. Well then I certainly shouldn't be handling this unblock request either.--v/r - TP 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not make the original block on User:Buttchunker, and while the socks from the sockmaster User:Evangp are long stale, the same editing patterns and behaviors that led to his original block for disruption are identical:

• Mass-creating articles on borderline notable, or many times completely non-notable, music theatres and venues, mainly in Germany.
• Extreme article ownership, attacking any user who dares go near "his articles". (i.e. [57], [58], and edit summary.

In my opinion, I am not convinced that Evangp's behavior has changed since two years ago, and he has exhibited the same behaviors that led to his original block two years ago; that is, it would have been a matter of time before his extreme personal attacks would have been made, such as [59], [60], [61], [62], and [63]. The user needs to remain blocked, lest we completely disregard the no personal attacks and article ownership policies (though I suppose we already do that for our "vested contributors"). --MuZemike 00:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Those PAs were all from 2010. Is there anything more recent? In 2012 he seems to have contributed some non-notable articles, maybe half of his contributions with the B account, but then also stuff like Niigata Prefectural Civic Center. It's hard to say he's a net negative at this point. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think he knew better from [64]. Then, there is the sock he created after his latest account got blocked, Tonsofsobs (talk · contribs), which he has attacked me and then denies any and all sockpuppetry. This person has a terrible temper, and that was why he was blocked again, the socking being irrelevant. --MuZemike 11:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that WP:DUCK applies here. But how about asking Evangp to post his request on his talk page, so the checkusers have something to go about? It looks like his unblock request was made by email. If he's telling a barefaced lie that he was not behind the B account (and its socks), then he should remain blocked. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a waste of time. He has a recent sock, and the confidence level is very high. It would be a waste of time to ask for the standard offer since he hasn't complied with the terms of it in any way. This is pretty much a dead thread. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Request for CheckUser I realize the on-wiki data for evangp is very old, but the UTRS CU data is brand new. Can you compare that against User:Buttchunker?--v/r - TP 14:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Good idea. I thought he just emailed someone. The UTRS data can be used by checkusers [65]. Why not add the request to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evangp? Tijfo098 (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The majority of sock blocks are made on behavior alone. Are you really buying the idea that he suddenly wanted to be unblocked mere days after an account that engaged in the exact same type of editing as he did was blocked? Doesn't the timing seem just a wee bit coincidental? When the CU comes back and says "inconclusive" what then? (it's not hard to hame a CU if you know it is coming) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional quote from blockee:

I feel my behavior was very minor and asking to be reinstated after 2 years is quite reasonable. I promise to be more civil in regards to articles I create. I understand what I did wrong and why it was wrong. What else can I do? Evan

--v/r - TP 01:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My topic ban (Bulwersator)

Main pages: Wikipedia:ANI § Topic_ban, and User_talk:Bulwersator § Topic_ban

"you are hereby indefinitely topic banned from all deletion processes (except when a page you have created or significantly edited is nominated by someone else)" - I request to change it to "you are hereby indefinitely topic banned from all deletion processes (except when a page you have created or significantly edited)" as the fact that Wikipedia:CSD#G7 (Author requests deletion) violates my topic ban is quite absurd (and sorry, I noticed it after I tagged few pages in my userspace with my deletion requests).

Additionally I think that blocking me from all deletion processes is a bit unfair as entire as entire discussion was about overcautious deletion nominations of files, so I also request change to "you are hereby indefinitely topic banned from all file deletion processes (except when a page you have created or significantly edited)"

Bulwersator (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The support for the topic ban was unanimous. Not a single editor considered it worthy of an oppose vote. Considering that, you should abide by the ban as levied. Come back in a couple of months, after editing in other areas of Wikipedia without contention, and the community may consider a change in your topic ban -- not now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• This appeal seems to be a case of wiki-lawyering. I doubt you'll be blocked for tagging pages in your own user space for violating the ban. But don't try it anywhere else. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• If we use common sense, we won't sanction Bulwersator for doing this. People in the topic ban discussion are objecting to his attempts to get pages deleted that likely shouldn't be, but G7 and U1 are unambiguous — there's no evidence of him attempting to abuse G7 to revoke his own contributions (e.g. removing an old upload from articles and tagging it for G7), and that's the only situation in which either of these types of deletion could be ambiguous. Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Per WP:IAR you can do anything that is obviously beneficial and non-contentious. If you find an obvious vandalism page and you tag it for speedy deletion, that is not going to result in a sanction. If you tag a page in your own userspace, that is fine. If you accidentally create a duplicate page in article space and tag it for deletion, that's fine. The sanction relates to attempting to delete content created by good faith contributors, but please, don't go looking for ways to test the limits. If you create mountains of unnecessary pages and then tag them just to create busy work for admins, somebody will get annoyed and you will be blocked. If you go looking for copyright violations and start tagging them, ditto. As somebody mentioned, just ignore deletion work for a few months and then come back and ask for the sanction to be lifted. A pledge to be more collegial may help seal the deal. Jehochman ^Talk 12:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Unnecessary. The restrictions are obviously not designed to keep you from modifying or deleting your own work, only from hastily asking for deletion on the work of others. To address a different concern, If images are requested to be moved from here to Commons (something else I see you have been working on), then you ask for them to be deleted there, that would be considered a violation of the spirit of the sanction as deletion by proxy, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Moving to Commons is actually an interesting issue. Under the topic ban, the user isn't allowed to nominate files for deletion, including, I suppose, tagging files with {{db-f8}} or {{Now Commons}}. I am not aware of any sanctions against the user on Commons, so I assume that the user is permitted to upload Wikipedia files to Commons as long as he doesn't tag them for deletion here. However, there is a bot here on Wikipedia which automatically tags files for deletion if an identical copy exists on Commons, so the outcome would probably be the same. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Tagging to move them to commons isn't an issue. If he then nominates them for deletion there, then it becomes a problem as it is the same as proxy deletion and would be seen as an end around the sanctions here. I note a couple of images that he has nominated for deletion at Commons already, although they weren't ones he moved there himself. This is why I brought up the issue, to add clarity that bypassing the sanctions by proxy will be seen as violating the sanctions, even though it is interwiki, the intent would be the same, to nominate WP photos for deletion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
      • So according to this interpretation once I nominate file on Commons that was transferred from enwiki I will be blocked here? "Tagging to move them to commons isn't an issue" - what about "tagging as moved"? Strictly speaking it is a deletion process (F8) (and it is this one when I never had any problems, I transferred more than 1000 images, with less than 20 nominated for deletion or deleted). Bulwersator (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "then you ask for them to be deleted there" - it would require obvious lying during tagging with {{now commons}}, as it would mean that I knowingly moved file that was unfit to Commons. Anyway it is moot as my topic ban covers also F8 (tagging as {{now commons}}), so even if I copy something to Commons from enwiki I am not allowed to tag it as redundant here (and I think it would be hard to cover this by IAR). Bulwersator (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • • • I just noticed a great number of images have been moved over to Commons by you [66], which were then nominated by Magog the Ogre within a day. [67], [68], [69], [70], and plenty of others. This looks odd, to say the least. I have notified Magog, since I mentioned him here. Not drawing any conclusion, but it unarguably looks odd. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, Magog nominated the pictures for deletion also on enwiki, see [71]. (it is question whatever plaques with protruding letters are covered by Canadian FOP, see [72]) Bulwersator (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• I think that moving files to Commons and tagging with F8 should not be concidered a violation of the topic ban. It would make things more complicated if a lot of files are copied to Commons but not tagged simply because of the topic ban.

If Bulwersator transfers a lot of bad files to Commons it is a problem - not because of the topic ban but because bad files should not be moved to Commons. And should files be copied to Commons, deleted on en-wiki and then nominated for deletion on Commons by Bulwersator it would be disruptive. Again not because of the topic ban but because it is a waste of time, space and would hide the nomination for deletion for the original uploader.

So I think we should accept tagging with NowCommons as ok. --MGA73 (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note: I do not know why the topic ban was originally placed on B, but I haven't noticed any significant problems with his NowCommons taggings, and (as the admin who does most of the NowCommons work) I have no objections to him continuing to work in this area. He does not have a perfect track record, but frankly most users don't, including most admins. In the case of the recent nominations, the difference between a 2D and 3D piece of art according to Canadian law is a distinction that few would venture to tackle. I do not think these moves to Commons were done out of sloppiness: rather, an understandable ignorance of the fine points of foreign law (it's also worth mentioning that the discussion on them is still open). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

His moves to commons weren't the concern; the topic ban was the result of his taking a shotgun to FFD and nominating free use images for deletion in metric scraptonnes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• MGA73, to be clear, I would consider it a violation of the topic ban if he did that as a way around the topic ban, and would be forced to act upon it. I think the point has been sufficiently made and he understands that it would be a violation of the spirit, so I am anticipating it won't be an issue. If my hand were forced and others wanted to debate those actions here afterwards, then of course they are free to do so. I'm confident that two-stepping around the current topic ban would be viewed as wikilawyering and wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• If I'm following this correctly (and admittedly it's making my head spin a little), if B were to move a file to Commons knowing that it would be most likely be deleted there, that should be considered a violation of his topic ban, as a deletion by proxy. (BTW, raised letters doesn't change a plaque from 2D to 3D). Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks clear to me that there is consensus that it is OK for B to nominate pages for deletion as WP:CSD#G7, WP:CSD#U1, WP:CSD#F8, so long as he does not knowingly do so with intent to see the image eventually deleted on Commons, and any obviously non-controversial processes (e.g., WP:CSD#G6) - although I personally recommend against it at this time). However, there is not consensus at this time that it is OK to undo his sanction against other deletion processes, although there may be in the future. I suggest B does not lose heart but continues editing constructively and things will improve with time. I move that we should close this discussion as such if there are no further objections. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 07:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Major WP:CFD backlog

There's a major backlog at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion - over 100 discussions from August, as well as 23 nominations from September which should have been closed already. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk Vandalism

this stopped being a productive discussion some time ago

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. User Toddy1 is vandalising discussions by deleting user comments from discussion pages on Talk:Karaims and Talk:Crimean Karaites and moving them to inappropriate locations [73] to hamper discussion on restoring the original name of the article in accordance with WP:UCN and WP:CRITERIA. Kaz 19:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC) (Non-admin observation) This looks like a good-sized WP:BOOMERANG headed in your direction. You inserted the header "Ad-Hominem Talk" into the talk page above another user's comments, violating WP:RTP in the process. You're also edit-warring and using IP sockpuppets. This should be good. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks Evan for telling me about this report. Kaz did not.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC) I apologise I am not very aware of a lot of the policies on wikipedia, I was also under the impression that I had been blocked after opening this discussion [74] although that seems to have been placed there deceptively. But I am a sincere contributor who has been with wikipedia for 9 years with a clean history until Nozdref/Toddy1 came along. Unlike Nozdref, Toddy1 joined wikipedia already knowing all the rules and has been very careful to keep his IP hidden from the outset. That usually means an experienced editor got a bad name and had to creat a new account to start over again. I think it is worth baring in mind. Certainly I do make mistakes, but I always welcome being pointed to the relevant piece of policy. The issue at hand here here began with WP:UCN, and WP:CRITERIA being ignored by Toddy1 who at first I thought had a genuine desire for discussion and I bent over backwards to accommodate Toddy1's requests even joining him in making things more complicated for the admin who has to sort out the Move now. You will see from the Talk:Karaims however, that every request which I made for input on the article has been ignored by this user who simply looks for ways to stirr up conflict. I request a careful investigation of what has actually been happening and be careful not to be hoodwinked by deceptive edit summaries or so-called "factual chronologies" written by Toddy1 as everything is transparent on wikipedia the edit history facts do speak for themselves. Toddy is preventing progress for his own personal reasons and has become skilled at manipulating the rules to achieve his ends having been caught out in the past. Please do look through his edit summaries and edit wars and talk page discussions. You will see the same pattern. Look through mine too and you will see a not very skilled editor who has an interest in the histories and legends of Turko-Hunnic peoples like my own nation. Kaz 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC) When Kaz talks about my moving discussion from Talk:Karaims to Talk:Crimean Karaites, he/she is talking about the POV fork he/she created from a redirect page after starting a move discussion on Talk:Crimean Karaites. This was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#User Kaz and Crimean Karaites/Karaims POV Fork. Eventually, Kaz restored Karaims to its status as a redirect page to Karaites.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC) How can starting the process to return an article to its original name be called a POV fork? Although I was interrupted (as it was pointed out to me that this is a complicated move which can only be done by a special type of admin), my initial intention was to restore the Karaims info back to the Karaims page, and allow editors like Toddy1 to start a new article about Karaite Jews in Crimea (if indeed he can find any sources about it) on the Crimean Karaites page. However, Toddy1 is not interested in Jewish Karaites but also agrees with the rest of us that the article is named wrongly [75] but for no logical reason continues to oppose WP:UCN and WP:CRITERIA. Kaz 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Kaz has repeatedly tried to insert the header "Ad-Hominem Talk" in front of comments by Nozdref. Both Nozdref and I object to this, but Kaz just keeps reinserting it. Nozdref was commenting on a summary of the move discussion that Kaz had written as 62.255.75.224, making it clear that he believed that Kaz and 62.255.75.224 were different people. I think the purpose of Kaz's header is to disguise this fact.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Nozdref attempted to sully my good name by accusing me of criminal activity (when throwing mud at someone it does some how stick even when you try to brush it off) and started a smokescreen to repulse editors from reading through the dispute discussion right in the middle of it. It is my right to insert a title to a discussion section which attacks me and which distracts editors from the point (which one should point out is exactly what you are doing here for some reason other than an interest in Karaims). Kaz 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Sullying your "good name"? Come on get real, the only thing I did was to suspect you might be antisemitic due to your massive removal of Jewish links from the article and other releated articles of which you largely replaced with your own outlook. However you kept personal attacks and you yourself also did similiar accusation to Tobby1 in an edit summary[76] and your excuse is simply because that accusation is not as "criminal" as my statement. Now that's your excuse to stubbornly impose that title above my comments? Do you see me stubbornly moving your whole comments to somewhere else I like with a title I decide, and accuse you of "vandalism" when you revert it? Nozdref (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC) It is a service to Judaism to make sure no one thinks Messianic ideas have a place in any form of Judaism. I think only Messianic Jews would disagree with this. But I think Karaims do not fall under the Messianic Jewish category either because I think Messianic Jews don't believe in Muhammad. With regards to your other comment, removal of all sourced and referenced mention of Allah from an article about a people who call God Allah is what then? P.S. I did not describe your statement as criminal. Please place a quote here for me if I did. Kaz 08:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Evan is right in saying that Kaz edits some of the time as an IP editor. On Crimean Karaites and Talk:Crimean Karaites, he/she has used: 62.255.75.224. You can see Kaz's admission of this on [77]. After he/she admitted this, he/she changed the signatures of his various posts as 62.255.75.224 on the talk page to Kaz. He/she had been exploiting the fact that other users thought that Kaz and 62.255.75.224 were different people before that. 86.26.236.107. When asked about this one, Kaz neither confirmed nor denied it.[78] He gave part of his answer in Russian, saying that it was an intrusive question affecting his safety.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC) I answered clearly about that user in Toddy1's alleged first language without causing offense. Kaz 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC) 81.103.120.143. Notice that on one occasion this IP edited Kaz's user page. There was no protest about this from Kaz as I would have expected if the IP had been a different person. Here, the IP editor commented on Crimean Karaites.[79] This is where Kaz some months later posts his agreement with what the IP editor said.[80] I suspect that the two editors in his Wikipedia:WikiProject Karaimism/Members are really Kaz. Their recent edit histories do suggest this. Note that this Wikiproject was created by Kaz on 29 August 2012‎. Special:Contributions/Muthmar Muthmar's only two edits on Wikipedia were the next day. Special:Contributions/Danage Danage had not edited Wikipedia since 2008, but suddenly updated his user page on 29 August and expressed support for Kaz' position on 30 August.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC) The sock-puppet accusation against me has already been raised by Toddy1 and dismissed and archived. I sometimes get logged out of wiki when my browser is closed and you can see all of the comments of my IP and my user name are consistent with the mentality of one person. I have sometimes edited from the houses of family in Cardiff who also enjoy wikipedia, so any IP address from Cardiff which match my User name are more than likely me or one of my family members. I do not hide who I am. But I am happy to have the IPs investigated to see if the users Toddy1 says I am are in fact me. As far as I know there is no crime in accidentally editing without logging in and this happens all the time to normal users who have nothing to hide. Kaz 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC) During the discussion, Kaz has made legal threats to Nozdref.[81] This was discussed at User talk:Dennis Brown#Legal threats. In addition, Kaz has repeatedly made abusive comments about other users, which can be found on Talk:Crimean Karaites.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC) The so-called legal threat to nozdref was never made, but was a mis-placed comment intended for another location which I accidentally pasted in the wrong browser window and saved when I was in a hurry. Nevertheless it was dealt with effectively and careful knowledge of the motivation behind the WP:NLT reveals that it did not apply in this case anyway. As for repeated abusive comments which I made, I would like one to be pointed out to me please. That's a poor fabrication, you have never mentioned such a thing in discussion in Dennis Brown's talk page. When you were asked to remove it, all you did was to change "Southampton court" to "Southampton tennis court"[82] as you said in the user talk page but Dennis Brown thought you are making fun of the situtation and removed it himself. I just suspected you might be an antisemitic only once and never issued this word in further but despite this you continued this argument and decided to issue me a legal threat, as linked above. Nozdref (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC) It is not a fabrication, look [83] and see here [84]. Nozdref is not the only person who gets confused, but Nozdref is not the rudest person. I was meant to be preparing that comment for someone else but in my distress I had stuck it in the wrong place instead of on my own wiki database. I do confess that once I had realised what was going on I did find the confusion amusing and perhaps unjustly joked about a bit with Dennis before I did something about it. Strangely no one noticed that the whole thing was a misunderstanding and was never addressed to Nozdref. I wouldn't have imagined someone from Izmir like Nozdref could read Hebrew, but well done Nozdref.Kaz 08:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC) The issues Toddy is bringing up are ones which have already been closed or removed from here. I think this is just another smokescreen tactic to delay constructive discussion on encyclopaedic $article building. Back to the topic. My question is simple. Is Toddy1 in violation of good conduct and vandalism? Yes or no? If yes, does should he be blocked? If you want to block me too I think that is the topic of the other two discussions.Kaz 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Yes i did edit the page to correct the typos and I am not Kaz. MuthMar —Preceding undated comment added 10:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Kaz, there is no evidence that Toddy1 has engaged in vandalism. Please follow that link as it seems you don't know what the word means. As I said in the last theead you opened you have behaved terribly during this affair. I would have thought that you would have learned something from the way the last discussion boomeranged on you, but apparently not. I can't believe you have the nerve to keep this up when you have acted as bad or worse than the two users you are complaining about. And all of you need to cut it out with the accusations of sockpuppetry. If you have any actual evidence, file at WP:SPI. As to the underlying content dispute, you should probably head over to WP:DRN since you don't seem to be able to have a civilized discussion amongst yourselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Kaz, you have a serious clue deficiency here. I've been as patient as I could be working with you, particularly with your legal threat (an issue most would have simply blocked first and asked questions later for) and here you are calling edits vandalism when they don't look like WP:VANDALism to others. You have a defiant streak that will be your undoing here at Wikipedia. This isn't some blog or POV forum, it is an encyclopedia, and either you need to rapidly learn how to work in a collegiate manner, or expect to be blocked for an indefinite period of time. I'm out of patience and will let others figure this out, but coming here was foolish as everyone's behavior is on the table when you drop by AN/ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC) I already made clear that I have a disability. If I can't get the point then it is not for lack of asking for help to get it. I would like some input from other Admins please. I feel victimised. Kaz 21:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Dennis is one of the most patient admins we have. If you feel victimized by him you probably aren't going to like the feedback you get from the rest of us. Are you at least now able to understand the difference between vandalism and other types of editing? That would be something. And again, if you are looking for some sort of administrative action regarding the content dispute, it isn't very likely unless the page should need be protected and/or more blocks issued. If you are not looking for that I would again suggest the dispute resolution noticeboard as a way to try and resolve that issue. Admins don't make rulings on content, we just take the necessary action when there is a behavioral problem. Since you are the one who initiated this discussion and it is now clear that some of the very worst behavior has in fact been coming from you, I would think it would be in your best interest to stop pursuing administrative action and start pusruing civil discussion on the disputed content. The folks at DRN are specialists in helping with this sort of thing. It doesn't always wotk, but it works a lot better than just trying to get your perceived opponents in trouble by accusing them of things they haven't actually done. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC) It does not need to go to DRN. It is a move discussion. It just needs someone to adjudicate on Kaz's move proposal.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC) I would like other admins to look at this please. I posted for help here because of the removal of my comments [85], [86], [87] from the talk page. If that is not vandalism what is it then? There must be some rule against it no? Let me put it another way, if I start to remove other user's comments in the discussion on the Talk (again I remind this is not a complaint about behaviour on any the article page yet) I repeat Talk page, I am sure someone would point out I was breaking a policy right? So what about when someone else does it? I am asking because this is what has been done to my comments. I wish some admin would start looking at the links I posted to understand my complaint so far I just see an accumulation of comments about the nerve I have, or suggestion that I have a defiant streak, or about my cluelessness, or other indications concerning my limited capacity to understand, or my lack of WP knowledge interpreted as "worse" behaviour (without statistical data to back up). Talk about NLP manipulations of the masses. Evidence is the amount of meandering talk in this section right here about all sorts of other things meanwhile no one has addressed my concerns. So I repeat again in case my communicative difficulties are against me here still... Is it not wrong to remove a user's comments from discussions on a talk page? Please can someone other than these two admins answer this question soon? Kaz 08:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Kaz - in your posting of 08:42 12 September 2012, you identified 3 edits as vandalism. If the person who made those edits were given a permanent block, would this satisfy you?--Toddy1 (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC) No, If you look here very carefully you will see that at least three of my comments have been (re)moved as well as very logical numbering. I asked for them to be restored but they were moved to irrelevant locations, When I undid that disruptive edit and asked for the user to restore them to the locations where they are intended to comment on the user refused. I want to know if removing another user's talk page comments or placing them out of their intended context is against policy, is it vandalism or something? Kaz 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC) See, you are misunderstanding the problem. It's not that nobody has bothered to look. I have looked. The edits that turned the talk page into a disorganized mess were not made by Toddy alone. You participated as well. You know that. What we have here is a series of I'll-advised talk page edits, and for the last time NO IT IS NOT VANDALISM. Since you and Toddy are discussing this and it looks like progress is being made I don't know why you keep returning to this thread to protest. Toddy appears to be acting in good faith to try and fix this. I fail to see why this discussion needs to continue or what you hope to accomplish by it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC) OK so I have half an answer from an intimidating admin who I already said I don't want any more comments from. So Half a thanks is due to him. So if it is not vandalism, what policy is there to stop anyone from deleting the comments of any person on the talk pages or moving them anywhere we want to? If I can't get an answer, and if my comments are not restored to their intended locations will I have to demonstrate the sort of thing I am talking about to see what sort of Policy someone says I am breaking? If no one is going to tell me then the only way I can learn is by experience right? But of course this is rhetoric. I need a real answer soon please, please, please, from other administrators. Toddy1 is indeed starting to respond, thanks to the existence of this complaint. I guess there is some pressure on to get things back to normal before anyone notices what he did. Whatever the motivation I can see it is good and that this complaint is having a positive effect. But it will not be closed until someone please gives me the answers to my questions.Kaz 20:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC) After I have my answer, if Toddy1 restores the remaining two comments to their intended locations (the rest I have already restored) I will consider that a good enough good will gesture top close this discussion. Kaz 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Kaz - please read Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. The two comments in question (the ones you deleted) were originally introduced as part of a refactoring of the talk page by you that other users objected to. Normally new comments are put at the end of sections; this is less confusing for other people. However you seem to think you have the right to put them at the top or in the middle as prefaces to other people's comments. It not surprising they object. You have done the same with a new comment today - but I am leaving it to the user whose comment you prefaced to decide whether he will tolerate it.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enough already!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. "It not surprising they object. ... --Toddy1 (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)" Yaaqov did not object. But I did object to you moving my comments. It does not make sense to me why you can "re-factor" the talk page but I am not even allowed to decide where I can put my own comments. I take it you will not be restoring my comments to their intended locations as a sign of good faith then. It is interesting to see how the pack is stacked in favour of those in power on wiki, that the conversation which shows up poor behaviour of Admins is collapsed. Very disappointing. Kaz 01:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AN/RFC

