Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive180

Clean-up needed on Aisle 8

Resolved

I have spent the past hour or so cleaning up a series of article subpages created evidently during an effort to clean up unneeded templates. Article subpages, of course, aren't permitted because they can show up on "random article" searches. (Wikipedia:Subpages) Some of these have already started to attract exactly the kind of confusion we try to avoid: I've seen several tagged with various clean-up tags. These are a G6 matter; all that needs to be done is to substitute or paste their contents into the articles of which they are subs. There's no GFDL issues; they are tables, and they were created to begin with by substituting the templates tagged for deletion. I'm out of time due to the holidays. I may be able to do some later this evening, but I can't finish them all.

They can be most easily tracked in the contrib history of their creator, here (and earlier). About 3/4th of the way down you'll run into the ones I haven't yet addressed. They are easily identified because they contain a / and date-election. Their edit summaries have so far all started with "Create page by substituting Template."

• Example article: Mumbai South (Lok Sabha constituency)
• Article subpage: Mumbai South (Lok Sabha constituency)/2004-election.

Help? Please? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you're after (plus subpage deletion, of course)? Hermione1980 00:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's it exactly. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'm on it. Hermione1980 01:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(wipes brow) Phew. I think I'm done. I'll dream of subst'ed templates tonight... Hermione1980 02:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Amazingly tedious, I know. :D I really appreciate the assist. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all. Sorry to have created this small mess in trying to clean-up the earlier problem - which was incorrect usage of templates. Happy holidays to all. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 16:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Mass deletion needed

Resolved

I have just become aware of a series of pages I accidentally created some time ago, so I'd like an admin to delete them. I've tagged them all with {{db-author}} and a list of still undeleted pages is available here. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 10:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Done sir. --Efe (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, lieutenant. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 10:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. And Merry Christmas. --Efe (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:Ariobarza

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.

---

Archived again, this is moot. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

---

It seems there is consensus that Ariobarza has violated WP:NOR pretty comprehensively, that mentorship has failed, and that even Ariobarza is content to be restricted, for now at least, to her talk page. Given such equanimity, I have blocked Ariobarza and encouraged her to contribute on that basis, with the usual rights of appeal should she feel it necessary. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi, if I am about to be deleted; I just want to say, it has been a good run, I want to thank everyone for giving their time to help me on Wikipedia, and I loved contributing free information, and hopefully I will appeal this, thank you and goodbye. With love, Ariobarza.--Ariobarza (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Proposed ban of User:Ariobarza

I am proposing a community ban of Ariobarza (talk · contribs) from the entire project, due to her apparent inhability to understand or unwillingness to comply with our editorial policies on verifiability and original research, and the detrimental effect that her general attitude, approach, perceptions and choice of vocabulary have in the editing environment.

The first thing that you notice in Ariobarza is her enthusiasm, and everything indicates that she means well, but (even putting all conduct issues aside) by demanding that some knowledgeable editors spend time double-checking her every edit for personal interpretations she clearly is a net detriment to the project. - In my opinion, using the process of writing Wikipedia articles for teaching basic concepts of research to persons who lack such education/habilities would be too much of a drain on our already very limited resources (particularly in areas like Persian history, where making articles comply with our policies is already time-consuming). Our aim is creating an encyclopedia, not running a school.

A topic ban covering Near Eastern and classical history was proposed by ChrisO in October 2008, and was gathering a general consensus in favour, but ended in an indefinite block for block evasion & disruption (subsequently lifted after a search for a mentor & e-mail exchange -link- that finally resulted in AniMate volunteering as an unofficial mentor -link-). However, a mere 9 days later AniMate himself mentioned that "[his] offer [was] accepted and then completely ignored."

As basically nothing has changed since then, I invite everyone to read the previous ban proposal (with details & diffs.) & subsequent comments by users who have interacted with Ariobarza. It's not short, but it gives a good idea of the general situation.