Do we *really* need more than 59 lines in the TOC of AN for this? Any reason why it can't be a simple (numbered or unnumbered) list and not subsections? Right now it takes up at least two screens on my laptop. T. Canens (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps they should be moved into their own separate page or as a subpage of this and transcluded in a collapsed box?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

They are in a subpage and transcluded. Maybe we should close some? If every admin who sees this today does 1, then it'll be done. (Yes, I realize there are backlogs everywhere).--v/r - TP 14:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I can count the number of times I've closed AFDs/RFCs on one hand. But I did my one today, which I think brings my total to 2 or 3 lifetime. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

AfDs are well in hand, some of the other deletion venues have backlogs, but I think the closes above are almost all RFCs/RMs. Monty₈₄₅ 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And I think you will find a number of them probably didn't need to be listed here. I.think it may be time we discuss what should and should not be listed here as it is getting excessive. Not every single content discussion actually requires administrative closure. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Regards, — Moe ε 16:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The one I just closed didn't require an admin as it was very obvious. Where are all the admin hopefuls when you need them? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm - Since I do admin candidate reviews, I need to get the almost ready candidates to start looking at these for both experience and as a way to help. Already have with someone I'm sure will be an admin soon. Seems I've answered my own question. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Agree they could be a list rather than sections. That said, I non-admin closed 2 of them. Hobit (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Moe, nice trick, thanks for that. what I am seeing here is that some of these are very mundane or minor content discussions. However, if they so much as say "RFC" at some point apparently they autonatically need an admin to close them. And then the list swells up and looks intimidating and stuff just sits there for a month or more. I think if we limited what was listed there in some way we might actually get better response times. what is going on now is that any discussion that has been open the requisite 30 days is being listed. Perhaps we should require the particpants to actually ask for an uninvolved admin instead of just assuming they need or even want that? Anyone got any thoughts on that? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well the list doesn't actually say "Admin required", although it is a subpage of the admin noticeboard. Why not just encourage more nonadmin closures for the mundane stuff? We have a precedent for it and it'd take less instruction creep then writing a guideline that determines what is a RFC and what isn't.--v/r - TP 18:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd almost prefer the statusquo on non-admin closes outside of XfD, namely that they are done, generally no one pays attention to the fact that they were NACs, and as long as they are done appropriately, we have neither a policy that encourages nor one that discourages them. Monty₈₄₅ 18:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

95% of those don't require the bit, but they do require some experience. I'd rather not see something that encourages new users to try to close these. But I do think something more clear about the fact is is allowed might help. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, there is very little formal policy on closing practices outside of deletion venues. Mostly Wikipedia:Closing discussions (tagged as an information page), which sometimes refers to "editor/administrator", some times refers just to "admins" though right after using editor/administrator phrasing such that it could just be intended as a short hand for editor/admin, and at one point says "usually an administrator". The tricky bit is how do you make it more clear its accepted, without also encouraging less experienced editors who stumble across the rule from making closes? Monty₈₄₅ 19:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the current language is actually a good test. If you can figure out it's allowed, you might just be experianced enough to close them :-). But seriously, the WP:NAC page could use some edits. There was a brief discussion of the general issue on my talk page. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually disagree with applying WP:NAC to RFC closures, if that's what you're suggesting. AFD is a deletion venue and it makes sense to limit non-admin closures to obvious cases there. However, ordinary content discussions should be closable by any uninvolved user (admin or not) without the strict limitations of WP:NAC. Jafeluv (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there shouldn't be a restriction for placing RfCs on the requests for close page, lest RfCs start being misinterpreted because there was no close. --Mysterytrey 22:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• • What TP said. Why is an admin needed to determine the consensus about an afro haircut picture, for example? Tijfo098 (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The language used at Wikipedia:Mediation#Mediators is probably suitable: "The only requirement of an informal mediator is that they be Wikipedia editors with some clear ability to foster an agreement (clearly incompetent or seriously inexperienced users should not mediate) with no prejudice with respect to the dispute in question (users who are parties to the case or who have some provable prejudice regarding the parties or the subject matter also should not mediate)." s/informal mediator/rfc consensus assessor/; s/mediate/close rfc and assess consensus/ Tijfo098 (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to update WP:RFC to discourage requests for closing unless they are actually necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That too. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should have an RfC on the issue... But listing them here isn't the problem, a lack of closing them is. What I suggest is what I've already done: Ping admin hopefuls and get them involved in closing them. They are generally our more experienced editors, they need the experience in judging consensus, and it helps us when they go to RfA as we can see how they will judge consensus. RfCs do need to be closed by outside parties, which seldom stumble across these articles otherwise. And many people who have no desire to be an admin but are experienced in the system can also be encouraged to close them as well. Think I will go ping a few more souls on this issue right now... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

RFCs don't normally need to be closed by outside editors. In fact, until recently, almost none of them were formally closed by anyone. Remember that most RFCs aren't big-deal policy questions with a hundred comments to make sense of. Most of them are small disputes at articles that get a handful of comments (and sometimes none). We added a suggestion to WP:RFC that this was an option about three weeks ago, and the number of listed pages has doubled since then. We are trying to adjust the wording now so that people don't feel like this is an actual requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of the inherent problems with RfCs is that many participants cannot correctly interpret even simple proposals, while others go off topic and create sub proposals. Such disruption needs to be nipped in the bud. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that having an outside party close it adds a degree of finality to it, and offers the parties a "starting point" to make whatever changes were on the table. I've already notified several people who barely missed out on their RfA from needing just a little more experience but otherwise very acceptable, as well as future hopefuls that I knew, as this serves the purpose of helping the editors of the articles by giving them an objective read of the situation and finality, and it offers potential admins the chance to get their feet wet and demonstrate they can act in an objective and neutral manner. To me, it is a win win situation. Putting experienced and objective eyes to work like this benefits everyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

In my mind it comes down to this: If a editor requests an admin to close the discussion, then there's probably a reason for it. We need to try and wean editors requesting closure off the Admin "Stamp of Approval". 90% of RfCs can (and should) be closed without an admin. I help out as much as possible by poking at the RfCs and moving the ones marked as done over to the archive page. Hasteur (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Alan Liefting, categories in userspace, and bite

User:Alan Liefting has been blocked in June 2012 for "Removing mainspace cats from non-mainspace pages" (see User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 17#Removing mainspace cats from non-mainspace pages, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive758#User:Alan Liefting again and User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 17#A lengthy reply to my detractors. This was one episode in a number of discussions about the same or related subjects, including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#Alan Liefting and semi-automated edits.

Now, he nearly completely blanked the sandbox of a new user trying to create a decent version of an article that was deleted, without any prior discussion with that editor or guidance to what was wrong with the page, in violation of WP:BITE. When asked by the user at his talkpage why he did this, he answered that he "removed most of the content because the page was showing in a number of content categories and maintenance categories"[88]. Considering that he is an experienced editor who has gotten blocked for making much simpler category removals in the recent past, I fail to see how this action can be seen as constructive or collaborative in any way. A new well-meaning user needs guidance, help, advice, not blanket removal of a whole sandbox becaue it shows up in some categories.

Can someone please make an effort to make it finally clear to Alan Liefting that he needs to seriously reconsider his approach here? Fram (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that he had the same approach with those sandboxes as well:[89][90][91][92][93][94]. Fram (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is the way Liefting seems to treat everyone, regardless of their experience. For what it's worth, I restored the sandbox, simply commented out the categories and banners (which Liefting has been asked to do in the past but refused) and notified the editor with an apology for the manner in which they had been treated. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

According to User_talk:Alan_Liefting/Archive_17#Removing_mainspace_cats_from_non-mainspace_pages this unblock it is deliberate, POINTY disruption - in other words: trolling. BTW, fixing this problem by changing categories into links to categories seems to be perfect work for bot, not human. Bulwersator (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame that it comes to this. Alan should know better, and he should know the simple, technical fix (adding the colons) that solves this problem to meet everyone's goals. There's not even a need for compromise here, we can just do it right. As he refuses to though, I'd support an explicit topic ban against him doing it, followed by blocking if breached. There's just no reason for this at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I never encountered User:Alan Liefting but it's clear they refuse to cooperate. In some cases I would understand a deletion of the WikiProject banners but they prefered to delete more than that. It's also clear that editors are allowed to have commented out categories in drafts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I left a short comment in their talk page. Their latest messages are nice and polite but still no sign that they will to have a real discusion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Alan Liefting has posted a reply at his talk page, explaining why he will not participate in this AN discussion: [95]. Fram (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Alan should be subjected to a zero tolerance topic ban - if he removes these again, he gets an immediate block, which escalate until he is indeffed. He just doesn't get it. GiantSnowman 09:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Completely agreed. To be honest, I'd suggest an immediate block would be the right call – after all these AN and ANI discussions, he just doesn't seem to get that what he's doing is the wrong way to go about fixing these 'problems'. Jenks24 (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with GiantSnowman. --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well. Worse still is his that perception that blanking most of the text in a sandbox rather than just commenting out or "colon"ing categories is somehow correct. He has previously said he will continue to disrupt Wikipedia to prove his point. He's had plenty of chances. Topic ban+block. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 72 hours for now; I'll wait for more input here (if there is any) before confirming the topic ban. If anyone disagrees with my block, feel free to unblock. GiantSnowman 09:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing, but want to make a comment in Alan Leifting's favour. Yes, he can be extremely abrupt and appear offensive; I've had disagreements with him in the past. However, in many areas of Wikipedia the category system is a complete mess, and Alan is one of the few people who seems prepared to try to sort out confused categories. It's a thankless task, so I can understand his becoming frustrated at times. (However this doesn't excuse biting newbies.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

How is removing categories from non-mainspace pages helping to "sorting out confused categories"? GiantSnowman 11:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. If done properly it's a good thing in its own right, separate from sorting out confused categories. My point was simply that regardless of his fault in this case (which I'm not disputing) he does good work in an area that few others seem to enter. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OTOH, I'd like to see him topic banned from categories altogether, as his edits there, whilst copious, are so widely harmful. I don't believe Alan understands MediaWki categorization, and this misunderstanding leads to him (no doubt GF) making long series of bad edits to it. His utterly pig-headed intransigence to change any sort of behaviour (as noted today) makes this a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we have some rule somewhere that in userspace editors can have categories with colon? I know it's obvious but maybe we need some rule some essay for the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages#Categories, templates, and redirects. Jafeluv (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records

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

---

I am here because I am simply not sure were to go about an ongoing problem at CBS Records (see also Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/CBS Records). I have been for sometime involved in a discussion about what should be done with 1,300 incoming links to the aforementioned page. We are also talking about what should be done with the page its self - should it be a dab page - should it be the main page etc. My concerns is that an editor involed in the dispute ( ) refuses to stop editing during the ongoing talks. User:Steelbeard1 has made it very clear he believe his solution is best and is going about implementing this view despite the concerns raised by others many times about still editing. What is the normal procedure when something of this nature happens? We have an editor doing what they like during ongoing talks on the matter.Moxy (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. This is the third time this discussion went through WP:AN. The previous two tries were both rejected. So I will say this yet again. The current incarnation of CBS Records which is CBS Records (2006) is completely unrelated to any entity which called itself CBS Records in the past which are now Columbia Records for the record label (which formed an international subsidiary called CBS Records International in 1962) and Sony Music Entertainment for the record company. That is why the CBS Records article is a default DAB page intended to allow for correction of misdirected links. The number of misdirected links, the last time I checked, is down to 700+ and falling fast. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Here about ongoing editing - not the problem its self - its clear you believe your solution is best - but can you explain why your still editing during the talks? Why are you not waiting for an outcome? You made it a dab during the ongoing talks and still are redirecting what you like? Moxy (talk)

I'm just fixing the misdirected links like the other editors are which can be monitored at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok lets be clear - You made it a dab page (the largest one on Wiki at the time) despite an ongoing talk about the situation and are still redirecting links. You have even stated yourself there is no consensus thus far. So why are you doing what you like? Moxy (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm just doing the right and proper thing when article links get misdirected. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So you have set up the situation to make sure you get your way - not how thing work here. This is why we are here.Moxy (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

...and once again, we went though this twice before when Norton complained. He got whacked by the admins. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) So some editor got "whacked" so you believe this gives you the right to edit at will knowing there is a ongoing dispute about the page and the links? Moxy (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this entire discussion is why a) article talkpages and b) WP:DRN exist dangerouspanda 18:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It went though WP:DRN and it wound up in tatters with no consensus. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure this is actually the fifth posting either here or at ANI, plus a DRN thread, plus a request for mediation. Norton got "whacked" because he was acting like the protection period provided an unassailable mandate that consensus had to be established by the time it was over. There was no administrative decision that his position on the actual content was right or wrong because that is by it's very nature not an administrative decision. Moxy, if you are saying there is still a behavioral issue here I would say the previous failures at dispute resolution leave you little recourse but to go to the dreaded WP:ARBCOM. I know, nobody wants to hear that but you've got something like seven failed attempts to resolve this now. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Its about editor behavior (as seen here) so i guess will move this to the proper place - As talks are still ongoing as far as I am aware of. Steelbeard1 believes no consensus thus far means he should implement hes view of what is best. This is not good - what if another editor believes there view is best - do we let them revert all of Steelbeard1 edits? So yes this must be address because it involved thousands of pages. Will take my time to write a proper report of the situation. Very surprised to see hes not willing to stop - find it simply odd and rude behavior.Moxy (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Which is friendly competition as monitored in Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links as for who can fix the most misdirected wikilinks. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not a game.Moxy (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I am all in favor of WP:ARBCOM if that will settle the dispute once and for all. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable with the words, "you have set up the situation to make sure you get your way", by Moxy.--andreasegde (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is what I believe has happened (anyone can prove me wrong if they like ) - We are in the middle of talking about what should be done with the page, when an editor made it into a dab page with thousands of incoming links knowing full well that others editors will jump in and help fix the link problem. But nowhere has there been a decision to make this a dab page or to redirect the thousands of links. I am absolutely puzzled others dont see this as simply outrageous and a kick in the face to those that are in good faith talking and not implementing there POV. We have an editor ruining wild doing what they think is best - even after concerns have been raises many times.Moxy (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again, the only active entity going by the CBS Records name, CBS Records (2006), is not the most famous one. The more famous entities which formerly went by the CBS Records name are now known by their present names which are Columbia Records for the record label and Sony Music Entertainment for the record company. That's why the CBS Records page is a DAB page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again, we are asking you to stop editing till this is worked out. Pls be aware that others have a different view about the pages and links. Dont want to go to WP:ARBCOM about your editing - but your leaving us no other options. Moxy (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That statement by Steelbeard ignores the fact that Columbia Records and CBS Records were contemporaneous in different parts of the world. The old CBS Records equals neither the new CBS Records nor Columbia Records. Rothorpe (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

From 1962 to 1990, Columbia Records releases were issued outside North America on the CBS label. On January 1, 1991, the CBS Records label was renamed Columbia Records. So in regards to the record label, the 1962-1990 CBS Records and Columbia Records are one and the same. Also, the pre-1991 CBS Records Inc. and Sony Music Entertainment are one and the same.