Examples since the October 2008 topic ban proposal:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris (November 2008):
  A clear example of original research based on Ancient primary sources, previously discussed at Talk:Battle of Opis, and now gestating at User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris (permanent link).
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Gordium (November 2008):
  Instead of looking for sources, Ariobarza took the mention that "the Macedonian commander Parmenion captured the city [of Gordium]" from our Wikipedia article on Gordium (copied verbatim from livius.org, but without inline citation) and the unsourced mention of a "Siege of Gordium" from a Wikipedia template, and combined both fragments into a novel, entirely imaginary "Parmenion captured the city in a little known siege", which even includes his own opinion that lack of sources equals "little known".

  Later during the discussion Ariobarza interpreted the book snippet "Alexander conquered... Phrygia (there he took a strong Persian fortress Gordion)" as confirmation of the siege taking place: "And according to the most recent comments, I think someone has found this siege to be true, am I right?"

• Talk:Battle of Thermopylae (February - November 2008): Personal interpretations of Ancient primary sources.
• Talk:Siege of Sardis (547 BC) (February - December 2008): More of the same.

Deleted entries in Ariobarza's userspace:

• User:Ariobarza/Battle of Pasargadae — (AfD: redirect to Pasargadae)
• User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Marsyas — (AfD: delete)
• User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Median Fort
• User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris — (AfD: delete)
• User:Ariobarza/Siege of Doriskos — (AfD: delete)
• User:Ariobarza/Siege of Kapisa — (AfD: delete)
• User:Ariobarza/Siege of Pasargadae Hill — (AfD: delete)
• And the possibility of much more of the same.

Although directly related to me & this ban proposal, these comments illustrate Ariobarza's general approach, perceptions of other editors & choice of vocabulary: diff. & link

Based on all this, I fear that a topic ban covering Near Eastern and classical history would not be enough, for the inhability or unwillingness to comply with our core policies would be detrimental to any article on any topic.

I also fear that a ban from articles (main namespace) & templates only (allowing Ariobarza to participate in discussions) would still result in a drain on the time and patience of our volunteers, who would still have to cope with Ariobarza's general attitude and original research-based proposals.

Thus, I propose a community ban from the entire project. - Ev (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I reluctantly support this proposal, based on my interaction with the user at my talk page and at Talk:Battle of Thermopylae. User is clearly very intelligent, but combative beyond belief, cannot work within the bounds of intrinsic policies and guidelines such as NOR, OWN and CONSENSUS, (let alone WP:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT, we must get round to writing that one). Article ended in being protected because, in line with WP:POLE, another combative user came along with different POV. A huge shame, because someone with such strong grasp of primary sources is a rarity here, and very useful, but not if the sources will be used selectively, in line with POV and, worst, as a battering ram. --Dweller (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • NB This user and this thread have inspired me to create WP:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT. Constructive comment and edits welcome. --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Concur. I have observed Ariobarza on now deleted Siege of Doriskos (see above for a copy), Cyrus, Mitradates and the Battle of Thermopylae. In all cases she misinterpreted well-trodden passages from the historia of Herodotus, explained in numerous secondary sources. In the article on Doriscus, where Herodotus appears to be the only primary source, she made a claim about a particular siege and the escape of the governor, citing "The Athenians and their empire", a paperback by Malcolm McGregor which I subsequently acquired: the claim was not in any way supported by the book, which only mentions Doriscus in passing. Similarly it took a lot of effort to get the legend of the early life of Cyrus into a reasonable form. The discussion about numbers at the battle of Thermopylae seems to have been a similar attempt to wear down another editor's energies. Underlying her edits of articles on ancient history, there seems to be a pro-Persian, anti-Greek agenda, based on the misuse of secondary sources. Mathsci (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

'Response; Ariobarza's topic ban'

Please read the entire message with an open mind, so Ariobarza does not have to repeat it.

Hi Ev, talk about deconstructive comments. This is uncalled for, I thought we had put this issue behind us. Since November 2008, I have quietly gathered sources, and minded my own business. And now you want to propose a topic ban on me? This is dissapointing. First of all, for the Siege of Gordium I have giving up, and no longer care if it happpened, because overall consensus of the users here determined probably nothing happened, and I have even agreed with them, so Siege of Gordium is over (I was not the originater of the idea, like I said a thousand times, I copy pasted the info, added 1 sentence from the Gordium article itself). And at the end of the deletion debate, I agreed to delete Siege of Gordium.

You forgot to include the full meaning of my last message which I said at the deletion debate;
And here it is, others edited this article too, (while) your accusing me of the wrong things here, [1]. Why don't you contact this fellow, the actual creator of this red link, which I made blue, User:Brandmeister, he named it "Siege of Gordium", I read history, and I have never heard of a siege there, except Alexander cutting the Gordian Knot. And according to the most recent comments, I think someone has found this siege to be true, am I right? Don't worry I am improving, this is a old forgotten article.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

And this too, the last official sentence;
Feel free to delete, it would have been interesting if there was a siege, but guess not, nothing happened at Gordium. Bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk'

For Battle of the Tigris, this issue was between me and ChrisO (which I now Do Not have anything against or any problems with that user [and respect him for pointing out my problems here]), it is not your business, I suggest not to involve yourself in this highly sensitive article which I am sure you know nothing about. I NOW have damning evidence of what I said before as the mostly the truth, yet now that I am so close to presenting the evidence, you come up with a topic ban for me, nice job.

I consider your proposal to be highly rude and disheartening at this time. You are attempting to waste my time and others for the next month over a topic ban debate on me. I am tired of waisting my time on quite frankly stupid (I don't care anymore, I said the word stupid, big deal, I am guilty as charged) and endless debates with revisionists with no lives, other than to waist others time.

Misrepresenting the issue, and presenting false information is not helpful here. I {suggest} if you have a personal grudge against me to say it to my face on my talk page. And not spread "Off with Ariobarza's head" pamphlets around the town. You stalking my movements on Wikipedia to see if I am breaking the rules has itself inspired me to leave Wikipedia. Coordinated group personal attacks on me shows how much Wikipedia is in danger of developing close nit gangs within its topics.

Of course its not Wikipedia's fault, its the fault of users that don't know squat on a subject, then when they see something they ThinK is OR SYN, they jump on that user without looking or researching the evidence for it. So when Ev assumes its OR SYN, and later gets proven wrong (this time by another user who presents the evidence), Ev develops a grudge, and revenge sets in when out of nowhere a topic ban on Ariobarza pops up! A coincedence?

If you do not stop (what I consider a personal attack from you), I will never stop until your true intentions are exposed, possibly an RFC for your other menions too. You spending months on this issue to get me banned from the topic shows how determined you are to get rid of me, actions speak louder than words.

Me being not in contact with my Unofficial mentor or continueing making deleted articles in my userspace is not a violation of any law here. So with the little good faith I still have in me, I ask you to abandon this inapropriate proposal, you must either present the ancient crimes I commited here (which everybody got over) or present new evidence, which does not exist.

I am not saying you have a grudge against me, though it is a possibility. Anyways, I urge you to please stop this, and if you have any concerns with me, to come to my talk page so we can work something out, can we agree? Thank you.

Further comments on conclusion, by Ariobarza; It is not my fault that certian users think I am doing original research, they lack knowledge in the area, and think every claim is unbelievable, history is history, sometimes the sources are old, but if it is not contested by new sources and its reliable then its okay to include them, this was part of another point that I want to make about history articles, citing old sources, we cite Herodotus, his source is 2,500 years old, but a 100 year book of modern history then should be of no problem, and that if (refer to what I said above). I have not done OR for almost 3 months now. I put information there so I could later back it up with references. I know [this] mistake has caused others trouble (not the trouble you saw in Battle of Opis, but deletion articles), and I already said I was sorry and have made some improvements. But now, I HAVE the missing evidence that will shouw WhateveR I said about Battle of the Tigris was true. The end (for Battle of Thermoplyae, Dougweller locked it in mistake, there was no dispute, maybe over Helots, but I came to an agreement with the other user before the lock ended. So the end. I cannot allow you to take this chance from me, no matter how nice you try to act, and say your intentions are good, I can see through your real intentions. I have just a tiny winy bit of good faith left in me for your actions, so I ask you stop. Your only going to waist more of all the users time here. You need to get a life, you have too much free time. YouR NoT HelpinG WikipediA. Bye! And no thanks.

(Ariobarza considers himself the real Operation Enduring Freedom, he has endured annialation attempts by users for months now, and is still standing strong, hopefully a coalition of the willing (whoever reading this) can give an helping hand, so he can survive for the sake of Wikipedia. I will not go quietly into the night, I'm going to survive, I going to prosper... Last stand here I come.)