How many pages have you redirected at this point? So I take it your not willing to stop implementing what you think is best dipite the concerns raised correct?Moxy (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, the last time I checked, I had personally fixed 308 pages with misdirected wikilinks which puts me in the Top 10. The leader right now is JustAGal who corrected so far 1,470 pages with misdirected wikilinks. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok so 308 thus far - but your not going to stop right? Sounds like your doing all this to be "the leader" of something. Your whole approach to this seem counterproductive to me. Moxy (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is very productive and useful so wikilinks do not go to the wrong article like it did when the "CBS Records" page was about the unrelated 2006 incarnation. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You caused the problem in the first place - was not a dab page till you made it so. pls try and recognized the concerns raised.Moxy (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I made it a DAB page for a reason and that is because someone would be screwing with the 2006 CBS Records article up every few months so I decided to end the charade and make "CBS Records" a DAB page and move the former CBS Records article to the CBS Records (2006) page. If you look at Talk:CBS Records (2006) you will see early on the previous problem. Also look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies/Record Labels Task Force#CBS Records Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Could not have explained it better myself - Your right - in the middle of talks about what to do with the page(s) and the links you implemented what you think is best despite concerns and no consensus at the ongoing talks. So you made one article into a dab page - then copy and pasted the info to another new page that requiring a third party to fix and redirecting the disputed links to the place you think is best.Moxy (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And the DAB page way is proving to be the correct way as all those misdirected links are being corrected. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's why we are here and why the dispute is still ongoing because its all perfect. Thank god you did all this because the rest of us simply are stupid and our opinions dont matter.Moxy (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The link that Steelbeard has just posted reminds us of why we need a proper CBS Records page for the original version of the label. I quote from the 2nd paragraph: "CBS in the UK, for example, did not exist just to issue UK editions of Columbia/USA records. They had their own issue program, and were a major player in punk and new wave in the 1970s and 1980s, for example." Rothorpe (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There is already a CBS Records International page. The record label in the UK was renamed Columbia Records and the UK company called CBS Records also adopted the Sony Music name on January 1, 1991. See [96]. The Columbia Records article does talk about the former CBS Records UK entity. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgot about that page for a sec - you mean the one you created during the ongoing talks then added a merger tag to. So in the end it all ends up at the Sony article as you wish right? Feels like I am being jerked around having to read 4 different articles about one topic.Moxy (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I put up the merge tag because someone else came up with the idea but that idea got deleted when the discussion it was in was closed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Elvis' Greatest Shit

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

---

I was contemplating creating a page with this title, but, perhaps unsurprisingly, the title is blacklisted. As the title suggests, it's an infamous bootleg / pirate recording of Elvis Presley, and I have multiple independent reliable sources here and here and a further book source at home, all of which discuss the background and response to this bootleg in some depth, and a possibly unreliable source here that can be at least used to assert the track listing and the cover. Wikipedia is not censored and I think this is borderline notable. I could send this to Articles for Creation, but we'd then have the same problem if the article passed. What options do we have? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure this is the correct venue for this discussion, but then not sure where else would be. I'd support the album having a little section at Elvis Presley albums discography and this being turned into a redirect. GiantSnowman 09:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure this was the right place either, but when I tried to create the article, this is where I got instructed to go to. Your suggestion of a redirect is also workable, though being a bootleg, I'm not sure what section it would fit under, aside from creating a new one in that article. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'd create a whole new section on the album. GiantSnowman 09:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

AN is the correct location for blacklist discussions per the notice you get when you try to create it as Ritchie333 notes. Given the sources, I think creating the article (and overriding the blacklist) makes sense and I'd encourage an admin to do so. Hobit (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've created the article as a redirect to Elvis Presley albums discography, but I've only done that to ensure the page has some content (the last time I created an article over the blacklist as a placeholder for someone it was nominated for deletion). Feel free to replace the redirect with an article. Hut 8.5 09:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I was about to do this too but Hut beat me to it by a few seconds. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I also agree with this course of action. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added the proposed content to the article. Thanks, everyone. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone create the talk page and add the Elvis Presley and Rock music wikiproject boxes to it? - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 14:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen so much interest in an article I've started before - maybe somebody can add an infobox with the album cover from here, citing "fair use". ;-) --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Remind me again: who all are able to override the blacklist? Is it just admins, or are we able to hand out a userright (reviewer, perhaps?) that can override it? Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Admins and account creators. 28bytes (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Reversion of a huge tranche of edits by User:J R Gainey

This user has been on a spree, probably unaware of the issue, of adding parent categories to a huge number of articles where the child category is already present. I am absolutely not accusing the editor of vandalism, simply of being unaware. The problem is that a large swathe of edits need to be reverted. I know there is a tool available to admins to perform this bulk reversion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Several editors have attempted to enter into a dialogue with the editor, but so far there has been no response on User talk:J R Gainey. The undesireable editing behaviour seems to be continuing unabated after several different polite requests there. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well to the best of my knowledge I reverted all the recent additions that specifically dealt with adding Category:Methodists when there was already a subcategory present, which ended up being somewhere over 200 different pages (!!!), so there should be no need for any bulk reversion tool, since the other edits don't appear to deal with categories (or at least not solely categories). - SudoGhost 19:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A thankless task, so thank you. I am now wondering how to engage the errant editor. The majority of the edits not involving categories appear to be useful and within our guidelines. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Of the user's 1121 edits, 0 are to any type of talk page. The user has been here since October 2011 and has hardly (never?) communicated with another editor regarding any concerns. This type of behavior is detrimental to the collaborative nature of WP. I would suggest that the user be cautioned on their talk page that if their non-communicative behavior regarding the problematic editing continues, a short block for disruptive editing would be appropriate to prompt them to communicate. Then, it is imperative for an admin to follow through if necessary; therefore it may be best if an admin does the cautioning. Hopefully, the caution itself will halt the behavior, as blocking is a last resort. --64.85.221.17 (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with you that a formal shot across the bows is necessary. The dilemma is that the editor adds a great deal of value as well as causing a swathe of mayhem. The shot thus needs to be well aimed and well meant. I have been trying very hard on their talk page to no avail. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Their first edit was an AfC, their second edit was to create a virtually empty user page (ie:blue link). I saw one edit summary when they first started (not counting auto summaries) which was perfectly coherent and a decided effort to never use them elsewhere again. And like it was said above, zero talk page edits. My SPI clerk spidey sense is tingling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've combed through a tremendous number of articles that they have edited on, and mainly saw high quality contribs, although the CAT issue is real and we need to get their attention, hopefully without a block. I've added a rather obvious note to their page that might be seen as a last ditch effort to keep from blocking them to get their attention. Good history or not, disruption is disruption and they need to at least attempt to communicate here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This, at least, seems promising. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I've left another note on their page, will offer to find them some assistance or guidance on style, but it does look promising, so I think we can close this up. I will stay involved for a while with him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nuking candidate?

Is this a possible nuking candidate? See the contribs of Australianfootballrules. The editor has been massively changing incidents of the term Australian rules football to Australian football. I think it is something that deserves some discussion going forward, but right now his edits are against consensus. Ryan Vesey 02:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note that a lot of edits broke wikilinks like what was done on Laws of Australian rules football. Ryan Vesey 02:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No, please don't. This is a new user who has a strong feeling on a topic. I've just left him a friendly response to a question he asked about this at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. It is important to remember that new users to Wikipedia are unfamiliar with the expected levels of professionalism and decorum here, which to be honest are quite unlike how the rest of the internet works. He doesn't yet need "nuking", he needs friendly, kind guidance. If we lead by example, I think we can save this one quite easily. If we "nuke" him, we've done him (and Wikipedia) no good at all. Give him the chance to learn our ways, and don't be so hard on him. WP:BITE clearly applies here. --Jayron32 02:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I suspect Ryan was talking about "nuking" as shorthand for "mass rollback", not as shorthand for "banhammering". WP:NUKE is actually the term used for mass page deletion, not mass rollback, but this isn't the first time I've seen the term mistakenly used this way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh. Well, roll him back then. That does need to be done. But please deal with him with care, as I said, noobs need to be trained... --Jayron32 02:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Sorry about that mixup, and is nuking really referring to mass page deletion? I wasn't aware of that. Jayron, thanks for handling it the way you did. Ryan Vesey 02:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes; see mw:Extension:Nuke. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
            • A new user, Rugbywa, has started work along the same track. Hack (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
              • Uh oh. That's not good. This is veering very quickly into the "we can't help you anymore" territory. I don't like where this is going. Is an SPI in order? --Jayron32 04:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
                • Now editing as IP - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Australianfootballrules‎. Hack (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
                  •  Done Obvious sock is obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula needed

Due to the stuff like that. --Niemti (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• I left him a final warning. That quote is out of context and seems to be saying the opposite of the article itself, a gross BLP violation. I've reverted back. If he reverts again, I suggest another admin block him. (I shouldn't since I reverted.) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• I sent a request to WP:RFPP for protection since I removed some BLP violations, asking for a few months of semi, which might sound strong but it is justified. I would also ask more eyes on Innocence of Muslims due to a lot of similar BLP violations. This is going to be a hot spot for hate and BLP over the next couple of weeks or more folks, so the more eyes the better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

New CSD criterion

There's an RfC about adding T4 (Single-use template) as a criterion for speedy deletion. Just thought that admins would be interested, seeing how intimately they can be involved with the deletion process. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 18:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks moved out of order

Resolved

 – No admin intervention required

The requested move at Talk:2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks#Requested Move was performed prematurely while there was no consensus for it, to 2012 Anti-Islam film protests, which many editors feel reflects deliberate misinformation per, for example, the sources at Talk:2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks#Evidence for coordinated attacks.

Now the editors in support of the move have been hat-ing comments on the talk page from those opposed to it, improperly citing WP:FORUM.

I believe the proper action would be to move the article back to the original name and restore the RM so that it can run its course?

I am not requesting any kind of sanctions against any editors. —Cupco 23:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

That article been moved back and the discussion re-started since this post was made, so the problem appears to be solved. Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Banning proposal for Dewan357

I really dislike formal ban proposals, but here goes one: Dewan357's status as a banned editor has been disputed by Drmies and the lack of such a formal indictment has been held out as a fig-leaf by Dewan357. As a result, I would like to see a formal ban placed on Dewan357. Why? Because of constant sock-puppeting, as documented in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357/Archive, and his recent reappearance as

1. 69.112.76.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 149.151.144.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
3. 149.151.144.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4. 174.255.113.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
5. 174.226.194.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
6. 174.226.194.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

—Kww(talk) 17:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Although Kww has provided a diff for a single edit regarding Drmies' objection, it's actually better to read the entire thread, which can be found here. Note that the portion of the dispute relevant here is not about whether Dewan357 should be community banned, but about whether he is currently "de-facto banned" and can therefore be dealt with as if he was already banned. In fact, Kww is apparently here in response to Drmies' suggestion that if he wants to deal with Dewan357 as if he is banned, he should start a ban discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You have the time-sequence reversed: this is in response to my earlier notification to Drmies that I had opened a formal ban discussion. I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that Dewan357 is de-facto banned, and view this as merely a formality to remove that as a debating point.—Kww(talk) 22:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there's quite a bit of doubt as to whether Dewan357 is "de facto" banned, and I wouldn't call any request to ban a user as "merely a formality". I skimmed through the SPI report, and it looks to me like you've invested quite a bit of time and energy in Dewan357 and his puppets, almost like owning a sock. Perhaps that's why you're unable to see this as clearly as someone more removed from it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't care one way or the other whether this editor gets banned or not. I have some specific problems here with KWW's way of handling this whole problem, which resembles a vendetta going back three years (as the SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357/Archive, makes clear). If the editor is banned, fine--but I can't help but think it's the way in which we've handled this that has made it an ongoing problem. Please see the thread my talk page for more context, and perhaps comments on KWW's and Materialscientist's talk pages. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Frankly, I feel that Kww made this ban request solely to give himself more ammunition while misapplying WP:BAN and wikilawyering with the same. Ryan Vesey 22:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And your reason for not banning Dewan357 based on Dewan357's behaviour is ...?—Kww(talk) 22:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary wikilawyering. You know that you only want Dewan357 banned for personal reasons. Any possible chance Dewan357 has of ever editing Wikipedia again will not be changed by the existence of a ban. Ryan Vesey 22:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Regardless of Kww's behavior, Dewan357's record as a prolific sockpuppeteer makes comminity banning appropriate. If he wants to be a prductive editor again after the ban, he should stop socking and fulfill the requireents of the standard offer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, you are certainly correct on the OFFER thing. Dewan has been watching my talk page, I think; maybe he's watching this as well. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm having difficulty finding the diffs, but Dewan357 has been through the BASC process, and lied about having been away for six months only weeks after having his last socks blocked. Anyone know where the BASC records are kept? If I remember correctly, my discussions with the BASC were via e-mail, and the e-mails are archived on a machine I won't have access to for a couple of weeks.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Question, aside from sockpuppetry, can someone point to this editor's problematic edits? Ryan Vesey 23:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• His block log is a good place to start. Originally edit-warring, followed by socking in order to edit-war after having been blocked. Note that I never blocked the original account.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I apologize, I was wondering if there have been any non-socking editing issues since 2009. (I'm not necessarily saying they don't exist; however, those wanting him banned should have provided the evidence.) Ryan Vesey 23:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• No one tracks the quality of his edits. Only that he socks and lies in unblock requests (as can be seen at User talk:Dewan357).—Kww(talk) 23:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Seeing that you have no examples, my opinion is strengthened. Ryan Vesey 23:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Kww, you don't look at the quality of their edits. I did, and the ones I thought were useful I reinstated. And I have a hunch that don't articles won't be targets anymore. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) In line with Ryan's question, I believe that the part of WP:BAN that Kevin is relying on for saying that Dewan357 is de facto banned is: "In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Wikipedia community'." Yet, the SPI report is hardly a community discussion. So, what Kevin is really suggesting, in my view, is that an indefinitely blocked sockmaster at some unspecified point (persistence? prodigiousness? something else?), falls within the scope of those two sentences in the policy. But that's not what the policy says. Are we just banning him based on a pro forma recognition that he's a major sockmaster? If so, perhaps we should change the policy to permit such a ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not to be too obvious, but the socking is disruptive in and of itself, and doesn't require additional disruptive behaviors. And, yes, I would say that when an editor continues socking frequently for a long enough period of time, it does start to become bannable behavior -- and the community can determine for itself what it considers to be bannable, or not. I've seen any number of banning discussions here and on ANI based almost totally on a history of socking I see nothing different here, no ameliorating factor that would justify not banning. (Of course, some editors just don't believe that banning is necessary or effective in any case, but that's a different matter.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with you, BMK, including your ending parenthetical, and I'm not opposing the ban. I just like policy to be clearer. In part, this whole thing stems from a disagreement about policy; see also Jayron's comment below--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• The failed unblock requests at User talk:Dewan357 support the contention that no admin is willing to unblock him, and I rely on that as well.—Kww(talk) 23:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Have you read the failed unblock requests? There have been two in 2012. Both were done only because he did not answer the three relevant questions pointed to in Hersfold's decline. I disagree with the rationale behind Selket's decline but agree with the decline itself. (He attempted to answer the questions but didn't answer them in a satisfactory manner). Ryan Vesey 23:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• The 2nd unblock decline was one of the worst I've seen. He substantively replied all three questions. I'm not sure what would have constituted a "satisfactory manner". Using bullets maybe? And he took "only" 74 minutes to reply?. What, he should wait 74 days or something like that? Tijfo098 (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as superfluous and gravedancing. Doesn't actually have any functional effect on how we will treat editing from this person. Defacto ban is already in existance as far as I am concerned, and if I run across this person, I intend to treat them as any other banned editor. --Jayron32 23:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose after reading User talk:Drmies#Restoring blocked editors edits. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't see it. I'm quite willing to be re-educated, but I don't see how, if you separate out any malfeasance on Kww's part, Dewan357's history doesn't justify a ban. What is it I'm missing here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Can you highlight some non-constructive edits by Dewan357's IPs in the past 3-6 months? Tijfo098 (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
      • They were all block evasion, for one thing.—Kww(talk) 12:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
        • And some of your ham-fisted police actions reinstated vandalism back to the articles. Which of these actions is building an encyclopedia and which serve a different purpose? Tijfo098 (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• These are thorny issues, and unlikely to be resolved in this thread when multiple RFCs and other discussions at WT:BAN and elsewhere have failed to do so. I don't think it is fair to accuse KWW of treating Wikipedia like a game as is implied onthe edit just above this one. When dealing with prolific sockpupeteers I also find WP:RBI to be the most effective approach, although decidedly imperfect. The option of going through every last edit is often impractical and letting all their changes stand as though they are welcome to keep socking is also not a good result. There is no easy answer, so let's drop the meta discussion of how to deal with this generally and focus on the actual issue: should Dewan be banned? This is not about KWW or anyone else but Dewan. His behavior is reprehensible and he should be banned. While this will likely make little difference to him, it does alleviate the issue of how to treat his sock army. The whole defecto-vs-real ban discussion is another issue we have no consensus on at this time so we'll have to continue to muddle through on a case-by-case basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• For anyone who believes that Dewan357 is already de facto banned, supporting a formal ban should not be a problem, since the formality only makes official what you already believe is true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry, but it seems overkill to serve a purpose outside of the original intention of our banning policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• What outside purpose is that?—Kww(talk) 14:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Typically I disagree with 'grave dancing' bans of users who are already de-facto banned. I agree with Jayron that this user is currently de-facto banned, however since there's clearly some doubt about this status, it would be best to formalise it. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 01:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Either formally ban him or unblock him. The peculiar situation we have here, with some people arguing for a de facto ban based on the block and others arguing that he is not actually banned yet being unwilling to unblock him, is inherently contradictory and untenable. Oh, and if you unblock him, mind tagging SPI {{historical}} in the process as well? T. Canens (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't understand this stance at all. No one in this discussion has hitherto commented that Dewan357 should be unblocked, and there is no "inherent contradiction" that I can see: people don't want to unblock him because his past behavior doesn't warrant him being unblocked, not because he is "de facto banned." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• I see it perfectly. A blocked editor that no one will unblock and whose block will never expire is banned. To deny that he is banned but not undo the state that makes him banned is inherently contradictory. Arguing that a de-facto ban is sufficient makes a certain amount of sense, but arguing that he isn't banned doesn't.—Kww(talk) 01:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Malfeasance? Vendetta?

I am getting extremely frustrated at this undercurrent of the discussion. How does my treatment of Dewan357 differ from standard treatment of any block evading editor? How does it even begin to approach anything that the words "malfeasance" or "vendetta" could be used to describe? I reverted all of his edits. I soft-blocked his source IPs. I semi-protected his targets. I did this mechanically and rotely, without any kind of individual malice. I revert and soft-block for all block evasion that I ever detect. I protect whenever it's a sockmaster that repetitively goes after the same pages. It's standard. It's rote. It's not a "vendetta", and consistent, even-handed enforcement of relevant policies is not "malfeasance". How is Dewan357 any different from Brexx (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive/2009 and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive)? Xtinadbest? Pesf?TrEeMaNsHoE? It's not. It's a combination of how long term and widespread Dewan357's socking is and the unfortunate fact that I objected to some other editors attempting to preserve his edits. This whole argument is an example of why selectively preserving edits from banned and blocked editors is, in itself, disruptive, no matter how nobly motivated the person preserving the edit might be. I can't imagine anything that will encourage Dewan357 to continue socking more than preserving his edits and accusing the admin that removed them of "malfeasance" because he has a "vendetta" against Dewan357.

Socking doesn't get more and more excusable as time goes on. An admin that puts a stop to it doesn't become abusive because he continuously blocks and reverts the same sockmaster. It's part of our job description.—Kww(talk) 12:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Then you should be replaced with a bot. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If you could code an effective sock-detection-and-reversion bot, I'd be thrilled. It's tedious (and apparently thankless) work.—Kww(talk) 13:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the sock detection part. The reversion part looks pretty trivial. (1) check if the user has sockpuppet template on his user page that has in place for (say) at least a day and/or was placed by an admin (to avoid it being triggered by a vandal); (2) revert all edits by sock account/IP. It's slightly more difficult for an IP to know when to stop in their edit history because it may have been legitimately used by somebody else at one point, but some conservative heuristics might work well enough, like clustering them by date. I see you have not reverted the edits of 149.151.144.60 from Feb 3, presumably there's enough doubt who those belong to, even though they engage in the same type of editing like fixing grammar. If you want an advanced version of this, you could try to correlate the timeline clusters using a neural net, like Clue bot NG has. "Probable sock edit of X reverted (SPI link here). Please report false positives..." In this guy's case, the edit summaries alone would provide good correlation. [97] [98]. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If anyone on this project had any concerns as to why nobody new seems to run RFA anymore, KWW just spelled it all out for you. You have to be a masochist to want to be an admin and deal with blocks and bans. - Balph Eubank ✉ 19:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"Then you should be replaced with a bot." Some routine admin work can be summed up that way, I suppose, but to directly state that to an administrator is insulting. I know, admins need thick skins and I generally ignore such things when directed against myself, but it's still disturbing to see a person's work brushed off like that. Tijfo098, like it or not, KWW is following policy correctly. Unless and until we decide that sockpuppetry isn't a big deal (and basically give up the whole idea of blocking people) we need to enforce these policies. There's nothing stopping you or anyone else from reinstating the edits from Dewan357 or any other sockpuppet if you want to personally vouch for their validity, that's completely allowed. But KWW doesn't deserve criticism for doing his job as an admin. I'm not as active as I used to be, but this kind of attitude makes me want to stay away for good. I wonder how Wikipedia would do if all admins just got fed up and stopped volunteering their time. I suppose Wikipedia would get along just fine with a bunch of well-written bots. Good luck with that. -- Atama頭 23:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

May I comment that it would be a shame not to community ban an editor who deserves that sanction on the basis of the possible misbehavior of an admin? The answer here would seem to be to give each what they deserve, i.e. ban Dewan357 as the puppet-master he appears to be, and warn or sanction Kww if he's not performed up to the expecations we have of admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You can make the comment, but very few appear to be listening.—Kww(talk) 16:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I am. I generally listen to BMK, even when I disagree with him. :-) In this instance, I mostly agree. That doesn't mean I believe that Dewan357 should be banned, just that I understand the distinction BMK is making. As for the ban itself, I tend to agree with Drmies - I don't care whether he is banned or not.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone actually listens to me?!? Wait'll I tell my wife! (If she'll listen.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone go about reverting User:Law's edits after this? Tijfo098 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Obstruction by Drew.ward

This message is an attempt to draw attention to the counterproductive behavior of Drew.ward, who has recently entered into an edit war with me at the page for do-support (linguistics and grammar). Drew's preferred mode of operation is to either attempt an edit or to revert someone else's edit, and then when the issue is discussed on the talk page, he fails to produce literature to back up his point of view. Instead, he overwhelms the discussion with bizaar arguments that almost no linguist would support and tremendous verbiage that is often incoherent. His behavior is well documented on a number of talk pages, e.g. talk:do-support, talk:auxiliary verb, and see especially Drew's current behavior on the page for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics.