"Go tell the Wikipedians, passerby; That here, by Persian law, User:Ariobarza; actually Ariobarzan RIP."

--Ariobarza (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Note: Most of these comments (except the third & two last paragraphs) where originally made at my talk page from 05:16 to 14:19, 17 Dec. (UTC), and then copied here. I replied there at the time. - Ev (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:Ariobarza: further discussion

• I strongly object to this ban as Ariobarza has been working on articles in her own userspace as she was instructed to do. She has honored her ban by working quietly and not initiating arguments or being disruptive in the mainspace. Her edits have been good faith edits . Since when do we check peoples' userspace for working edits? This sort of ban would set a very bad precedent. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy Ariobarza's claims that "people are out to get him".

It is Ariobarza's fault that he is doing original research.

It is Ariobarza's fault that he is refusing to learn from advice given to him what Wikipedia's policies on use of sources is.

I have heard the "I will provide sources soon" canard so many times that I've stopped looking at anything except what's presently provided, and his request to me to review his sources for the Battle of the Median Fort did not show much improvement in either politeness or quality of research.

Sure, less time would be wasted on him (I don't believe his self-professed claims of being female any more) if he were banned from Wikipedia. But he's an irritant, not a pest. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Has Ariobarza been inserting significant amounts of problematic material into articles? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she has. See comments on Ariobarza's contributions and examples of articles she created and were subsequently deleted (some also userfied) in the previous ban proposal (e.g. Nickhh's comment) and in this one. See also ChrisO's comments in his userspace. - Ev (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The most obvious example is the edit-warring on Battle of Thermopylae at the end of November, which resulted in the article being fully protected until 10 December. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Question: I am not sure I understand what we exactly propose to ban an enthusiastic editor for. For working on articles in her user space? For an editorial conflict of a few months ago? Can somebody mention recent problems in the article space with the user? Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

For being consistently unable to work within the bounds of our core editorial policies on verifiability and original research (and defending enthusiastically her personal interpretations), resulting in inappropriate content and a drain on our limited resources (i.e., our knowledgable editors working on these topics having to dedicate time & effort to clean-up after her, and argue with her). – See Nickhh's comments during the deletion discussion of "Siege of Gordium".

Someone unable to grasp the meaning or unwilling to follow our core content policies cannot positively contribute content to Wikipedia. In my opinion, we can't ask our knowledgable editors to contribute extra time & patience so that we can accomodate everyone. - Ev (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, I don't think you understand that Siege of Gordium was one minor mistake on my behalf, and the end I agreed to delete. I think your addicted to that article, You did not answer this guy's question rightly, Can somebody mention recent problems in the article space with the user? Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC) and you mislead people when you say YES, [I have not made any disruptive edits or caused RECent problems in the article space. When your continueing to pull that dead article out of the ground, it stinks up the place. I suggest you stop saying Siege of Gordium... Siege of Gordium... Until your tongue falls out. You also forgot this comment, Final Comment: I too have looked for sources, and can not find them, it seems this time you guys are right and that I am right too, because I said I do not have a opinion of FOR or AGAINST the deletion of this article. Whoever added those sentences of the siege, in this (Gordium) article, should walk the plank. Because ChrisO has blindy accused me of using my imagination, (guess this is another thing I will add to list of ChrisO misconducts, which will be published in a book and will be a worldwide best seller, and will bring a revolution of freedom to Wikipedia by studying if the rules can be improved for future generations) of that person [I added what they wrote] to this article, and therefore it turned into blue and came to life. Feel free to delete, it would have been interesting if there was a siege, but guess not, nothing happened at Gordium. Bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk, I barely cared then, and I do not care now if it got deleted. That issue is over, so I am going to be banned for Siege of Gordium, right? I am wrong, I waisted time, your right, is that what you want to hear? My problems are over, I am restarting anew, let go of your hate, and come into the light. These whole issues ended with after my block, and from now I kindly ask you to make your new messages at the bottom of page, so users do not have to look for new messages in the middle of this page. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Ariobarza, Nickhh's comments, as well as mine, were not about that entry in particular, but about your (and certainly others') conduct contributions & involvement in Wikipedia in general. - Ev (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Clarified meaning: conduct → contributions & involvement.-Ev (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Earth to Ev, do you copy. Conduct in general. I know how polite Nickhh can be, trust me. And for Alvestrand the Negative, he has a tendency to say sh.. u. a lot. But I want to be clear, that is his rights, and I wont interfere with that. I already confessed my sins of waisting a couple hours on Gordium, but I AM afraid this is not enough to get me banned. If you want silence me, you have to find something that I did recently, and put it here. Until then no thanks, I'll skip the guillotine. Thanks buddy.--Ariobarza (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• Oppose ban. The "gestating" article on Battle of Tigris looks sourced to me. This looks like a content dispute. Those who have a content dispute with this user should employ the well-developed and finely-tuned procedures that Wikipedia has for resolving difficult content disputes. Oops. Well, they need to find a way to deal with it, anyway. But a ban of this user is not the right way. If it makes anyone feel any better, there are people I'd like to see banned, desysopped, etc., too, but it isn't so easy. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Let me be clear, though I do care what happens too me, If I had the choice of sacrificing my articles for myself, I would not do it. I will rather let my contributions to my articles survive, than myself. I am just afraid that if I get banned, all my hard work will lost. If one thinks about it, Ev is looking for a shortcut to delete my userspace articles, if I get banned, than all the articles will be gone with me (as soon as I am gone, he and others will propose speedy deletions on my userspace articles), dust to dust.

  The problem is I served out my block, I have not made any major edits since my block, I only edit in my userspace. And you have to wait until the end of the week to see if Battle of the Tigris is good. I will not be forced to produce a good article in my userspace ASAP. No one can force me to do that. And I read the earlier comments on Ev's page with ChrisO (a user who I do not have any problems with now). I said if you continue to do this, I will not accept. I did not say I was going to do something drastic or mean. There is absolutely no reason for me to be banned now. So many people are getting driven away from {revisionist} users who are narrow minded, and fail to see the bigger pictue, the people cannot stand anymore of the hate, so they just leave Wikipedia, driving potentialy good faith users away from editing is unwise. People get banned for the worst of reasons, I have done nothing!

  I may be busy in the next 3 days plus I am on the verge of present good evidence for my articles, I cannot waist more time here, I feel like I could be improving my articles now, but I have to come here. This is highly dissapointing to me, that a user is putting so much time and effort in waisting his and ours time, in order to get me banned for issues that are already resolved and or are in the process of being improved, what a shame. Best regards to all.--Ariobarza (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Okay... so let me ask a question. Ariobarza, the problem that people seem to have with your edits is that they contain a lot of original research. Can you tell us what 'original research' means when it comes to Wikipedia, and why we don't allow it? //roux   06:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It means this... Original reseach includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

And in the Original research article, it says in the SEction: [Unclear Boundaries] that Some narrowminded users might mistake new classification with OR. Which means it is sometimes good if a discovery is made, it is okay to include it on Wikipedia. That is all. I am trying to advance a position that the historians on the battle have [already] advanced for a 100 years already, they say it, I put it. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

Well, I tried. //roux   17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(using odd indentation because I'm commenting late) I checked the page Original research, and Ariobarza is misquoting it; the word "narrowminded" does not appear there, and I believe the text as written does not support Ariobarza's position; it's calling out the fact that the periodic table is original research, despite being, at first glance, a compilation. If the person is misrepresenting sources we can all check when discussing Wikipedia policy, why should I believe his representations about ancient Persian history, where my ability to check is far more limited? --Alvestrand (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me highlight a sentence: Which means it is sometimes good if a discovery is made, it is okay to include it on Wikipedia. That would be no, it's not.

Disinterested readers may wish to consult--or at least skim--this dogged example of original research, where Ariobarza energetically attempts to spin up an entire battle up out of a few fragments of translated text. The pose of martyrdom, further above, should also be sufficient to give the disinterested pause. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"The pose of martyrdom, further above, should also be sufficient to give the disinterested pause" For the record, I am not a muslim(if thats what you mean), and I do not appreciate you making a simple epithet, into a martyrdom scandal, Ariobarza is not that crazy. You failed to grasp what I ment.