I request that the administrator who has the authority to lock pages restore the three sentences that I added to the article do-support and that that article then be locked. --Tjo3ya (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, it looks like you've been edit warring as well. Your recent comment at WikiProject linguistics is a pretty clear failure to assume good faith.

In my personal experience, Drew has said some pretty boneheaded things that are clearly false. When my own expertise falls short, I've seen other editors whose expertise in linguistics I trust constantly disagree with him on some seemingly fundamental basics of grammar/syntax while he appears to believe that his own position is normal.

Still, if the guy is acting in good faith, then an RFC may be in order to address some of his more chronic behavior problems. Tjo3ya, if you want to make the case that Drew is a troll or is otherwise acting on bad faith, you should provide diffs, rather than just point to an article's edit history and talk page. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a basis for admin intervention here, Drew is clearly acting in good faith even if his style of arguing is exasperating. I think it is best to ignore him as far as possible and simple request sources in support of problematic statements in article space. It is ok to have a nonstandard grammatical theory - just not in article space.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The only response I feel I need to make here is that disagreeing is not obstructing and that disputing things that we don't agree with or feel are untrue or unsourced / improperly sources, is not obstructive or irresponsible behavior but rather the responsibility of us all. Keeping things civil is important, and immature activity like targeting a particular user's edits and singling them out is certainly at least nonconducive and counter to the spirit of this community if not actually against the rules.

That said, I feel that Tjo3ya himself via his comments here, on the 3rr board, on user pages regarding this issue, and on the section of the linguistics talk page -- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Reporting_Drew -- he's created targeting me (seems the incorrect place for that if any exists), has demonstrated that my editing history show little difference from his own in my actions, and if anything should be viewed as far less likely the be taken as obstruction than his own intended actions as evident in his statements on that linguistics talk page: "Drew, I will continue to be very vigilant concerning any edits you may attempt. --Tjo3ya (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)" to which he later adds "...I patrol for all edits. But anything you attempt is going to receive special attention." These statements and similar promises (or are they threats? They feel like the latter.) by Tjo3ya addressed to me seem to show an intention on his part to obstruct my activities on wikipedia from here on out.

I hope this discussion is concluded quickly along with the related places this is being posted so that we may all get back to promoting and supporting the quality of articles and stop debating attacks on each other.Drew.ward (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Tjo3ya has passed the threshold of problematic threats, since promises of future scrutiny aren't threatening if the scrutiny doesn't violate our policies. Both users can take a look at WP:HARASS, which may help you both strike a balance between undue scrutiny (which Drew doesn't want) and unchecked problematic editing (which Tjo doesn't want). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 22:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine neither of us certainly would want either of these things. Of course it should be noted that Tjo3ya has yet to produce a single example of "problematic editing" on my part. Unless of course you count his consistent ranting over the past day that I have "behaved" badly (by disagreeing with him (gasp!). He's even resorted to creating his own (falsified) quotes from me for which he has used as "proof" of my poor linguistic abilities. Of course when called out on this, rather than apologize like an adult, he's instead just continued his whining that "my behavior" should be dealt with. For some reason he seems intent on not letting this end, but thus far, the bad behavior is all his own!Drew.ward (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• At WP:ANEW I blocked Tjo3ya for 24 hours. Despite the walls of text there and here, including a truly tall wall by Drew, I chose not to block Drew because he withdrew from the battle on the article, whereas Tjo3ya edited the article after the 3RR report and even after extensive argument about the battle. If another admin chooses to block Drew (he did breach 3RR), that's fine. I just made a call.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Brandmeister

Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has violated the 1RR/week sanction at Ramil Safarov (diffs: [99], [100]) despite a final warning regarding this matter left by me on his talk page on 4 September 2012. Following an edit war he participated in, I imposed the 1RR sanction on the article per WP:ARBAA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement on 11. September with a clear edit notice and a disclaimer on the article talk page. See also Protecting article Ramil Safarov.

Unfortunately, Brandmeister has already been subject to multiple sanctions in this area before, as can be seen at Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Log of blocks and bans, including a 1 year topic ban. Therefore I now propose an indefinite topic ban for Brandmeister on Armenia-Azerbaijan topics, broadly construed. De728631 (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to clarify. The article in question is not on the one edit per week sanction, but on the one revert per week sanction. Last time I edited the article on September 4. Since then I made the aforementioned one edit on September 13, that is beyond the 1 week period. As could be verified, that was an ordinary, single-standing edit. Since then I reverted only once. I would like to outline, that the article in question (Ramil Safarov) is a BLP one. Per WP:BLPREMOVE, it is justifiable to "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" (which was the case). Brandmeister^talk 21:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't care to comment about the alleged edit warring here, but the edit in question is related to the WP:RS/N discussion (now archived). I'm not counting myself among Safarov's fans, but BLP is BLP. Activist sites are generally not sufficiently reliable to source that kind of info per WP:GRAPEVINE and direct interpenetration of interrogation transcripts, assuming they are correctly translated, is also problematic per WP:BLPPRIMARY, especially considering that the activist site itself said that "Later Safarov rejected his own evidence given during the first interrogation claiming there had been a miscommunication between him and the interpreter." I should note that a somewhat related AE request (related in that it was substantively about tagging claims form the same source) was closed with "no action". Update: I see that since the RS/N discussion a better source was found this 9/13 AP story saying "In a frenzy of ethnic hatred, Ramil Safarov hacked the sleeping Armenian to death with 26 ax blows — nearly decapitating him." and later "At trial, the Azerbaijani officer said he committed the murder to avenge the killing of his relatives by ethnic Armenian forces during the 1990s conflict over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh." It should be enough for the infobox now, so Brandmeister removing that referenced claim (in the 2nd diff of this report) is surely more problematic. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The related discussion on sources is ongoing at the article's talkpage. Brandmeister^talk 22:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Plus, with team-based warring over that [101], it looks like this is going to require goldilocks sanctions to solve à la this Troubles issue. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with De728631. This is clear 1RR violation. This is removal of a reliably sourced claim which was directly made in Washington Post (as quoted by Tijfo098), not on the site of Armenian activists. This is not a BLP violation. The motivation of the convicted murderer was self-admitted, obvious and described in multiple RS. However, this is wrong place for such discussion. If anyone needs a discussion, this should be done on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• WP:1RR is not the same as zero-revert rule. It is obvious that the removal of the Washington Post was a single revert and there was no 1RR violation. I reverted only once and wonder why the preceding edit has been construed as a revert, given that more than a week has passed since my last edit and there was no such a sanction back then. Brandmeister^talk 08:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Your first edit on Sepember 13 [102] was quite obviously a revert per rules ("A revert means undoing the actions of another editor."). Maybe that was a legitimate revert. Your second revert on September 13 was not a legitimate revert and violation of 1RR. If no one enforces this, consider yourself lucky. My very best wishes (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

As could be seen, my first September 13 edit undid no one's actions within the one week period and was in line with BLP policy - at that time the ethnic hatred claim was not sourced at all. I was fully aware of the imposed restriction and since then made only one revert. Brandmeister^talk 12:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing "ethnic hatred" from the infobox undid someone else's edit, namely adding this. It doesn't matter when this was added and when you made your last edit on the article. All that matters is that your removal of the text set the 1 revert timer for you the moment you hit save button. After that you should not have removed it again. And as you mentioned yourself above, the discussion about this is issue is still ongoing. Another reason not to remove the term on your own. De728631 (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It is important to discern a legitimate edit from revert. We both know that the imposed restriction does allow one edit within 1 week (which I did), so I still wonder why you see two reverts instead of one. Also, it is important when a user made the last edit because we are speaking of the one week period, as mentioned in the restriction. Linking my edit to another date, made more than 1 week ago, is dishonest and contradicts the very terms of the imposed restriction. Brandmeister^talk 14:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You made two reverts per day [103][104]. If you do not understand that "revert means undoing the actions of another editor", you should not edit in the areas of discretionary sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been here since 2005 and know what is a revert and what is a legitimate edit, along with the 1RR restriction. Brandmeister^talk 15:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Frank Morgan category

Resolved

 – Typo fixed by Deor. De728631 (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

In Frank Morgan's article their is an error. In categories it has been writen Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer contract player, instead of Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer contract players. Who do contact about fixing this error.Radiohist (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please propose a new name for this category via Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Do not wish to change category name, but to change Frank Morgan category to players from player.Radiohist (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories on the English Wikipedia are always kept in the plural form, so there is no such category to put on the article. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, you guys. I've added the missing s to the category's name in Frank Morgan, which is all the OP wanted. You can mark this resolved now. Deor (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems like I and Nick-D both had a hard time understanding the OP... De728631 (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible Topic Ban Violation of User:Bulwersator

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

---

Bulwersator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was by a unanimous decision at ANI, topic banned from all deletion processes. That decision was upheld at AN. Yesterday Bulwersator created a new user space titled User:Bulwersator/should be deleted, which seems to be a place where he can keep track of images he thinks should be deleted. This either to inform other users of images that he feels need deleting or to keep a log of images to nominate for deletion, if the topic ban is ever lifted. My first thoughts that this may be in violation of the ban, given that he is keeping a record of images he would like deleted. I asked an admin, although an involved admin, and he seems to agree that this is in fact a violation of this users topic ban. Given that topic bans tend to be construed very broadly, I am asking advice as to wether or not this this actually breaches the intent of the topic ban.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The user has been advised to stay away from the deletion processes for a while. This is not a helpful action at all. The page should be removed I have removed the page to help enforce the topic ban, and if the user persists, simply block them to avoid wasting further time. We are not here to play games. Jehochman ^Talk 21:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Undelete it, please. As the editor who first proposed the topic ban, you are very much WP:INVOLVED and you do not get to use your admin powers to enforce your own personal preferences by fiat. Reyk _YO! 22:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not involved in any sort of editorial conflict with the user. If I block somebody I am in effect proposing to block them, and then doing it. Jehochman ^Talk 22:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree- Bulwersator's personal user space is not a deletion process, no matter how broadly construed. The topic ban does not forbid B from expressing an opinion on these things, or to state what he might like to do if the topic ban is lifted. IMO topic bans serve the same purpose as blocks- to prevent disruption. I ask what disruption is being prevented by forbidding Bulwersator from having an opinion in his user space. Also, there have been times in the past when topic banned editors have been asked to make lists of things related to their topic ban, so that the community can read it and judge whether the banned person has learned better judgment. I see Bulwersator's page, with its list of files and accompanying justification, in that spirit and I do not have a problem with it. Reyk _YO! 22:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Feel free to disagree. Creating a page to propose deletions so that friends can act as proxies, thereby nullifying the effect of the topic ban, is a dull and non-controversial violation. See WP:GAME. Jehochman ^Talk 22:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • How do you knoe that's what he's doing? Who are these "friends" who are going to act as his proxies? Reyk _YO! 22:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• Clear Violation As I've stated elsehwhere, this does look like deletion by proxy. Either by creating a list for later, or by trying to convince others to do the dirty work for him. Once you have accepted the terms of sanction, if you then go and create a list of the very thing you agree to avoid, you have violated the spirit of the agreement. It reeks of bad faith at the least, and more likely, a failed attempt to wikilawyer around the sanctions and delete by proxy. This is particularly disturbing since the just the other day I made it clear that moving images to Commons, to get them deleted there, would also be seen as "delete by proxy", so the term and concept is not new to him. It has already been speedy deleted as such, so the question is now "What, if any, further sanctions are required?" Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I favor the minimum sanction necessary to stop the trouble. For now, deleting the page stops the emerging problem. Hopefully the user will take the hint and stop trying to outmaneuver us. Jehochman ^Talk 22:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at Commons in the last couple of days? I want to see that before I am that lenient here. He has resisted the sanctions, maintained that he did nothing wrong since day one, and has tried to bypass them. I'm typically pretty easy to get along with, but so far we have used a lot of words and some mild restrictions and this is where we are. I'm not convinced that doing "nothing" is the right answer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with Jehochman and Dennis that Bulwersator violated the ban. However, I favor some sort of sanction, in particular because the violation was sly. I agree that deleting the subpage takes care of the damage, but it doesn't do enough to prevent further damage.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• clear violation How much clearer does he have to make it? Delete page, warn user. No further action at this point, as blocks are preventative rather than punitive. However any repeat should lead to a block.Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• Clear violation I think it was made abundantly clear in the discussion on AN that any kind of deletion by proxy would be a violation of the ban. The page of file names may not be the most active way of getting images deleted, but I don't see how it differs fundamentally from, say, casually saying to a friend "I think X image should be deleted". Certainly, it violates the spirit of the ban, and I believe B. was warned specifically not to test the boundaries of the ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• This could not be a more transparent attempt to game the ban. Whether he violated the precise letter of the ban is not relevant, this is not a beauracracy. I will be leaving a stern warning for this user for this behavior indicating that any further actions of this nature will lead to immediate indef blocking. The page should not be restored, that is also obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. [105] And I think we can close up here for now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Just one more question Does this count as taking part in deletion discussions?--JOJ ^Hutton 23:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• I would say that it does. His ban was to stay about from deletion procedures, and Deletion Review certainly counts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I should think so, but from the timestamp it appears it was before the final warning I issued. He's made a lot of edits today so I didn't catch that, I will amend my notice to reflect that that is also a violation. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Added a note about that and removed the DRV as he was so far the only participant and it was an obvious violation. I have to say if that had been brought to everyone's attention before I probably would have been inclined to block outright, but it would be unfair to do so now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Patrick Haseldine

PJHaseldine (talk · contribs) has returned as Patrick Haseldine (talk · contribs) - he's requesting an unblock via his talk page so that he can correct his biography. Is there any appetite to lift the current indefinite ban imposed by community 2 years ago, and if so, under what new terms? Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• i can't say it looks like he gets what is wrong with socking, but he does seem to get how to edit your own article in a manner consistent with WP:COI. He claims he has created this new account for that one purpose. As doing so does not appear to violate the terms of the sanctions I would be inclined towards unblocking iff he agrees to be bound by the previous community imposed sanction that is still in place, to continue to suggest edits to his own biography rather than making them himself, and to indefinitely limit himself to one account. Obviously this would all be with the understanding that a single infraction of any of these conditions would lead to reblocking and that his chances of being let back in again would be basically nonexistent. I am not usually one to be soft on sockpupeteers, and there really is no reason that he should not already understand that just creating a new account and going on as if nothing had ever happened was the right way to approach this, but some folks seem to have a very hard time wrapping their mind around that fairly simple concept. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Based on past patterns of behaviour, this is what I proposed at AN/I before being sent here: A probationary period of 6 months, subject to him accepting his existing community restriction being updated as follows:

1. The previous topic ban relating to Pan Am 103 related articles remains in place
2. He uses a single account, and does not engage in any further sock behaviour
3. He restricts his edits exclusively to talk pages (no direct article edits)
4. He uses talk pages exclusively for discussing article content improvements, not for making ad-hominem attacks against other editors.
5. He does not use Wikipedia as a platform for any form of promotion, campaigning or activism
6. He does not link from external sites to any edit he makes anywhere on Wikipedia, specifically, but not exclusively limited to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Wikipedia Review or any online petitioning site.

• Any transgression of the above should result in a reinstatement of the indefinite ban without further warning.

At the end of the 6 month period, he can request that the community review his restrictions to determine if it's appropriate for them to remain in place "as is" or be amended. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I made the block as a purely procedural one, since it was obviously the same person. I will withhold !voting due to this, but have no strong feelings about it one way or another. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• I agree in principle with the proposals set forth by Socrates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Question Does the user not have access to the original account? If so, we don't reward a community banned user with a return to editing if they created a new account. If not, then we transclude the previous restrictions on the original account to the new account and link both of them together so it's crystal clear any previous accounts they edited under. Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see the question as relevant actually. The discussion of whether to unblock would be the same if the user was requesting unblock from his previous account. And I think everyone here is clear that the restrictions on the old account should transfer to the new account. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  I don't understand how your observation about my question pertains to the issue at hand. What did it add to the discussion? My reasoning is that if they still have access to the old account I'm less inclined to recommend unblocking (I hate second accounts that are not explicitly authorized by WP:SOCK#LEGIT). Hasteur (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion has been open a couple of days and there seems to be agreement to unblock based upon the conditions described above. So I am planning to do this shortly, and will link to this discussion in the block log. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Um, I don't really see any agreement, I see only a lack of participation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like a pretty small group of users participating at all at AN lately. However, it seems a bit unfair to refuse to unblock someone because not enough users commented on it. The set of conditions seem fairly strict. If he's not up to following them it should become apparent soon enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I am generally in agreement; I don't know if he can stick to the restrictions but AGF says if he's not socked in a noticed manner for 2 years, let him back in and see. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreement to the terms by the subject of this discussion, or community agreement? Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It appears from Patrick's latest statement on his talk that we do not have a deal. At User talk:Patrick Haseldine#September 2012, Patrick is agreeing only to points 1 and 2 of the list of conditions proposed above by Socrates2008, and to his own revision of point #3. He intends to go ahead and edit the Patrick Haseldine article directly if unblocked. In particular, see his comment here where he criticizes the unblock conditions. I would not support an unblock myself unless he agrees to the complete set of unblock conditions. It seems that he has made appeals to the British government in which he cites his Wikipedia article. Notice User:Patrick Haseldine/Patrick Haseldine#Later activity, which quotes from his petition to the Prime Minister. "The full background and justification for this petition are set out in Patrick Haseldine's Wikipedia article". Given past events, it is hard to imagine any situation in which it is acceptable for him to edit his own article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The only answer I'm seeing at present is "I didn't hear that" with respect to Wikipedia policies with which he's been entangled before, and what Wikipedia should be doing for him rather than the other way round. Looks like we could be done here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

about to unblock account named onjoly

My user name is onjoly & my account has been blocked after uploading some images in wiki common . Its showing copyright laws. but I only uploaded the files that I created & only me responsible for this.Could you please unblock it [onjoly] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onjolyymail (talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

We can't unblock people on commons here, and you are clearly not blocked on English Wikipedia, as you've posted above. Secretlondon (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that just like here, you can edit your talk page on the commons even when blocked there, and can request an unblock using the {{unblock}} template there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Onjolyymail are you related to the account Onjoly (talk · contribs)? GiantSnowman 11:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Competence problem?

UsefulWikipedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Could an admin please take a look at the contributions and the talk page of this editor? I can't tell if there's a competency problem or if it's deliberate vandalism/trolling.

• The editor has been warned several times not to use categories in userspace, but has reverted the dotting or deleting of the categories in his sandbox. He also keep restoring nonsensical cross-space redirects from his sandbox to articlespace.

• When warned about edit warring on two article, he replaced the ambox graphic with 3000px and 7000px images, disrupting the page.

• Anytime anyone reverts one of his edits, he restores it by saying that it was "perfect"

• When he started getting warnings about various things, he put "Everone hates me?" on the top of his talk page.

• His contributions amount mostly to expanding place names to their fullest possible form, so that "Santa Monica, California" becomes "Santa Monica, California, United States"; or unnecessarily Wikilinking or overlinking.

• He basically threw a little shit-fit and completely disrupted the talk page by throwing templates on it.

I can't get a handle on whether this is a kid, someone who just isn't getting it, or someone being deliberately disruptive. I'll pull back, but if someone could please take a look, I'd appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've left them a message about how to get some help understanding Wikipedia. (for the record I'm pretty sure redirects from userspace to mainspace are permissible. it's the other way around that is problematic. redirecting your sandbox to an article is pointless, but it is also harmless) Beeblebrox (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the cross-namespace restriction prohibits redirects from article space to user space. However, technically, a user space redirect, such as the one here, could be deleted pursuant to G1 - see WP:R#DELETE#5. At the same time, I don't think #5 was intended to encompass a redirect from user to namespace. I have a guess as to why UW is creating so many redirects from their sandbox: it makes it easier to get to an article they're interested in as all they have to do is click on "My sandbox" without having to type in the article name. But it could also be simply playing around, which is what the sandbox is intended for. I also agree with Beeblebrox that on its face such redirects are fairly harmless as who's going to type in UW's sandbox name?