I will not go quietly into the night, I'm going to survive, I going to prosper... Last stand here I come.)

And I said RIP Ariobarzan, it is another person.

I can't wait to see the look on your face when you are proven wrong. You are wrong CalenderWatcher, just read my biggy message on my talk page, and evolution will set in. No original research, did you ever question "How did Ariobarza come up with such an idea?" It is because most of whom that translated the inscription (with materials they have and we don't) have come to the conclusion that at least the first military engagement between Babylon and Persia occured. It is not up to you or me to decide, based on what we think we know, that the battle did not happen, its up to the Scholars with experience in their fields to decide for us. This line is interesting, "The army of the Persians made an attack," is this a fragment? Thee end.--Ariobarza (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Yes, it is a fragment. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, it is a complete statement, is this a fragment to, actaully an ilegable text to say it better, "The army of the U.S made an attack" This is not a fragment. You need to look into books about the last part of the inscription, there is no destroyed sentence after it, therefore it is a complete statment.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• Ariobarza asked my meddling in my talk page,but I'm not familiar with topic ban. What does it means ? what will be outline of that topic? Are you asking to ban Ariobarza from editing in any historical article?or does it means a ban on creating such topics? or only the battles of Cyrus the great ? Anyway , I do think he still needs some help in being familiar with Wikipedia's roles --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The scope of a ban is defined during the discussion. My initial proposal calls for a ban from the entire project, from all of Wikipedia (read the very first & very last sentences of the proposal). Below AniMate proposes a ban from editing articles (main namespace) only (I assume that including templates also), thus allowing Ariobarza to participate in talk page discussions & work in her user space. - Ev (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. Rather put on restriction for creation of articles related to the classics for a a duration of 6 months. Or a general 6 month ban on creation of new article. The user can create the articles in his userpage and then ask for it to be evaluated. The article on the user's page: "the Battle of Tigris" seems to be partially sourced:[1], but user is urged to strongly provide excerpts from the sources he is quoting. Overall, the amount of articles the user is creating in his userpage is a good sign. He should ask other users for feedback to these articles and then ask them to post it. Also other positive contribution of the user should be highlighted which is providing sources to various article. The issue discussed seems to be from two/three months ago and the user has done a better job since then. At the same time, he is urged to review WP:OR and WP:Synthesis and follow those principles. Succintly summarized with regards to Ariobarza: 1) Do not intrepret primary sources (Herodotus) unless backed up by secondary sources. 2) Check to see if the article the user wants to initiate exists in other Encyclopedias(Britannica, Iranica, etc.) and books (if an academic author ahs written a specific article on the subject matter). If it doesn't, do not start it. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban. Without a major change in attitude, this editor is never going to make a positive contribution toward building an encyclopedia. Looie496 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• For anyone who is unsure of the situation and or wants to Ariobarza's information read the smoking gun at the end of the page, and from now on comment always at the ends of the page, so we can easily find new comments here, thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Link: The Smoking Gun Evidence For All: The Best Of The Best, Sir!. - Ev (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban. The problems with Ariobarza's contributions are numerous, and not just limited to article space - hence the proposal immediately below to restrict Ariobarza to talk pages will not work. To recap:

• Ariobarza does not follow the basic premise of no original research. Her research method consists of finding fragments from Google Books and combining them into a new synthesis. There's no better example of this than User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris, a userspace copy of a now-deleted article. No book on ancient Persian or Babylonian history discusses such a battle. The page is pure OR. The fact that it still exists, in any form, shows that Ariobarza simply does not accept the premise of no original research. This isn't any longer a question of a lack of awareness or understanding - it's wilful and congenital. Her edits are fundamentally untrustworthy.

• Ariobarza's talk page participation is no better. She wastes everyone's time with long, rambling, aggressive and tendentious screeds. We've seen that in this discussion.