On the other hand, putting in categories in redirects is clearly prohibited as it truly affects namespace (the exceptions don't apply here).

The more important issue is UW's competence. As far as I can tell, they never communicate with anyone other than through edit summaries. Interestingly, they seem to like talking in edit summaries. Many of their edits are odd, particularly their non-article edits, of which, besides their sandbox, they have made very few. Some examples: [106]; [107]; [108]. Their article edits are a mix of useful and not-so-useful and odd, although I haven't seen any obvious vandalism. Some of their edit summaries remind me of the argument about the last line in the movie Black Swan (film): "it was perfect". They use some form of that repeatedly.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if UW responds to Beeblebrox's note on UW's talk page. Thus far, UW has never commented on a talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I got the redirect thing wrong. I thought they were forbidden in both directions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked UW for one week for disruptive editing, incompetence, and no constructive reason to edit here. They did not respond to Beeblebrox. Instead, they made this absurd edit to their talk page. Then, they added categories back ito their sandbox. After User:GB fan removed the categories with a fairly restrained reminder that they'd been told before not to put them in, UW reverted with this lovely edit summary. My instinct was to indef them, but I didn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your instinct was probably right, Refusal to get the point and refusal to discuss in the first are the types of issues we have basically no other remedies for. We tried, clearly they are not interested in meeting us halfway. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

They went bananas after the block on their talk page, and not even in the "normal" way some blocked editors react to a block. They did a series of reversions, additions, and more reversions at such a rapid clip I couldn't even get in. I was simply going to warn them that they had to leave the block notice intact per WP:BLANKING, but when I couldn't get an edit in edgewise, and they kept going, I revoked their talk page access (usually I warn first).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

What happens to proposals that...

...appear to have consensus to support, haven't been closed, and are stuck in the archives? This appears to have happened to my proposal here. I'm not really sure it can be closed, because it is in the archives. But more importantly, I think people seem to be behind the idea and I'd like to see it happen or help to make it happen. Does anyone know what happens with these sorts of proposals? Is there someone I should be contacting? Should I be making another thread over at WP:VPPRO? I contacted Crisco 1492 about this, who referred me here. I haven't done a proposal before, so I'm not sure what comes next here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well that's a special case, since no editor or even administrator can simply implement it. You can try to find someone willing to create such a gadget, or you can file a bugzilla request and hope for the best. The proposal should be brought up again with a specific, written gadget in mind. The previous thread is a good way to show potential developers that this is a highly desired feature. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I supported that proposal because it would address what is for me probably the most single frustrating issue when editing large articles with many footnotes. The discussion was not heavily subscribed but the consensus was a clear support. Expanding slightly on Someguy's sugestions, there are three possibilities here: 1.) Launching a new RfC with more exposure, while referring to the support received in the previous one - create a standalone Wikipedia project page for the discussion, register it at WP:CENT, and link to it from all appropriate departments at the VP. 2). Going straight to Buzilla. However, in my experience, the WMF devs might not entertain it because it would require investment in human/financial resources which they often claim not to have. The probable argument here would be 'not enough support'. That said, this would be an extremely useful feature for all users of MediWiki Wikipedia software. 3). Searching the site for someone who is good at writing scripts who can make the gadget. I could envisage syntax highlighting being achieved through a CSS option (such as we do for highlighting our own signatures). In this way, the highlighting would only be visible to those who install the script. You would need to explain exactly what is required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, all. I think an RfC is in order, for certain. I'll get one started this evening. Would it be acceptable if I pursue all three of these avenues at the same time (particularly, the first two suggested by Kudpung?) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I would exploit #1 and #3 first, leaving #2 until you have a very strong consensus from a heavily subscribed RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy

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

---

I have been checking out the Kyoto climate protocol. There is no doubt that this protocol legally ceases to exist on 31st December 2012 (unless within the next 16 days they gather all the signatories and amend it which isn't going to happen). As the Kyoto treaty is clearly an icon of the global warming movement, its demise is clearly relevant to the article on Global Warming. However this administrator simply refuses to even allow a discussion: User:NewsAndEventsGuy (I assume he/she is an admin). This is totally over the top. However it is just par for the course and this person pretends to be neutral but in fact uses their position to stop anyone discussing anything contrary to the alarmists view of the climate. As a result, I personally have boycotted Wikipedia. There is no point editing articles which are so one sided. So please do not try to contact me as I will not respond (I don't even read comments). However please beware of this. On the 31st December the protocol will cease to exist. There will be a whole lot of discussion about why it ceased to exist, and yet Wikipedia will as usual be pretending that it lives on an entirely different planet where it is still warming, where Climategate did not happen, etc. It's not my credibility that NewsAndEventsGuy is wrecking but yours.82.14.206.26 (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

First, NewsAndEventsGuy is not an admin. Second, having read the talkpage of Global Warming, it appears that WP:CONSENSUS is against your interpretation - even though, as you say, there are some websites making the same statements. However, a quick glance at the actual documentation (and those provided by the other editors) shows that the current interpretation is correct. Third, we don't do content disputes here - those belong on the article talkpage or at the WP:DRN dangerouspanda 14:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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

SPI backlog

There are currently ~45 cases laying about at WP:SPI, some dating back around 2 weeks. A lot of them are marked as "close", and some simple archival could help reduce the clog. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Currently working on archiving...admins are needed to patrol cases.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, looks a lot better. There are still 18 or so cases (up to a week and a half old) with neither clerk nor CU input. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible political bias

Some time ago I went to Barack Obama's discussion page to discuss the issue of his place of birth. It has been reported that Obama's literary agent said he was born in Kenya, but I was told that such issues are not considered significant enough to warrant attention on O's main page, but rather on the page surrounding the theories related to his birth. Funny, you guys don't have similar policies for people like Humphrey Bogart or George Raft, whose pages contain uncertainties regarding their births, but fair enough. Then I broached the matter of where his "home country" is. What is a "home country?" No idea, but Michele said Barack's "home country" was Kenya. At the very least, this is important to his identity. The video has no signs of being faked; the audio level is consistent, her lips are synchronized with her words, and there is no sign of any editing. Compare to this obvious and confirmed hoax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#Obama.27s_home_country

The reaction? I was accused of being a troll because, apparently, I didn't agree that Barack joking about his name being O'Bama was the same as his wife saying Kenya was his home country. I was given a warning, apparently for saying that liberals will often automatically dismiss the subject. When I politely asked how I attacked anyone, the man removed my question without explanation. Then the topic was locked using the "no birth certificate stuff" rule, even though the primary focus was Michele's remark. The person who did it wasn't an administrator, and doesn't appear to mention any other capacities on his or her page.

I, again, politely reached out to Wikidemon and Seb_az. Their reciprocations? Why, what responses? Let me reiterate all this: on a website that calls "Be[ing] open and welcoming, and assum[ing] good faith on the part of others. When conflict arises, discuss[ing] details on the talk page, and follow[ing] dispute resolution." as being a pillar of the organization, multiple users legitimately believe that one person promulgating an issue that less than half of Americans believe is insignificant and therefore disagree with them can't possibly be serious, or they simply felt it prudent to ignore controversial claims. Am I asking for Obama's biography to say that he is born in Kenya? No, but at least we could discuss these matters without slamming our palms over our ears and treating those with unconventional beliefs to reproach and ostracization. YankeeJeff (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. Birtherism is the fringiest of fringe conspiracies, up there with faked moon landings and Reagan delaying hostage releases, and it has no place in Obama's biography. It has its own article to addre4ss the matter. "New" users such as the above are routinely turned down when they come to the Obama art with with their pet tinfoil conspiracies, and will continue to be turned down. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but did you read the entirety of my complaint? I clearly said that a large part of this concerned what his "home country" was. That is at least important to his national identity. Also, since the articles for Humphrey Bogart and George Raft contain references to the possibilities of inaccuracies regarding their births, should those get the same treatment? And do we just throw out the "five pillars" when dealing with subjects we don't like? YankeeJeff (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASeb_az86556&diff=513283885&oldid=513282491

Uncooperative behavior is not encouraged here, right? YankeeJeff (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleting comments from one's talk page does not qualify as uncooperative. If people are being rather curt with you, it's because you are the 7000th person to bring up this or similar issues. Regarding the content issue: First, we don't care how many Americans believe something, maybe go to conservapedia if you want that; second, the consistent rule on every articles is not "write about doubts over their birthplace" but rather "stick to what reliable sources say". If reliable sources voiced doubts over where Humphrey Bogart was born, that's appropriate to include in an article. But that does not magically make it OK to voice such doubts in Obama's article. Regarding "home countries", we go with either what Obama himself says or what reliable sources say, not what anyone says in a passing comment during an interview, even his own wife. This is about as much explanation with as little screaming at you you are likely to find here. Any regular editor on the Obama article has likely long-since lost his patience for fringe crap. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Would it be kosher to bring up these issues on the birth theory page? YankeeJeff (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Bring up what? Some dumb alleged misstatement by the first lady regarding the president's "home country" ? It has no place in an encyclopedia devoted to matters that a) exist and b) are of value to a general readership. Tarc (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a standing consensus against the perennial proposal to mention birthers, much less endorse their position, on Obama's bio article. This is covered in one of the FAQs on the top of the article talk page. Editors new to the article who make the proposal are typically informed (politely but firmly, ideally) that the matter has already been discussed and referred to the FAQ and talk page history. If they insist on arguing birther ideology, bringing the point up repeatedly, accusing the regular editors of bad faith, or otherwise, the discussion is typically closed / archived because carrying it further would be unconstructive. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, that's a discussion for WP:DRN, not WP:AN, since it's a content issue. Secondly, before you go to WP:DRN, you should consider carefully whether you can actually make a policy-based case for inclusion. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  05:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"You can't edit" messages are way too intimidating when numerous.

I think our system needs a better way to handle cases where there are multiple reasons why a user can't edit. When I tried to edit over at Meta, it came to my attention that the IP I'm currently using is globally blocked. Curious to find out what that message looks like here, I logged out and tried to edit the Main Page. I got a message that my IP is globally blocked, followed by a message that the Main Page is protected from editing, followed by a message that my IP is locally blocked. All together, these messages took up my entire screen - and then some. Is there any less ... overwhelming ... way we could present this information? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I almost put this at WP:VPP, but since admins are most involved in blocks and protections, I thought this might be more appropriate. Feel free to move if needed. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

VPP is likely the right place ... or indeed, the meta-version, as some of these issues are global in nature dangerouspanda 13:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, there is nothing anyone here can do about a global block. You need to talk to the stewards over at Meta. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that there's nothing we can do about a global block. My issue is with the global block message (and the local block message and the local protected-page message) - or does that come from Meta too? I'd understood that it was a locally-generated message based on the global block. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

All of these messages come from our wiki, not Meta.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Really, only admins should be allowed to edit Wikipedia, or at least that's the long-term plan. Why are you complaining here? We have many other places where you can be ignored. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

As usual sarcasm is very, very helpful. The point is that we can't do anything about global blocks and nobody but stewards understand how they work, including how the messages one sees are generated. The only one we have control over in this case is the one that tells all non-admins that they can't edit the main page, and that one is not going anywhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This really is a software issue, and there is not much us admins can do. The proper place for this is WP:VPP or BugZilla. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Close Okay, thanks anyway. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

To change the text of the notices you would have to look in places like MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked, MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext, and MediaWiki:Blockedtext. (The first of those does not resemble your screenshot. I'm not sure why that would be.) I suspect that they have grown to their current size through well-meaning attempts to communicate clearly, and suggest helpful courses of action. It would be possible to make such notices change when they appear after another notice, but it would be complex and this seems like an edge case. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed ban for ChronicalUsual/DanielUmel

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

---

• ChronicalUsual (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DanielUmel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DanielUmel (now redirected to the casepage directly below)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual

Following a recent AN/I discussion, DanielUmel was blocked for a week for being generally disruptive. Shortly afterwards, a number of suspicious-looking disposable accounts crept into the articles that he frequented. I filed an SPI on the DanielUmel account, and a checkuser turned up a large farm of several dozen socks used over the course of the past few months, as well as a number of likely meatpuppets. It was also confirmed that "Daniel" was none other than ChronicalUsual.

ChronicalUsual is already essentially de facto banned. However, I think that large-scale disruption of this sort merits "putting a ring on it" and making it a de jure community ban. So without further ado, I'd like to formally propose that ChronicalUsual be indefinitely banned from the project. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban for anyone who is going to sock like that.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Cannot support ban enough. This guy is bad news and he's been a pain in my butt for a year and a half now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Enough of this "de facto" crap as well. We ban editors for good reason, and that's quite different from the "no one will unblock, so they're technically banned" argument. Show them the door and close it. Doc talk 05:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - the socking, and the POV IPv6 block evasion/trolling, seal this user's destiny.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Having had a good look at what has presented here, It is enough to convince me that both these users are evidently very annoying and disruptive, and they have failed the community for the last time. We no longer require their services here. Show them the door already. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 08:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Whistles... That's certainly a long list! Slam down the banhammer!Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Jesus Christ, that is longest list of sock-puppets I have ever seen. Also I won´t be missing DanielUmel and you won´t find many other who shall. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But than again, I have to wonder about one thing. This sock/meat-puppetry of ChronicalUsual is going on for more than 6 months now and after all that he managed to create himself one of the biggest farms I have ever seen. What should be done to prevent it from happening again? EllsworthSK (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

When he is banned, we can shoot on sight any new socks that crop up. The real reason he got away with this socking was because we didn't see what was really going on and because he made some allies in the editing community. But now that we are aware of what his disruption looks like, dealing with it should be easy. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This is just ludicrous... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 20 mule team support. MarnetteD | Talk 15:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. 'Nuff said... De728631 (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per everyone else Jeancey (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious support Range blocking may also be a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd be down with a rangeblock for him; I don't think you'll find any objections to it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This crap is getting ridiculous. SEND IN THE BANHAMMER!!!1!!!! ZappaOMati 03:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Request a community ban on Tholzel

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

---

• Tholzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tholzel
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tholzel

I would like to propose a community ban on this individual as shown above. Since August 2011, this user has repeatedly engaged in sock puppetry using IP addresses for advocacy of race hatred, contrary to the purpose of our project, in addition to a persistent battleground mentality to pursue his own point of view on the David Irving article. His advocacy of race-hatred is probably the most the most abhorrent action I have ever seen on Wikipedia. With about 15 sections to date, and more recently as of today, he has been suspected of using another sock puppet today where it is suspected and confirmed by checkuser that he returned to create more socks with the purpose of evading his block. His antics lead the community to endorse the indefinite block on this user, but it seems that even an indefinite block failed to turn this editor into a productive contributor. I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 09:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Tholzel is de-facto banned for repeated block evasion, but I agree that a formal ban is appropriate given the abhorrent nature of his editing. Nick-D (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support As nominator of this ban. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 09:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone close this discussion thread already? It seems that we have more support than oppose, and all this discussion is leading nowhere to be frank. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 16:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

'Waste of time' Collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I thought we'd stopped bothering with these? Jenks24 (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I don't believe there was a consensus established one way or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I wish we would stop bothering, per my note in the section below. WP:NOTBURO and WP:SNOW should be enough for us to consider patently obnoxious trolls and serial block evaders banned of their own accord, without us needing to discuss the matter further. Ban discussions are useful for editors who are not currently blocked, and whose behavior needs a more careful analysis. If there isn't any chance of a person being allowed back here, I don't see what the need is to have the discussion. Is anyone forseeing anyone actually opposing this ban? If not, then why even have the discussion? --Jayron32 04:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Jayron32, while I understand your point of view, the fact remains the fact that Tholzel has caused enough problems for Wikipedia for a very long time. Here we have a user who acts pretty much in the same racist/bigotry stance like User:Piercetheorganist did in the past, albeit with a much more abusive stance on promoting racist ideology. Honestly, I can't see what you hope to achieve through this 'discussion', You also mention that 'Ban discussions are useful for editors who are not currently blocked, and whose behavior needs a more careful analysis.' -- Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 06:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Tholzel has been blocked for some time, and I can't forsee anyone arguing that he should be allowed back at Wikipedia. Ergo, this discussion is pointless. Why have discussions to confirm what we all already know. That's my point here: to remind people the unwiseness of starting unnecessary ban discussions. --Jayron32 11:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Well, if you're so up in arms about it, then why don't you just close this discussion and put {{banned}} on the userpage of the editor in question? If anything, this predictable harrumphing from you is even more of a "waste of time" than the ban discussion itself. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Not if it changes the site-wide practice with regards to this. Short-term losses must sometimes be conceded in the effort to enact long-term gains. I'm willing to waste a little time now to see that, going forward, we stop this silliness. --Jayron32 15:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Heckling individual ban proposals doesn't seem to me to be a good way of changing popular opinion. Just makes you seem kind of bitter. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Not bitter. I'm in a fairly good mood today. Got some free donuts at Krispy Kreme. --Jayron32 15:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Am I the only one who finds using the word "nominator" to be a bit weird when we are talking about community bans? I know we "nominate" pages for deletion, but still..."nominate" someone for a ban sounds...weird. T. Canens (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

I've done some but have other things I meant to do before logging off, so if folks can head over that'd be great. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I came back and did a couple more - still some more to do but I need to do some other stuff. If anyone can chip in that'd be great. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban User:Aarghdvaark

Hi all,

I found a link to this page from Wikipedia:Topic_ban#Topic_ban. I hope I did this correctly.

I have decided that User:Aarghdvaark needs to be topic banned from galaxy rotation curve and I think that means I have to post here about it according to the page on topic bans. The user is promoting an idea which is contrary to the mainstream understanding of the subject and going so far as to completely misrepresent sources in that subject field by implying that there is some sort of crisis in the study of galaxy rotation curves and the standard theories of dark matter which explain them. Since he admits to not being an expert, I think it is appropriate to topic ban him since he is causing major problems on that page. Actually, the page needs a complete overhaul because it looks like he has been trying to promote the idea that galaxy rotation curves cannot be accounted for by dark matter.

Thank you for your time.

Junjunone (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junjunone (talk • contribs) 17:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• (Non-admin observation) This is the right place to request topic bans, but I think you're jumping the gun. I don't believe a topic ban is really called for here. The two of you are involved in a content dispute (possibly several) that needs a third opinion-- maybe even an expert, given the subject matter and the nature of the content dispute. Junjunone, you have incorrectly reverted some edits as vandalism here, which looked as though they were proposed at the talk page. Because both of you appear to be enagaged in editing without any actual consensus on the talk page, I'd suggest the both of you stop trying to do so. You're not doing yourself any favors. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know that it was incorrect to call this "vandalism". It looked that way for me, but now that I read the page of Wikipedia:Vandalism I realize that I was in the wrong. Can I amend this? How does one get an expert to comment? I consider myself to be moderately well-versed on this subject, but what we really need is a numerical simulation expert who can speak to how baryonic and dark matter simulations follow each other? I cannot figure out where in Wikipedia one queries for expert third opinions. Can you point me to the appropriate page? The page of third opinion does not seem to have a place to request experts. Junjunone (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You could ask at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Physics. I don't know if there's an expert in numerical modelling of dark matter available but you should get some comments to start with. De728631 (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that Aarghdvaark is an advocate of the fringe Plasma cosmology. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that is off-topic. I repaired the page on Plasma cosmology after the depredations of the now permanently blocked User:ScienceApologist who was trying to bury the subject. That got me interested in the subject and yes, I do now think there is merit in some of the ideas of plasma cosmology. But why do you think this is relevant? Aarghdvaark (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I see the connection now. IRWolfie patrols fringe topics and considers me a fringe advocate (BTW I don't hold with that description of me). We have had disagreements before, so he is sticking his oar in now. So just a heads up that IRWolfie is not a neutral bystander in this, as is obvious from his comment above. Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Which disagreements have we had before? You will rarely find a fringe advocate that self-identifies as a fringe advocate, but it is evident from your edit history. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My edits (User:Aarghdvaark) have been in good faith (e.g. see the discussion at Talk:Galaxy_rotation_curve#Further_investigation), but Junjunone has misused the vandalism tag [109]. I also disagree with his description above that I am "promoting an idea which is contrary to the mainstream understanding of the subject". Junjunone has also escalated this minor content dispute all the way - this is the timeline of his actions on 17 Sep 2012:

• 17:27 asks question at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How_do_you_discipline_a_problematic_user
• 17:34 asks for me to be topic banned Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban_User:Aarghdvaark
• 18:26 asks for an expert at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Need a dark matter.2Fbaryonic matter simulations expert
• 18:35 has gone all the way to the top User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Expert_third_opinion

I do not consider that he has engaged in a constructive discussion about the article, but has simply tried to shut me up. Firstly by doubting my ability to understand the technical literature ("It appears that Aarghdvaark is not capable of understanding the papers beings cited" [110]), then questioning why I consider myself competent to edit the article: "What is your expertise in physcs? I have worked for years in the subject field and follow the literature closely" [111], then going for this topic ban.

Finally, I would be wary about treating Junjunone as a new user, despite his comments such as "I hope I did this correctly" etc. His pages start on the 4 Sep 2012, but he knows how to apply the vandalism tag, he's found Jimbo's talk page, and he knows about topic bans. It took me a lot longer than 2 weeks to find my way around. He also fundamentally disagrees with the way Wikipedia operates and thinks that experts (such as himself) should be the ones to edit articles. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Explain to me what is problematic about the post to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Need_a_dark_matter.2Fbaryonic_matter_simulations_expert. What is problematic about: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How_do_you_discipline_a_problematic_user? Instead I see that your comment is to hint that he might be a sockpuppet at the teahouse, your comment at wikiproject astronomy is to attack the editor again etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, In response to your questions about problematic aspects of Junjunone's posts let me share a quote from his posts at the Teahouse, "Is there a way to impeach editors who are clearly incompetent and show such incompetence that interaction with them is a waste of time?" This is a clear personal attack, and is problematic as such. A quote from him regarding Aarghvaark on Talk:Galaxy rotation curve reads as follows, "There is something seriously wrong with your reading comprehension." Another problematic personal attack. I have every reason to assume good faith on Junjunone's part, and I have not seen him make another personal attack since I warned him at the Teahouse, but let's not pretend that he is without blame. As you have suggested, he is new at this and has not learned proper Wikiquette. That said, his roll in the multiple discussions he has started on this topic have been much more problematic than Aarghvaark's, who has remained relatively calm and composed through it all. And BTW, Aarghvaark's voicing of his suspicions of sockpuppetry do not seem unreasonable to me, although I doubt that he is correct. Ebikeguy (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

A new editor asking where to deal with problematic editors isn't a personal attack. If you look at most of the discussions he started, most are to attract more editors to the topic, such as in the wikiproject physics and astronomy posts. There is nothing problematic with that. Posting to Jimbo's page is never forum shopping and Aarghdvaark wasn't mentioned in the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If Junjunone had politely asked how to deal with Aarghvaark's edits and let it end at that, we would not have a problem here. However, the language I quoted above clearly DOES constitute personal attacks. Those personal attacks are the problematic aspects of Junjunone's behavior. I think he has learned his lesson, and I sincerely hope and expect that he will not repeat this behavior. Additionally, I think this proposed topic ban is another example of incorrect action taken by Junjunone due to his lack of experience on Wikipedia. This is a content dispute, pure and simple, and those of you interested in the subject matter should use the tools available to you to deal with it as such. Find consensus. Move on. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a new sockpuppet investigation, see [112]. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Community ban for Technoquat

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

---

• Technoquat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It is too early for a de facto ban, but this user's socking and trolling shows no intent to contribute constructively.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Duh. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. He is more funny than Baseball Bugs! [113]. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • His other trolling is definitely not funny.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, come on! [114] Tijfo098 (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This was unfunny unless you google-translate 相田ルーチンオムツ to "Aida diaper routine". Our hard pressed help desk volunteers have a hard time with simple trolling. We can't allow this complex charade to go on! Tijfo098 (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Kill the wabbit… I mean duck. —Kerfuffler  harass
  stalk  04:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - He has failed us for the last time. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I doubt that's the case unless a CU comes up with a range block. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Why, oh why, do we friggin bother with these discussions. Is anyone seriously considering letting the person behind the Technoquat account and its legion of sockpuppets edit Wikipedia again? Can't we just say he's banned without wasting the time on a formal vote, per WP:SNOW and get on with other, more pressing issues. --Jayron32 04:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Not this time, because the master account is just 2 weeks old.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Who cares how old it is. It's old enough to establish that the person who is behind it has unwelcomed themselves here. --Jayron32 05:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Not necessarily... at this point it still isn't beyond return, hence why I didn't do a de facto tagging.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point. Two weeks of continuous and unabated assholery sounds like quite long enough to establish that he's not interested in being a useful person to us. If someone spraypainted your house every day for two weeks, I suspect you'd have called the cops several times by then. If he'd done one thing two weeks ago, and one thing today, you'd be right. It's the volume of the disruption over these last two weeks that has established the de-facto nature of the ban, not any arbitrary length of time, per se, as far as I am concerned. --Jayron32 05:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Huh? Are you saying that Tagashsimon and RJFJR are socks of this user? Both have been around since 2004 without ever being blocked; you're going to have to have a rock solid case to say that. Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• No, those were the replies to the trolling threads if I;m getting this all correctly... – Connormah (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)If you mean to reply to me, I do not.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Ah, okay. I was replying to Tijfo098's comments, not Jasper's. Now I see that both of those links involve replies to questions from users who have been blocked as Technoquat socks. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Alternatively, he could help answer questions at the reference desk. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 08:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I don't have to say anything. I find his heavy trolling disturbing. ZappaOMati 20:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Obviously not interested in ever being a positive contributor. Ban and WP:RBI any future socks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious support as they seem just too interested in wasting our time. – Connormah (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Hell, yes Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

URL shortening websites

• tinyurl.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• bitly.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

So I just went to shorten a Google search URL that's 326 characters long using the convenient http://tinyurl.com but found out that it's on the global spam blacklist, as is my backup of http://bitly.com . First (and the main part that makes it relevant to this noticeboard), do these sites really need to be on the blacklist? Second, are there any URL shortening sites that aren't on the blacklist I can use so I don't take up a third of the edit window with Google search links? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea is that you can never know what a short URL leads to, which can often lead to abuse like spam and malware. Using full links also reduces the likelihood of broken links.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This may be a good discussion to have, which is why here is a bad place to have it. The proper venue, if you indeed wish to get good answer and which to see changes made, would be at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. --Jayron32 05:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it's global, m:Talk:Spam blacklist is a better place.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, spammers have provingly used these sites to circumvent blacklisting, so they can still spam their sites. URL shortening services are going onto the blacklist even when used in good faith because they are a real and significant threat (even dedicated URL-shortening services may end up on the blacklist if enough of their expanded links are already on the blacklist (youtu.be is on the blacklist, otherwise the number of rules for (specifically) blacklisted youtube.com videos would need to be doubled - which will in the end affect loading times).

Moreover, none of these links are ever necessary, or even useful; with url-shortening you obfuscate what you are actually linking to (for all a thoughtful editor who happens to encounter such a redirect site linked somewhere might think is that they might be transferred to a malware site - there is no way of knowing). Also one has to take into account that redirect sites can be used to be tunneled through google statistics, enabling in that way the very core of Search Engine Optimisation (take a redirect site, redirect it to a google-hit result, which counts a visit to the site, and that redirects to your site).

Sorry, you'd have to paste the Google search URL (though, if that is a google-redirect in itself you'd better link to the real link, google redirects are also blacklisted as they are at the very core of SEO). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I am tracking this with the two above (as I believe that discussing this is good), so we can possibly find this general discussion back when needed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) a million. The idea of "hiding one site's identity and target behind a generic other site" is pretty contrary to transparency and politeness, Principle of least astonishment, and ease of abuse, etc. as discussed on URL shortening. I'm pretty sure this has been discussed to consensus at least once or twice, but I can't find it in the MOS right now. For the specific case, usually a lot of the material in a google-search URL can be manually removed with no ill effect. We have {{google}} to make it even easier. DMacks (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That template is pretty much perfect for what I need, actually...for reference, the Google URL I had was https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Cattleman+Restaurant%22+New+York+City&oq=%22Cattleman+Restaurant%22+New+York+City&gs_l=hp.3..0i30.7366.14972.1.15607.9.9.0.0.0.2.473.1644.0j7j1j0j1.9.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5YASNHvE3tI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=3fbba934779bb47d&biw=1366&bih=638, so there really is a drastic improvement in shortening it in my opinion. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Just curious — why can't you just do [115]? And since WP:ELNO says not to link to search engine results in mainspace, what's the point? Was this for use outside of mainspace? At any rate, it doesn't seem that important to me to permit these sites, since the use of brackets prevents us from having to show the full link, and since we're not Twitter, we can stand to have extra characters. Nyttend (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It was for an AfD nomination I just created WP:Articles for deletion/Cattleman Restaurant, and the main purpose wasn't so much to save space on the viewing side but to create a more concise link on the editing side (basically along the same logic as why we limit the length of user's signatures). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You can shorten that link by trimming everything after New+York+City. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I wonder whether actually a plain //google.com?q=%22Cattleman+Restaurant%22+New+York+City would do the same trick (maybe add the 'hl=en' to keep more English results, but .. not sure if that is really necessary. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That takes you to the starting Google page with those terms already displayed; it doesn't give you the search results. Yes, you can just click through to the search page, but I expect you'd get different results with a different search. Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

http://google.com/search?q=test+query works for me. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Fun fact: Interwiki-style queries like google:new+york+city also work. Jafeluv (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

CSD request online for nearly 9 hours

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

---

Is it possible for an administrator to take a look at this A7 CSD request [116]? It was tagged nearly 9 hours ago, but it has yet to be reviewed. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Obvious A7 - done. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Well, that was fast! Thank you, Yunshui! And Adoil Descended (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no rush. "Speedy" means anything less than 7 days. dangerouspanda 12:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

ISeeWhatYouDo (talk · contribs) block reset?

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

---

I just realized that I was previously involved with reverting this particular user on his edit warring on Getaway (film) and The Fly (1958 film) and probably should not have blocked the account. Can some other admin please reset the edit warring block under their name? Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Exemption request

I made a request for exemption from the non-free content criteria, and would appreciate it if some administrators could weigh in. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 20:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

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

---

I tried to propose an article for deletion, but I may have screwed up. The article is Vito Bongiorno, and here are the reasons. Thank you.--79.55.245.225 (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You AfD'd it, not PROD'd it. ZappaOMati 13:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't it be speedied with {{db-person}} and salted? This thing just keeps being recreated. Doc talk 13:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I already carried the IP's nomination for deletion over to WP:Articles for deletion/Vito Bongiorno (2nd nomination). ZappaOMati 13:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

My Man Is A Loser

I tried submitting a page about an upcoming movie called "My Man Is A Loser" - the page got deleted because we had a couple of sentences in there from the production companies website describing their marketing plan and the site had a (c) notice at the bottom. I am a novice at Wikipedia and quickly learning and would like to report the article now with revised content that conform with Wikipedia's guidelines. When I try and create the article "My Man Is A Loser" - it is telling me I need to contact an administrator to remove the ban on that name, please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dockkcod (talk • contribs) 01:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Typically, upcoming movies are not eligible for Wikipedia articles because theh have not yet been able to gain the notability required for an encyclopedia article. It also sounds like comments from the producer website would not count as they are primary sources, and not reliable 3rd party sources. Please note: not all films are encyclopedic in the short or even long run - there would have to be something pretty special about this one for it to have an article before it is even released dangerouspanda 08:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In a nutshell, for a subject to have an article here, at a minimum it needs to have a write up from mainstream publications that aren't affiliated with the subject. Newspaper or magazine articles, mainstream news or websites, etc. No blogs, no forums. Two or more, and the article can't just mention it, it must give it a few paragraphs. That is an oversimplification of the policy, but more or less explains it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:GregJackP

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that: The Climate change case is supplemented as follows:

The restriction imposed on GregJackP (talk · contribs) in the Climate change case and the supplementary restriction relating to New Religious movements imposed by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee on 17 March 2012 as a condition of unblocking are hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 22:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that: The Race and Intelligence case is supplemented as follows:

Banned editors and their sockpuppets have long caused disruption to both the Race and Intelligence topic ("R&I") and editors associated with it.

The Committee notes that the applicable policy provides:

• banned editors are prohibited from editing pages on Wikipedia;
• the posts of a banned user may be reverted on sight by any editor;
• any editor who restores the reverted post/s of a banned editor accepts full responsibility for the restored material.

To reduce disruption, the Committee resolves that no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor:

• which was posted within the R&I topic or
• which relates, directly or indirectly, to either the R&I topic or to any editor associated with the R&I topic.

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised to enforce the foregoing in respect of any editor restoring any reverted post.

Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given for prior activity and should be logged appropriately.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 23:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Special:DoubleRedirects

Hi. Could an admin go and fix all double redirects in Special:DoubleRedirects, please? They need an admin account to fix them. --Meno25 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The semi-automated RussBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) can more easily do this. I suggest you nicely ask its operator to run the DoubleRedirects job. AGK [•] 16:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, most of these are userspace CSS and JS pages that got turned into redirects because of renames. These can only be edited by an admin, though I'm not sure if it's worth the effort. T. Canens (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've deleted all of the offending redirects. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Heads up: Coordinated editing effort on Oct 19

Women of Wikipedia edit planned - BBC

What they are trying to do is a good thing, but editors and admins should be cautious of issues that may arise that day. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me translate for everyone "A bunch of people want to get together and make Wikipedia better". We should be cautious because? --Jayron32 03:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any indication that we'll have a problem, but I think it's fair to be alert that this is happening, in case other users, for example, start put in reports without being aware of what's going on. (No way a means this is meant to discourage this type of positive effort, just that it helps to make everyone aware) --MASEM (t) 03:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the organisers, yes people are aware of it ;-). If you do spot problems related to it, please let myself or User:Tom Morris, who's also going to be there, know. The event is very similar to, eg, this Smithsonian event from March; it's essentially an editathon targeted at new contributors on a specific theme. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it might be worth letting the New page patrollers know to prevent this sort of thing which happened to a novice editor at the March Smithsonian event. At these events, the articles are usually created directly in article space. Novice editors often save the article before they've spelled out the subject's notability and/or added references. Then, while they're still working on it, and sometimes in a matter of minutes, it gets slapped with "Speedy delete". It can be very discouraging for them. Voceditenore (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I'd also strongly encourage the new editors to use {{Increation}}. I don't know if this always works. I've run into issues while using {{Underconstruction}} myself, but not often. Maybe it helps. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the points Sarah raised as a potential issue, and it's definitely something I want to keep an eye on. IME, the best approach is to encourage sandbox creation of any new articles, and get them nicely stuffed with references before moving/copying it into mainspace. We're going to run a quick teaching-people-to-edit session at the beginning, which heavily revolves around the user sandbox page, so they'll have seen it and worked with it already. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been involved in plenty of editathons in the past. As Andrew Gray has pointed out, we'll both be there, along with possibly one or two other admins. Usually at editathons, we try to keep an eye on the IP address(es) being used by editors at the ediathon (we do encourage people to register though), and also keep a list of usernames that edit (both so we can track their edits on the day and also measure the effectiveness over time of doing the editathon). It's well worth having admins at editathons both so they can userfy stuff that's not ready to go into mainspace, and also because sometimes the venue is IP rangeblocked. Certainly, for user creation also: if people are creating user accounts at editathons, they can do it through an admin account and avoid the user creation limit.

If you want to be involved, you can be. I'm hoping we can get some editors online to join us along with the new editors at the Royal Society. I can't promise any free trips to Gibraltar, so you'll have to live with the warm feeling of having helped reduce Wikipedia's systemic bias. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images

Please add sections to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images with only the introduction and links to the questions:

• Question 1a Should there be an instructional hatnote?
• Question 1b Should there be a functional hatnote?
• Question 2 What image should appear in the infobox?
• Question 3 Where should the first figurative-art depiction of Muhammad occur?
• Question 4 Narrative Images
• Question 5 Figurative-art depictions vs. calligraphy
• Question 6 Principle of least astonishment
• Question 7 Image use in sources
• Question 9 Number of figurative images
• Question 9 Is an image quota useful?
• Alt Question 10 How should an image quota be treated?
• General discussion
• Proposal:Leave everything as they are (no change is necessary)
• Note on NOTCENSORED/AGF paradox
• Permissibility of Images of Muhammad in Islam

At over 900k it is problematic reading. I have no idea why no one did this while it was open. Apteva (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

All done. Please make a link from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Intro. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Page protection reduced to semi-protection. Go ahead and make any formatting/aesthetic changes you need to make, but obviously don't modify other users' comments or change anything that affects the debate or its outcome. -Scottywong| chatter _ 16:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am going to leave the original where it is now that the summary has many links already, but move the two other language links to point to the readable version, which already has a link to the all in one file version. If anyone wants to check the accuracy they are welcome, but to the best of my knowledge not one character in the original was changed. I used the TOC to create the intro. Apteva (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Backwards copy (vio?) of Educational Neuroscience page

I've just discovered that the following book, "Educational Neuroscience" "Edited" by Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn appears to be a substantial backwards copy of the Educational Neuroscience article. As the blurb for the book on Amazon states clearly: "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles! Educational neuroscience (also called Mind Brain and Education; MBE) is an emerging scientific field that brings together researchers in cognitive neuroscience, developmental cognitive neuroscience, educational psychology, educational technology, education theory and other related disciplines to explore the interactions between biological processes and education. Researchers in educational neuroscience investigate the neural mechanisms of reading,numerical cognition,attention and their attendant difficulties including dyslexia,dyscalculia and ADHD as they relate to education. Researchers in this area may link basic findings in cognitive neuroscience with educational technology to help in curriculum implementation for mathematics education and reading education. The aim of educational neuroscience is to generate basic and applied research that will provide a new transdisciplinary account of learning and teaching, which is capable of informing education. A major goal of educational neuroscience is to bridge the gap between the two fields through a direct dialogue between researchers and educators, avoiding the "middlemen of the brain-based learning industry". These middlemen have a vested commercial interest in the selling of "neuromyths" and their supposed remedies." http://www.amazon.com/Educational-neuroscience-Jesse-Russell/dp/551310850X/

Note that this is a verbatim copying of the lead of this article as it stood sometime around February 17, 2012 ([[117]]), the date this book was first "published". I am currently flagging this as a backwards copy for now, but given that they are selling this book for $19.95 (even with attribution) this appears to be a violation of the standard Creative Commons License that governs all contributions to wikipedia, which would actually make it a copyvio.