In short, she may be enthusiastic but she's simply not capable of being an effective contributor - she appears to have neither the intellectual nor the social skills required, and wastes a great deal of other peoples' time in the process. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban First let me say that I believe the rule on Original Research is often interpreted as being too restrictive, much in the "because we can't find a source that states the nose is located on the face between the eyes & the mouth, so writing that is OR" sort of way. Having said that, I am convinced by the following comment made above that Ariobarza is unable to understand the intent of therule against original research: "I will rather let my contributions to my articles survive, than myself. I am just afraid that if I get banned, all my hard work will lost." If a person adds content to Wikipedia which is not present either in verifiable sources or confirmed by common sense, it will be deleted. If anyone is afraid of their hard work being lost due to other editors, start a blog. You'll be far happier publishing your research there than on Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• The problem, User:ChrisO and User:Llywrch is in utter denial of the evidence that was presented here. ChrisO all I can say is that your a disgusting person, you should be ashamed of yourself. For once, I have the damning evidence for the battle, and you forcefully remove it. Nice why to hide under the rug. I advise you that when you have at least 20 minutes, to go on my talk page and read it there. There you can reflect on it. So when you come back here, YoU can apologize to me and all of those that you have spilled your ignorant lies too. I already apologized for my inexperienced edits almost 3 months ago, and only 2 users, including yourself is pushing this request to get me banned. Everyone got over it, apparently you are still hostile towards me and others. Now that I am finally gathering the sources you jump on this opportunity to get me banned, your delusional and clearly a threat to all progress on Wikipedia, your true colors show here, {As a medical doctor , my profession does not permits me to edit in the best manner in the historical articles . I can advise you not to confront with the users like Chris ,since they may have some prejudices about certain ethnicities and nationalities [2] and confrontation with them and their provocation may result in wasting our time and efforts. Let the time wash away their sensitivities.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC).} I am telling everyone to read the full full, The Smoking Gun Evidence For All: The Best Of The Best, Sir! which answers every question you have! As for ChrisO, I hope he can evolve one day.--Ariobarza (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Please remember WP:NPA. Also, to allay your concerns re: the collapsible text, its use is not a sign of hostility, merely of manageability and they are used often enough on Wikipedia (see the end of George W. Bush for example) that the users here know to use the "show" button and read the text. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Philosopher, please say if you support ChrisO's false accusations, or that you oppose the ban. This page is getting to large, and I appreciate your willingness to come to compromise, its just I no what kind of person he is, and lets say it stops progress on Wikipedia. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• I'm afraid Ariobarza has *still* not understood that it's his conduct that creates the problems around him, not his viewpoints. The way the "smoking gun" "evidence" is presented is a good example of his conduct, which I find unacceptable. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban Per the arguments above. Does nothing for the credibility of this encyclopaedia.--Folantin (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. This user seems to have a somewhat flawed methodology (although, based on other comments, that may have actually improved), but also presents sources and tries to work within the rules. I don't believe a ban is warranted. Everyking (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyking, simply trying to work within our content policies is not enough: editors contributing content to Wikipedia have to be able to actually do so; and in this case Ariobarza has been consistently incapable of doing so (plus the attitude issues). – The price Wikipedia pays for allowing such editors to continue trying is a constant drain on the time, energy & patience of the knowledgeable editors who have to do the clean-up & the arguing, when they could be doing more productive & gratifying work. See Dougweller's comments in this discussion. - Ev (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not simply Ariobarza's methodology - and contra other comments from editors who haven't interacted with Ariobarza recently or at all, it certainly hasn't improved. The rants we've seen on this page and talk pages are just as much part of the problem. Ariobarza simply doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand, NOR. I and others have spent months trying to explain it to her, without success. Advice is consistently ignored. There's a constant "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. Challenges and (constuctive) criticism produce long tendentious rants and accusations. It's impossible to collaborate effectively with an editor who behaves like that. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• If ChrisO wrongly assumed such an event never happened, and derailed users for it, does he have good conduct? Why isn't he here to pay for his supposed sins? Secondly, I find it highly contradictory to NoW say I am doing OR by saying that the Tigris battle happened, when I now have evdence for it which makes it not OR. It is OR on ChrisO's part to assume with no evidence that such an event did not take place. Until ChrisO can find 1 book that denies the existence of such a battle, it is his POV to say it never happened. He is either stubborn, or denying evidence. This user has driven away many potential good users from ever editing Wikipedia with ignorance and lack of knowledge on the subject matter.