I have added the {{backwardscopy}} template to the talk page, and have contacted the primary contributor to the page, user:Grprice, at his real-world email address, where he is a faculty member at Vanderbilt. See also: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/psychological_sciences/bio/gavin-price- I myself am an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (my user page is out of date) http://edpsych.education.wisc.edu/people/faculty-staff/edward-hubbard

Can someone provide some guidance on wikipedia policies regarding publication of wiki articles for profit, and what wikipedia can/will do in this case? Edhubbard (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ed. Our license (WP:CCBYSA) permits commercial republication of our content as long as the licensing conditions are met, including attribution and perpetuating the free license. Even when the licensing conditions are not met, "Wikipedia" has no special authority to take action - copyright is owned by contributors, who are the sole individuals with standing to take action. For non-compliant reusers, the community has created several potential approaches at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. These meet with varying levels of success, depending on the good faith of the non-compliant reuser. With compliant reusers, the situation is obviously more tricky, even if we think that their reuse is unethical. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I did explore the mirrors and forks page, but that only really pertains to websites. As this is a book, I don't quite see how to go from what's listed there to how to approach someone who is selling a book based on wikipedia content. This is the crux of the issue: the fact that they are charging for content that should be free (again, unlike websites, which are freely accessible). Based on my reading, this seems to be a clear violation of the WP:CCBYSA license. One idea I've had is to simply add a review/comment on the book page explaining that as far as I can see, all of the content is freely available here, but leaves the principle of what amounts to theft intact. Edhubbard (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, the part I think is in violation of the CCSS license is the "share alike" part. That is, by selling the work, they are not freely sharing the material here on wikipedia. Edhubbard (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Share alike" doesn't make that distinction. This is why Creative Commons has a specific "non-commercial share-alike" CC-By license at CC-By-NC-SA. WP:CCBYSA does not have any such restriction. Many people do note in reviews that the content is freely available. I hope that helps people who are unwittingly paying for what they can receive for free. I wasn't here when the debates were held over licensing of our content, but I have heard that commercial reuse was permitted in part because some people might need to charge to sustain the publication. It may also be simply that those who support "free culture" (which doesn't refer to cost but rather to legal constraints) wanted as few restrictions on the content as possible, while continuing to ensure that the material remains free for reuse. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Share Alike" doesn't mean they need to make it free or digital or in any way easy to share, just that if you create a derivative work from it that new work must be distributed under the same or a similar license. Just because we shares thins freely this does not mean that others have to, nor even that Wikipedia has to under the terms of the GFDL/CC-BY-SA licenses. As MRG said, even if we think their reuse is unethical, so long as they are compliant with the terms of those licenses there's not much that can be done aside from a personal request to the editor(s). VernoWhitney (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "share" doesn't mean "free of cost". The CCBYSA specifically allows distribution by sale. (see definition d: "Distribute" means to make available to the public the original and copies of the Work or Adaptation, as appropriate, through sale or other transfer of ownership.) - Nunh-huh 13:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• The Mirrors and Forks listings are somewhat weighted towards websites (simply because that's where most copying happens), but it's still a good idea to list books there too. I've done so in the past. The problem isn't just one of legal compliance - it also opens the door to circular sourcing. bobrayner (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input everyone. I just noticed the merge request at the top of mirrors and forks, which leads to WP:Republishers. This seems like a more appropriate place (pending the merge), and the directions are more in line with my current concerns. I have heard back from the other main contributor to the page, and we will write to the publisher and Amazon directly. I'm adding this to the republishers page. Can anyone think other things I should do on wiki to make sure this is clarified, both to avoid circular referencing, but also to avoid any future copyvio claims coming the other way? Edhubbard (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked to see whether it's been used as a source elsewhere? I noticed that Russell and Cohn are mentioned here; so it's reasonable to assume that anything associated with their names, or anything from that publishing house, is problematic - not just one book. bobrayner (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it's a massive problem. Searching for these names on Amazon yields 131,482 hits [118]. Some of these might be errors, but it appears that all the hits on the first couple pages are them, with the new name "BookVika" (on the cover) and "BooksOnDemand Ltd." as the publisher. Based on this, I'm reconsidering even bothering to write to the publisher. They clearly don't care, and the only recourse would be if wikipedia as an entity were to in some way go after them. By myself, it's completely useless. Edhubbard (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• The message seems to have gotten lost here, so let me emphasize it. This is not in any way a violation of Wikipedia's copyright. Our copyright permits commercial republication. If the republication was done without attribution or with an incompatible copyright it would be a violation, but there is no evidence of that. There are actually quite a number of books available that are nothing more than collections of Wikipedia articles. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In fairness, we have no evidence that they have provided correct attribution or that they are actually using the correct license. We may infer that from the fact that they have hundreds of thousands of books on sale from Wiki content (surely, someone must have checked this, right?), but in order to obtain that evidence--one way or the other--someone (me, I presume, since I'm the one that raised this issue) would have to plunk down $20 for the article. Or, is there another way that legally, that wikipedia could insist on seeing this without being forced to pay for it? And, given the hundreds of thousands of articles/books, what would happen if we were to discover that they were not doing it correctly? I meekly send an e-mail, asking them to fix it? If there is a systemic problem, it does me no good, as an individual editor to say something about it. If there isn't then I'm out $20 for my own peace of mind. Shouldn't there be a better, more coordinated response to this at the wiki admin level? Isn't this why things get brought to admin boards? Edhubbard (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that it's quite easy to republish without breaking any laws, I can't see any necessity to be pro-active here. And in any case, Wikipedia admins don't have any special powers to handle something of that sort -- the WMF would have to do it. Looie496 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If they've copied an article you've written without attribution then you could sue them for copyright violation if you find it particularly upsetting. Presumably there would be some way to work on a class action lawsuit if there was a systemic problem. I doubt anything substantial would come from such a singular or joint lawsuit, but then I've never tried. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

To add to both of the above, as someone mentioned earlier, the VDM Publishing implies they're an imprint of them. Whether this is true or not I can't say, and it seems BooksVika has done something fairly dodgy in the past [119]. However when the VDM thing first blew up 3 years or so ago there was a big fuss, you can see a small amount of it here User talk:Kasaalan/Publisher, User:PrimeHunter/Alphascript Publishing sells free articles as expensive books, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 20#The Alphascript-Amazon-Wikipedia book hoax, Wikipedia:Republishers, Wikipedia:Buying Wikipedia articles in print or another form, and a scan of one of the books here File:Alphascript Publishing book by Miller FP Vandome AF McBrewster J. A scanned example. History of Ghana. Copy and paste from wikipedia.pdf. From the scan and discussion, one thing that is clear is they do appear to have complied with the licence conditions. I don't think anyone has verified that each of the imprints is complying, let alone each of the books (it would likely cost several hundred thousand if not more). But as Looie496 has said since it's a mass operation and particularly if BooksVita is related to VDM, it's fairly unlikely they didn't comply since it's fairly easy to comply.

In any case, the best thing to do is just ignore them rather then going them oxygen and sales to verify compliance. As the listings at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks under B and V imply, there is the potential issue of the blurb, at it obviously doesn't comply on Amazon, but it's likely a claim of fair use could be made just as it is for other copyrighted books on Amazon.

(BTW the above discussions primarily mention CC. However remember since the licensing change, our licencing conditions require you to dual licence, anything you write is also under the GFDL. Since we can copy content from other sources that is under CC only and it is unlikely the publisher wants to spend the time to determine what's what, it would be stupid for them to comply with the GFDL but not the CC. But you as a wikipedia author can't complain unless both the GFDL and the CC are violated, those were the terms under which you agreed to licence your content.)

Nil Einne (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Or we could revolke CC-BY-SA from articles we've written and re-licensed as CC-BY-NC-SA. I don't mind someone reprinted a quote or some text from an article I've written, but put it in a book , then sell it for profit (theirs alone). That's not right.

"....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 16:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That's actually not allowed. When you submit an edit to Wikipedia, you " agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." This is printed clearly and unambiguously at the bottom of the edit window. You cannot retract that lisence after you have submitted your text, nor can you submit any text under a more restrictive lisence. Wikipedia will not accept contributions of text or images under incompatable lisences. If you don't want people to make money off of what you have written at Wikipedia, don't edit Wikipedia. --Jayron32 17:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, note that Creative Commons ( on Wikipedia ) has a line stating:

With the understanding that:

   Waiver—Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

As the creator of an article, the creator automatically is the copyright holder, so they could actually wave CC-by-SA. Yes, I hear you, it would be an uphill battle to do so. So, perhaps licensing could be changed to allow for either at the author's request. "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 17:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Licensing can be waived for any reuser, but that doesn't mean it can be revoked. :) We can't change the licensing requirement for Wikipedia without changing the wmf:Terms of Use, and I don't think we'll do that easily. (Update: I believe I'm wrong about that. TOU does allow for separate license schemes on individual projects. Not sure how we'd go about invoking that, though, but I imagine it would start with consensus...which could be really hard to achieve, since we could not relicense older content and since it would make WP:REUSE really complex if reusers must now determine what's NC.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What she said. You can waive the requirements of CC-BY-SA for your own contributions, but you cannot add your own restrictions above and beyond CC-BY-SA. That is, you can make the reuse of your work less restrictive than required by Wikipedia's lisence, but never more restrictive. --Jayron32 17:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The caveat in the ToU is mainly due to Wikinews, which is CC-BY (not SA). Relicensing is hypothetically possible, but a) is logistically almost impossible, and b) there are significant disadvantages to NC licensing which make the benefits debatable in any case. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Solicitation of donations

User:Zscout370 has the following notice on his userpage:

I spent many years on Wikipedia, doing a lot of the things you will see below. No matter if it was making new articles to combat systemic bias, taking current articles and making it better, or just making tons of vector graphics, I do not get paid for this stuff. Please make a donation via PayPal to me as a sign of appreciation for everything that you will see below on what I did (and will continue to do). Login to your PayPal account or create one and send your donation to ... .

I came upon this by chance when an IP removed the solicitation, which Zscout restored. It has been removed in the past (including by Zscout himself with a mildly amusing edit summary): see ([120]); ([121]) - but always restored.

In 2010, User:Jezhotwells initiated this discussion at WP:EAR (strange place to have it). The discussion was relatively brief and superficial. User:NuclearWarfare said he didn't see the solicitation as a "big deal".

Although I am unaware of an express prohibition in any policy against the solicitation, I was taken aback by it. For me, at least, it didn't even pass the smell test. For any editor to solicit money as compensation for their work here can't be okay, and for an admin to do it is even worse. I realize that WP:REWARD permits someone to offer money in exchange for the completion of a task, but (a) that's the other way around and (b) it's targeted to something specific.

In Zscout's particular case, it seems a bit worse still because of his edit history. Toolserver hasn't been working well for me lately, but my memory is that Zscout has been contributing to Wikipedia significantly less than he used to. If you carry that to its logical extreme, an editor could post such a solicitation and either stop editing or almost stop editing, but still permit Wikipedia to broadcast their solicitation for money.

Another point worth making is our blocking policy for promotional accounts. How does it make any sense for us to speedily delete a page that is unambiguously promotional yet leave a donation notice like this one in place? Or block an editor for being a promotion-only account? I'm not suggesting that Zscout has not been a valuable contributor to Wikipedia over the years, but, as we all know, editing patterns change, and even admins sometimes lose interest or grow weary after years of hard work.

I approached Zscout on his talk page before coming here. I didn't go into as much detail there as here as his responses indicated to me that he was entrenched.

My objectives here are (1) to reach a consensus as to whether this is permissible and (2) assuming the consensus is that it is not, obtain Zscout's agreement to remove the notice and promise not to restore it. (I'd also like to see the policy changed to make any consensus explicit, but that can be addressed separately from this topic.)--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any editor should be soliciting for money, let alone an admin - it sends completely the wrong message out. GiantSnowman 15:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

We remove solicitations from articles so why should an editor's userpage be above this? Zscout should not post this. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I regularly delete promotional article, this has to go. Remove it, and warn of sanctions if it reappears Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This hasn't been running long enough to call it a done deal so I won't go and remove it. I hope that the editor in question will respond here, or at their user page by removing the notice themselves. Such solicitations are not OK. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how much Zscout logs in and watches, but his contributions are sporadic, making it difficult to interpret silence.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I say let him keep it. Nobody is forced to give a donation and it is only seen by those who view his user page. It doesn't coincide with a conflict of interest (which is the root of our concern with paid editors). Ryan Vesey 16:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan. I don't see any harm in this. Jenks24 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not see a problem here; the comparison between what Zscout has and advertising/spamcruft is that of apples and oranges. Articles that are advertisements (or userpage content that is an advertisement for a product, service, etc.) degrades our overall quality by not being neutral. Zscout has solicited donations to him for the work he has done. This has no effect on articles because he has no financial interest in keeping a certain article positive for a client. A problem would arise when there is a financial interest in keeping versions of articles that would fall afoul of our core rules. No such problem has been demonstrated to exist in this case. Zscout's message does not do harm to the overall quality of the encyclopedia; as Ryan Vesey noted, nobody has to pay up nor does it coincide with a conflict of interest. Several comments above have said that this sort of message is "not OK" or "doesn't even pass the smell test", or "sends completely the wrong message out", but why that is so has not been explained at all. Maxim_(talk) 16:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree, because I believe that it opens up the door to some serious ethical issues. All it takes it Zscout making an administrative decision toward an article that gains favor with a group of editors, who turn around and "donate money" for his actions. Then, we start getting into soliciting for editing. Although I do not think it should be there period, I believe that it is even worse when it is with an Admin. The question becomes, "Where does it stop?" What if we see a flood of "donate to me" apps added to user pages, or a "Donate" script written into a user's signature so everytime they sign you see "Bignole (Talk) (Donate)" attached to the end. As an admin, I believe that his user page is going to have more traffic than say a normal editor, because people will come to his page looking for help. Instead, they see a request for money. Correct, "none have to pay", but that does not mean that some new editor won't come in an think, "Oh, we're supposed to donate to the editors here and not to Wikipedia as a whole". I think this detracts from the idea of a "Free" encyclopedia, and I can only imagine the media coverage Wikipedia would get if a news source wrote an article about editors requesting payment from readers just because they chose to edit an article. So, in the vain that "noone has to pay", the same is true that "he doesn't have to edit". He made the choice to edit on his own time, like the rest of us, and to do it without getting paid.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it has been explained. However, I'll try to add a bit more. Let's assume we have a new editor who posts a solicitation for money on his user page. He also makes one perfectly acceptable edit to an article. He does nothing else. Would we leave that account in place because it's not exclusively promotional? Would we leave it in place indefinitely (the editor makes no further contributions to Wikipedia)? Are we an alternative website for individuals to solicit donations? If the answer is that we block the account and delete the user page, then it sounds to me like we are making some sort of a judgment call that at some point there are sufficient contributions by an editor to justify them asking for donations for their, uh, services. I don't think we should be going down that road of line-drawing and deciding how many recent contributions justify a request for money.

Finally, I don't think this argument is even necessary to say that financial solicitations by editors on Wikipedia are impermissible. We work as volunteers. We should not be permitted to ask for money for volunteer work. It's counterintuitive and sends a message that although we're willing to work without compensation, charitable donations are gratefully accepted. What if every editor posted such a message? What if individuals said, well, I don't need to donate money to the foundation, I'll donate money to the people who actually do the work. It's also a bit like having advertising on Wikipedia, which we don't permit (except for the infamous donation banners, etc.).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

To add to that, what happens when a company sends its employees out to register with Wikipedia to "edit", while at the same time posting a "donate to me" banner on their user page with the sole purpose of funneling the money directly into the business? That seems like a workaround to the "we're not here to promote businesses" model that we preach.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've got to run so I'll note that I haven't read the two most recent comments. Perhaps a better discussion would be a community RFC on whether or not an editor can put a donate to me section on their user page. I think that would be better than dealing with this single issue. Ryan Vesey 16:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why do you assume that Zscout—or any other editor for that matter—would accept a bribe? A link to PayPal is not the only way to pay bribes; all you need is to send an e-mail to exchange details for sending the money. And in terms of corruption, it does not have to be money; it could be political benefits on Wikipedia, for instance. The argument of "donate to me" banners corrupting the project is a fallacious slippery slope argument; by this logic, editors must not be allowed to interact off-wiki at all, so that factions with off-wiki coordination could not form, and benefits could not be exchanged for edits to Wikipedia in a coordinated fashion. Unethical collaboration, which involves exchange of various benefts, happens all the time, and there have been multiple arbitration cases over POV-pushing via these methods. A link to make a donation to a long-standing editor does not suffer from such problems, as we have no reason to assume that they would be using it unethically. Maxim_(talk) 16:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Does Zscout fall under the category of an editor who has made "one perfectly acceptable edit" but "nothing else"? If he did, who would find their userpage, and then actually decide to donate? Is Zscout an employee of some company who has been sent out to edit articles and funnel money back to them? That does not sound like a method that would raise much funds if any, so I don't think we have to even worry about such a possiblity. Why should volunteers not be allowed to ask for donations? Hobbies require investments of time and money, and there is nothing unethical about getting voluntary donations to pursue them, as it has not been demonstrated that it would negatively affect the quality of the end-product. Maxim_(talk) 17:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just so it's clear, I'm not accusing Zscout of doing anything unethical. I assume good faith not only because I must, but also because I have no basis for believing any "evil" on his part. That said, when Zscout solicits donations here, he's doing it in Wikipedia's voice, which is part of what makes it (in my view) wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see anything wrong here, he's not linking his future editing to a payment. Also, I know for a fact that he paid for a source for one article that we had worked on together a while back (was about USD30 or so if I remember correctly and it was useless for anything but that one article). He's spending both time and money, I see no reason why he shouldn't advertise that and if anyone appreciates it and are comfortable with donating through paypal etc, I don't see why we should prohibit that, especially given that we allow all sorts of other paid stuff etc hereabouts. —SpacemanSpiff 17:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Maxim, I didn't say that Zscout would accept a bribe, or that they personally were unethical. I said the idea behind doing those things is unethical because of the principal of Wikipedia. Additionally, I said it only takes that one time. Maybe Zscout would never do that (and I'm not saying that they have, or will do that), but if we're allowing people to put them up, then in time there will be people who start literally selling their services or editing in a manner that is biased simply because someone is "paying" them. There is one major difference between what Zscout is doing, and what you are saying Maxim, it is that Zscout is asking for the donation. It's one thing for someone to just donate money, it's a completely different thing to say, "Hey, I put in a lot of hard work on Wikipedia---look at all my achievements--donate to me and I'll keep putting in that hard work", while surrounding your statement with a list of "featured articles", "good articles", etc. as a way of promoting the idea of donating to you. That's a big difference. That to me is selling a service. Maybe not "literally", but in some way they are selling their edits. If we were talking about some random userbox that had a "Feel free to donate to me" on the page, maybe we could talk differently, but this is dead center, section to itself, screaming at you "Donate To Me" area. To me, that's not appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I can see a solid basis in policy for forcing the removal of the request for donations, but I must say I find it incredibly tacky and not at all something we would normally expect from an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with SpacemanSpiff. That page in not violating any policies and so not actionable. A polite request can be made, but that's all. Other user pages do much worse by disclosing that they belong to paid PR consultants, with the obvious implication that they can be hired to work on specific articles. The difference between a COI disclosure and a free on-wiki advert is non-existent in such cases. Quite amusing, isn't it? Tijfo098 (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That request for donations is inappropriate for any user page, however, he's reverted and semi'd his page in attempt to keep this notice on. This notice fails WP:UP#PROMO. It needs to go. Even a userbox requesting donations would be inappropriate. "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 19:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You removed the material from Zscout's page. I've restored it. Please leave it alone while this discussion is ongoing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You've again tampered with Zscout's notice on his user page. You didn't out-and-out revert it but you removed part of it. I'm not going to edit-war over this. Someone else can revert your change or Zscout can, of course, do so, but it's disturbing that you feel the compulsion to act unilaterally in this area.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, if this was a regular user, would this discussion still be going on ? I hardly doubt it. Would that message remain on his page, I doubt it too. In fact, I'm in agreement with Malleus at this point:

One can't help but wonder why there's all this kid glove stuff around ZScout's soliciting of donations. I very much doubt that a non-administrator would be shown such deferential consideration, shown the door more likely. (malleus) "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 23:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), but I also think we can, should, and must hold admins to a higher standard. Maybe offer the user a compromise: keep the advert, or keep the bit? 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's shameful. If you are a volunteer here, then volunteer. If you feel like you should be paid for your time as an editor, go do that somewhere else. As an admin, ZScout asking for personal "donations" casts his admin actions into doubt. If a city councilman put a Paypal link up on his website for people to support his work (and not for donations to say, the city's funds), it would be ridiculous. Same here. Dayewalker (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• City councilpeople tend to be stipended or salaried. I don't disagree that soliciting donations casts a pall on his administrative bona fides, but your analogy doesn't work. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  Not in the UK they aren't, expenses only. One can't help but wonder why there's all this kid glove stuff around ZScout's soliciting of donations. I very much doubt that a non-administrator would be shown such deferential consideration, shown the door more likely. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't know that. I suspect an IP address placing such advertising on her user page would be swiftly blocked. I'm almost tempted to try it... if only I could create a user page. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• On the contrary, Malleus, a very high profile non-administrator is doing essentially the same thing, and no-one has shown any more than polite interest, much less started a noticeboard thread about it. You're jumping to conclusions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  What do you call "essentially"? Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's worded differently, and the request is to contact the editor by email to donate, rather than Paypal details being on the page. But it comes down to the same deal. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I never heard of him that I recall before just now. I think what he is doing is disgusting, but I can't say I see a completely cut-and-dried policy violation. it's likely this situation was never anticipated by policy, I've certainly never seen it before. FYI I have notified User:Philippe (WMF) of this thread and asked if the Foundation may have issues with an individual doing their own fundraising on a WMF site. However it's the weekend so I wouldn't expect a reply on that until at least tomorrow. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good call, Beeblebrox. If the Foundation has no problems with it, then next week maybe we'll all have our own Paypal boxes up. Dayewalker (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to read the discussion, so I'll restrict my words to Beeblebrox' first comment — I heartily agree with his sentiments there. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong with the request for donations as long as it stays on his userpage. (Reverted the removal of the email) If an editor can solicit payment for future work on their userpage, which after exhaustive discussion at multiple venues there was no consensus to actionable prohibit, then donations for past work are clearly permissible. Monty₈₄₅ 22:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not following you, Monty (thanks for the reversion, btw). What permits editors to solicit payments for future work, and what discussions are you referring to?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 11#Request for comment - Advertising on user pages, which was started after edit warring, a trip to AN/I and MFD. Monty₈₄₅ 01:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can I put up a "suggested donation amount" list alongside the paypal tip jar? As in:

"You appreciate my recent closures of some AfD - 30$"

"You appreciate the third opinion I recently provided - 10$"

"You appreciate my vote at a recent renaming discussion - 20$"

"You appreciate my closing of a recent RfC - 25$"

"You appreciate my statement in a recent ArbCom case - 50$"

"You appreciate a block I recently made - 60$"

"You appreciate an article I recently wrote about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - 100$ and an indulgence"

"You appreciate an article I recently wrote about Gibraltar and got featured on DYK - a free trip to Gibraltar please (can those be send via pay pal?"

If this kind of list is problematic, how is the tip jar itself not problematic? Isn't it just a matter of degree (like that Churchill and socialite story)?  Volunteer Marek  22:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Ehh, I don't have a problem with it. Assume good faith, etc. If he's bought sources for our articles then it's kind of fair. Note: in lieu of direct payment, donations can be made in my name to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• This is different from someone requesting specific prices for specific actions or asking for money in advance for work on Wikipedia. A person could send Zscout ten cents two years after a random common sense AfD closure without identifying his or her account on Wikipedia and I sincerely doubt anyone would be swayed by the authority of a late dime donated anonymously for routine work.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that Marek was merely illustrating the bigger picture, beyond Zscout, and that's how this can be turned into a pay for edit scenario. The next thing you know, people will be paying for others to support their view in a debate. I'm not saying that is Zscout, I'm saying that there does exist editors who would do that and the more we allow these "donate to me because I use my free time to edit Wikipedia", the more we start creeping closer to "I'll support you...for the right price". People should be donating the foundation so that Wikipedia can remain in existence, not to individual editors.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! Well put, Marek. What part of "volunteer editor" are people not getting? Oh! The "volunteer" part. Makes me wonder if there's far more corruption (or, some may prefer, legitimate profiteering) at WP than I had ever imagined. Yopienso (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. "Volunteer" does not mean "cannot be reimbursed for expenses". If that was the case, none of our community Board of Trustees members would likely be in a position to carry out their volunteer work. (Minimum of two journeys to San Francisco, one to WikiCon in Europe and one to wherever Wikimania is each year, which would conservatively cost $12,000-15,000 US/yr depending on where they're located and where Wikimania is.) Now, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Zscout's position; I'm just saying that there's a big difference between "paid to edit" and "accepting donations to offset costs for purchases made to research and improve the project". Risker (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There is also a difference between "Yes, I can acquire a non-free source material, but I'd like to be reimbursed" and "Donate to me, because I've been editing Wikipedia for many years and I've done great work". People just looking to get reimbursed for literal money spent on Wikipedia is not the same as soliciting donation just for editing here (that's they way it appears on the page).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Like others have expressed, the main problem is that if we are going to be permissive of one editor doing it, even for benign reasons, then we have to allow other editors to do it. Not everyone is a high-profile administrator who can be trusted (and even if they are, they could still be swayed by money) so we really shouldn't allow anyone to take personal donations for editing Wikipedia. Contests for article writing is one thing, but allowing editors to take anonymous donations will most certainly bring about receiving money to support a viewpoint. Regards, — Moe ε 01:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree here. If admins will be reimbursed for expenses, that should be a feature of Wikipedia and have some kind of process. Just putting up a Paypal box and asking for money doesn't guarantee that payment will be for services previously rendered. Just for the record, I'm not accusing ZScout of anything here, but even if you can guarantee he's been 100% above board with any money received and what it was for, can you be certain the next editor will? We have editors who are active at BLP, if one puts up a box and receives money from a BLP subject, how would anyone know if they've been influenced by that? Can editors who are blocked for edit-warring at controversial topics have Paypal boxes, so people who support them can encourage them to come back and continue their fight? This seems to open up far more possibilities for abuse than it does for legitimate reward. Dayewalker (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• For what it is worth, I think that turning Wiki-editing into busking is a terrible idea, but it seems well within the general range of (things I think are) terrible ideas that are fully within the rights of someone else to try until an actual problem has emerged. If there are problems, I think we can deal with them then. Despite the complaints about "if we let one, we must let all," it seems to me the real animating issue is that the tip jar seems unprofessional. Of course, so are most of our pseudonyms, especially the ones that trample over copyrights and trademarks, for example.--Tznkai (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• There might not be any specific policy that prohibits the solicitation of donations, but there should be. Wikipedia is a voluntary project, and experienced editors, especially admins, should be setting a better example than this. I'm not implying anything dishonest about Zscout370 specifically, and I have no reason to suspect he would be biased for money, but look at it the way the wider world would - seeing "Please pay me for what I do" on an admin's page makes Wikipedia look really bad. This needs to go. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Tacky", as someone called it above, about covers my thoughts on this. We're not here because we get paid, and to see someone imply that users ought to pay him for all the work he's done for free is akin to having someone rush up to squeegee your windshield at a stoplight and then hold their hand out expectantly. You are providing "services" (windshield washing, wikipedia editing, whatever) voluntarily. No one has asked you to do those things, and you are 100% free to not do those things if they inconvenience you excessively. To do those things unsolicited and then turn around expecting, or even requesting, payment, is a violation of the tacit social contract - if you want to get paid for doing something, negotiate payment prior to doing it or just don't do it. If you're just hoping someone will pay you afterward for something they didn't ask you to do if you hold your hand out pointedly enough, well, that's pretty darned tacky and it's behavior unbecoming of someone in a position of authority because it implies you lack the appropriate level of understanding about what a volunteer community values and expects. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Okay, personal opinion time: I'm sort of okay with this to some extent. A lot of people put a lot of work into many aspects of Wikipedia editing, and producing good quality content beyond merely words is expensive. I have just started recording spoken Wikipedia articles. I've put up a few and have lots more in the pipeline. I've spent a fair chunk on getting a good recording setup. As in over $100 kind of money. Personally, I've thought about asking others for financial assistance: putting up something like a Kickstarter appeal, or even just doing something privately off-wiki, asking a few friends on Facebook to chip in with a few dollars each. With audio or photography or video, there are ways of doing it cheaply, but doing it well is expensive. I don't think we should ever categorically rule out people asking for money. I do think there's a difference between "send me $10, I'm trying to buy a new camera; all the pictures I take will go on Commons" and what's going on here. I just don't think the former is necessarily a problem even if the latter is, as Fluffernutter has said, rather tacky. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

My reply

As some have noted, I have paid for sources for articles, I have paid to get information released to us. Articles where I have done admin work I refuse to take money (and ArbCom has record of me sending back to persons due to accepting such donations would break COI on certain articles). I had this up from time to time over the years and the same issues then are the same issues now. I had it cleared before, but as we all know, the Wiki is never static and I know things change over time. I am aware of the fact that, as an admin, I set the bar for how others act. This is not new. Yet, as I noted in my reply on my user talk page, this is not the first time it was done. I have seen users who asked for donations to help them devote more time on wiki coding, bot scripts, or anything that will benefit the Wiki. This is nothing new in free culture; many FOSS projects and programs are free for us to use, but pretty much the devs rely on donations to help devote more time on the project instead of shelving it to work a job to earn money (which could be applied to the project). This is my concept and goal. I know a lot of people who do not like editors to be rewarded at all with monetary benefits; some say it is a COI or it breaks the spirit of the project. I understand your points, but I disagree. Others do not like paid editing to the prospect of bribes or anything else. Many of yall have worked with me for years, and those that did not, you can seen what I done since Aug of 2004 and show I am not going anywhere, regardless of the outcome of this issue. I just been more active on the Commons (I am also a sysop there) and also globaly (as a global sysop working on image issues), but I also have a life outside of the project that takes me away. So if that was your concern, I assure you I will not leave the project if I am asked by the Foundation to remove the notice. For those who wonder what I got paid for, much of it was from the REWARD board (which is another oft-had discussion that it is either good/bad for the project. The last thing I got was paid over $20 for an image of an American city flag (and that is documented on my talk page, if yall want to look). I know not everything I write here is going to ease fears or concerns, and I don't pretend to solve this debate forever with this discussion. However, I will tell you of my views, my actions and what stop-gaps are in place to where all Wikipedia policies are followed when it comes to this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yet, some of your concerns I am addressing now. Before this discussion took place, I toned down the message to remove the (PD-text) PayPal logo and also to talk more of a softer tone for the message itself (and removed links and emails, but still have EmailUser on in compliance of Wikipedia administrative practice regardless of how the outcome of this ends). I am listening to your ideas and trying to work it into a solution to where it can be acceptable to most of you. I also have contacted Bbb23 on here and also via email to let him know where I will be (and though I may not edit Wikipedia that day or anything else, I always have my email on and you can find me on IRC under this name). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This is just so wrong. It will signal some people that administrative actions can be bought, even if that's not your intention.

I think tip jars are inappropriate for any editors, but especially administrators. Some other editors commenting here are saying that maybe it's OK for editors to have tip jars. If that regrettably becomes a consensus, it should still be wrong for admins.

If you're going to keep your tip jar, give up your adminship. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Policy be damned, if an admin wants to accept compensation for editing (outside of Foundation employees), then you should turn in your bit first. I would tolerate this from editors, but not admins. I will support any policy that prohibits this from admins/crats/cu/os or any other volunteer position to add clarity to the policy. It isn't personal Zscout, but the potential for abuse by someone else is high, and more important, it looks really, really bad to the average editor. Dealing with editor retention, there is already enough tension between admins and non-admins (some deserved, some not) and this is exactly the kind of activity that make an average editor with a couple thousand edits say "fuck this, I'm not getting paid yet an admin is, I'm outta here". It is simply a very bad idea that has consequences you don't see directly. Please either stop this, or hand back the admin bit so at least there isn't the appearance of an obvious conflict of interest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed one sentence per Floq. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Dennis. We can't go around soliciting donations for our work on Wikipedia, and this applies to admins as well as non-admin editors. I do understand that you've used your own money on wiki related activities but that was your choice. Every second invested on Wikipedia by an editor comes with an opportunity cost and therefore all of us are out of pocket in re our Wikipedia activities. But that's the nature of volunteerism and we really shouldn't be setting a 'compensation trend' here. --regentspark (comment) 19:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• As Tom Morris says above, were you to say "in order to write History of Foo I had to spend $100 on sources.." or "I need a copy of the Larousse guide to Foo, costs $100, anyone want to help me out..." I doubt we'd be having this conversation. It's the way it reads, and the concern that it could be read as 'pay me for being an admin.' And where would we stop? Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Shut it down. This is effectively a solicitation for paid editing, made on-wiki. The line between "if you like what I done [sic.]" and pay-for-play is microscopic. I echo Elen above than a specific request for a specific research-related purpose would be acceptable, but busking bytes for bucks is not. Carrite (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what Jimmy Wales would think of all of this. Anybody want to ask him? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Now removed

It looks like User:Zscout370 has removed the donations section from his user page. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm it. Also, as a protection to all parties, I have removed all edits before the removal so no user (except admins and devs) are able to even see the message or anything along those lines (so no back-channel). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Policy

Now that Zscout has removed all vestiges of the solicitation from his user page - and I assume with the implicit promise that he will not restore it later - one of my objectives in starting this topic has been met. Whether there was a consensus that the solicitation was inappropriate is not clear as it would require an uninvolved admin to declare whether such a consensus was reached. However, my question, which is sort of related to consensus, is should we seek a change in the policy to prohibit these solicitations?

I'm also curious whether Beeblebrox heard back from WMF.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to assume, I will not restore. I will assure you of that. As for what my view is going forward, I think a RFC would be appropriate (and I would be happy to let this issue be the catalyst for such an RFC and waive all requirements for certification) since, from my eyes, I noticed some things.

1. Because of my standing as an admin, people thought the system would have been abused.
2. Paid editing, regardless as a reward for the completion of a BOUNTY/REWARD is something that users have been against for years
3. While user A has done it properly, futures users might not.
4. The tone of the message was not right, but to note you have paid for sources is not an issue.

There is a lot to digest and having too many mixed in together would, if I may be honest, be hard to declare a consensus. As for the Foundation, I never got an email from the Foundation at all about this and I was not asked to take it down by someone in their role as an WMF employee or official.. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In light of the outcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI and that other RFC I linked above that started over a question of removing a link to paid editing services from a user page, both of which resulted in no consensus closes, you should consider the scope of the question asked at RFC. You may well get support for a narrowly tailored rule on Admins and Paid editing/Donation solicitation, while it is fair game to delve back into the quagmire of paid editing in general, doing so is much less likely to end up with a clear consensus for anything. Monty₈₄₅ 03:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree with you, Monty.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that soliciting donations is so common as to be the rule rather than the exception in the wider free content production culture such as free and open source software development. I would like to know how the personal finances of the commenters above influence their opinion on this: I think it is very likely that independently wealthy volunteers are more likely to balk but poor and struggling volunteers are more likely to be supportive of solicitation of individual donations. —Cupco 04:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That was the point I made (since a lot of FOSS projects do the same thing) but I think it is more because of what I am (an admin on a project that is one of the top 10 websites online) and other instances of paid editing within this site and other auspices of the Foundation as a whole than anything else. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• There does need to be a broad RFC on this question. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. I object to the way that it was presented, but I don't object to the idea — this reminds me of something that came up in paid editing debates quite a while ago, in which someone proposed a hypothetical millionaire who wants to improve Wikipedia so much that he starts to employ people to edit full time. He doesn't care how they improve things, so (except for things related to him) he lets them edit what they will — this would be paid editing without the COI that frequently results from paid editing. This is a similar case; Zscout was asking for donations for things that had already been done. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• And to fund continuing, long term, goals (such as obtaining ISO standard sheets/documents regarding national flags). I just wanted to be clear it was not only for past work but for future work. But yes, an RFC is needed and I am willing to get one going or help provide insight (when time permits). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

And here I thought we were all simple hobbyists. Makes me want to pick up my marbles and go home. Yopienso (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

We need a policy, and the fact this is an admin doing it suggests we need an easier way to remove admins, but beyond that, it's all policy issues. So far as I can see in this thread there's not a lot of COI going on, and so if there's not a policy that prohibits it, beyond being straight up tacky, this is the wrong forum. I think at least there's some semblance of rule of law here on wiki. Let's make a policy that handles this in a fair way, and let's also desysop people who do this sort of thing. Shadowjams (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Your post seems inherently contradictory. OTOH, you appear to be saying there is no policy prohibiting what Zscout did; yet OTOH, you say that because Zscout, an admin, did something that didn't violate policy, we need a more expedient way to remove admins. As is obvious from my posts here, I believe that what Zscout did was inappropriate, and after discussion, Zscout himself agreed that there was sufficient consensus that it was inappropriate and he removed the notice. That may militate in favor of creating a policy rather than having to rely on the amorphous sense that something is inappropriate ("tacky" seems to be the favorite word of some), but I don't see why it means we need an "easier way" to desysop. For those who believe a policy is required for the future, I think the most important thing is how to craft a policy that has some hope of being implemented by consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The only thing inherently contradictory here is your post where you sort-of-maybe-not-really dispute my conclusion, and then agree with me in the end. And I don't think you're using the term "on the other hand" correctly. Anyway...

A more sane desysoping process would allow the community to act in these instances without having a rule for every possible infraction. Likewise we should have a policy about paid editing, although that's proven to be quite difficult, so I don't think there's any greater hope of that reaching consensus than a de-adminship procedure. But on the admin point, adminship is a privilege above and beyond normal editing. There's 0 right to it, yet the system we have now is something akin to lifetime membership with removal only by impeachment. And there's nothing contradictory about me disapproving of something while at the same time saying it isn't actually against policy.

That he removed it is hardly the point--although that's a good start. There are two issues here. The most obvious one is paid editing, whether through donations (tacky), or through PR firms, which seem to have a wide range of skill. The other is the more general principle that the only reason this is at AN is because Zscout's an admin. And frankly this sort of judgment is what I don't want to see in an admin. And the continual impasse at RfA has almost everything to do with the fact that once an admin, always an admin. So while I didn't intend to turn this into a de-sysop discussion, that you see the connection between these issues as distant is confusing to me, because from my perspective it's precisely the core issue. Shadowjams (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The idea that an admin would be desysoped for something that no policy or guideline prohibits, solely because after the fact enough editors decided they disagreed with what ever it was, is exactly the fear that kills every attempt to institute a desysop process. Monty₈₄₅ 22:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Before I was an admin, I used to cringe every time I saw some editor at ANI cry for an admin to be desysopped. Off with his head! Off with her head! Then, of course, if another admin dare disagree with the reasoning behind the editor's "request", that meant, of course, that all admins are cut from the same cloth and back each other up, no matter what the alleged misdeed. This discussion alone should disabuse anyone of the notion that admins always support each other, or even always agree with each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You do not own your user page

I'll note up front that IANAL.

That said, I think there is a fundamental issue that is being overlooked here. Neither Zscout, nor the rest of us "own" userpages. They are simple communication pages which we are allowed to edit, but they are provided by the WMF.

And while we are given rather wide latitude as to what we may edit to user pages, I would guess that setting up a business, or even asking for donations (since the project is funded by donations) is likely a bit beyond what is acceptable, and may be problematic to say the least.

Also, I wonder if anyone posting such donation requests may run into the problem that all such donations must be ceded to the WMF, since their servers were used? - jc37 18:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you look up higher in the discussion, you'll note that Beeblebrox asked WMF to weigh in, although not on your precise point. I'm assuming Beeblebrox hasn't received an answer yet or he would have informed us.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Afaik there is no reason why the foundation could not permit individual donation links on user pages, or even business. Obviously we wont tolerate someone using a user page for a business if it is entirely unrelated to Wikipedia. But again, afaik there is nothing from the foundation prohibiting links to businesses that are devoted to the improvement of wikipedia, even if there is a profit motive, or other uses designed to compensate editors for their work, either in advance, or after the fact. Certainly the foundation could adopt such a policy were it so inclined. Until and unless the foundation chooses to weigh in, I think it should be treated as a matter of on wiki policy. Monty₈₄₅ 19:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK - admins needed

This is a note to all administrators to remind them that WP:DYK needs their help! If you have a spare few minutes, consider promoting a prep area to a queue to keep things rolling along. Without administrators to edit the protected queues, the project stops and approved hooks are delayed moving to the main page. The more people can help out the better, and yours is appreciated. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 15:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Convenience link to the queues. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Undeletable page?

An IP vandal ( User:107.1.178.97 ) created this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Social_aspects_of_television#376401

I tried to list it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, but the first step in the instructions is to place {{mfd}} at the top of the page, and the page is not editable.

What is the procedure for listing such a page for deletion?

How the heck did an IP vandal create such a page?

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a mainspace page, it's part of Wikipedia:Article feedback. It's not vandalism. GiantSnowman 15:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

An article Feedback page that says "Article Feedback page not enabled for this page"? That doesn't sound right... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you're running into the same newly-introduced bug that many of us are. They've just recently flipped a switch on the backend that means that if you have your preferences set (under "appearance") to not show you the AF widget at the bottom of articles, it's also no longer possible for you to view posted feedback - you'll instead get the (erroneous) message "Article feedback page not enabled for this page." You have to either allow the widget to display, or you're out of luck wrt reading feedback. And before you ask, yeah, they're aware this is, er, suboptimal for the way people actually use the setting, but I don't know if there are any plans to fix it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, a bug report has been filed at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40431, so I'm going to assume (optimistically) that someone's working on it. Deor (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Aha! The mystery is solved. The place where I happened to see the bug was when going through the history of a vandalism-only account and reverting all the vandalism while retaining subsequent edits. Right in the middle of all that I saw this, and assumed that our vandal had figured out some clever new way to screw with us. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Change of redirect of a locked page

There is a request at the talk page of Die Young (Ke$ha song) (obscured because they put it under the redirect) that the redirect should be to Warrior (Kesha album) and not to Kesha discography. Seems like a reasonable request but it requires an admin because of the lock. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the reason for the current set up may be that the single was released today, but the album it is to be on will not be released for another two months. Seems like asking the protecting admin might be a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

i have let the editor who made the initial request on the talk page know about this discussion and will let them address the merits . -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't you just make an {{editprotected}} request? Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Volunteers needed for ArbCom Elections in December..

Hi folks, sorry for the wide ranging net, but I noticed that there's no Page for the upcoming Arbitration Committee election that normally happen every December. While it's not absolutely crucial that we got volunteers and structure up, since we have 8 weeks or so before the election, I'm sure folks will want to have time to have their say on election format, allowed questions, voter eligibility, what voter's guides are to be linked etcetera (just a small sampling of issues raised in past years elections). Would folks who are interested get things started so we have time to get everything properly set up for the election? (Rumors that the reason I'm so interested in getting this started because I'm curious as to who shall replace me when my term ends in December is vile slander and calumny. Truly) SirFozzie (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Using last year as the basis, I wouldn't expect much at WP:ACE2012 until after Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012. There was some discussion that we may do a 30 day RFC this year (as opposed to 45 last), which should kick off by Oct 1 so that it can be closed with ample time to implement any changes. We had a bit of a discussion at User_talk:MuZemike/Archive_11#ACE2012 regarding it. Monty₈₄₅ 04:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)