  His other great acts are removing sourced materials, from the Opis battle, and half of my deleted articles that he wanted to delete had sourced material in them when they were deleted. The tendency to corner users has become somewhat abusive over time, and he apparently likes to do that. Though I admited to my wrong doings and even thanked ChrisO for his advice, it seems he is now jumping on the opportunity to get me banned. Restarting wars is not good for human progress. I have been editing quietly in my userspace and making minor edits to articles, plus engaging in some good faith debates since my block. There no one great reason for me to get banned, only old accusations, which at least half may be true. I hope users reading this will not take my word or ChrisO/ Ev's word on it, I hope they take what smoking gun evidences word for it, which has evidence. I could not be more sincerely clearer than that, my baby cousin could even understand this, many thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• Support ban rather reluctantly. I had hoped a restriction to talk pages would be a viable solution, but her posts here and on talk pages have convinced me that this isn't possible. The threat of being banned from the project has to be hard to handle, but Ariobarza has consistently handled conflict with other editors poorly. The rants on this page and other talk pages recently come to mind, as do her contributions to AfDs. Sorry, as I really would have liked to have helped you, but keeping you around at this point is a net loss for the project.AniMate 17:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support; shows all signs of being a problem editor. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Ariobarza is well-intentioned, but consistently fails to understand why we must not form articles from synthesized material. To quote policy:If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research and we must make each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. Ariobarza finds sources that passingly and vaguely mention "Battle X", cobbles them together, and makes an article asserting that "Battle X" definitively happened. What he doesn't seem to understand is that none of the sources he uses "explicitly makes [the] claims" that his articles make. I previously offered to help him work on articles in his user space to avoid him being banned, as I think sourcing is probably my greatest strength on Wiki. The offer was accepted but never acted on.

As the user hasn't acted on offers to help him approve and still doesn't appear to understand that his articles are simply synthesized original research, I think a restriction from editing or creating articles is appropriate. Having Ariobarza limited to article talk and user talk would take out much of the harm this user is causing. By having Ariobarza post potential sourced changes on talk, experienced editors would be able to check the claims at their leisure without having to scramble to fix any of Ariobarza's original research. If an experienced editor agrees that his proposed addition of material is sound, it would be added to the article. Additionally, when he feels that the articles he is editing in his user space are ready, another editor would have to look over them to see if they're actually ready to migrate in to article space. I think with restrictions like this in place, Ariobarza would be forced, for lack of a better word, to understand and follow Wikipedia policies without any risk to disruption to the actual articles. AniMate 18:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, I suppose stating that this proposal is a restriction to talk pages might be a little more clear. I see no reason that he (or she) should have to leave the project, but her problematic edits must be curtailed. AniMate 20:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support I think something must be done. A number of editors, including myself, have made considerable efforts to help her to no avail. It has gotten to the point where I avoid looking at her edits because I don't have the energy to engage in a long tangled discussion with her about them. I'm not at all sure we will ever be able to get her to understand our OR policy. Her article-space editing does not help Wikipedia and indeed harms the articles she works on. Sorry Ariobarza, but that is how I see it. Limiting her to talk space would help a lot. She is energetic, which is good, and seems to have a number of sources, and if we can find a way that she can still be a contributor but not an article editor or creator I hope the project will benefit. dougweller (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong somewhat Oppose
  I have the sources cited that explicitly reach the same conclusion, and or the sources cited are directly related to the article subject, then I am not engaged in original research and I have made sure that each claim is attributable to the sources that explicitly make that claim.
  I accepted since October 2008 that I will follow the WP guidelines in WP:Original Research. From now on. So if I have not done anything paticulary wrong since then, why should I now get banned. Either say your for it or against it, please do not be vague! An hour ago I had my 4 wisdom teeth taken out, and have Non-Woven Sponges lodged into my mouth to stop the bleeding, so I eat baby food, and need some sleep. But, I guess I am going to lose some sleep over this page, {NOJOKE}. Thanks you all!--Ariobarza (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I have the smoking gun on my talk page, which is the last message there. Tommorow, after an final revision to it, I will post it here. And God said, "let there be light!" And the light was good.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

The Smoking Gun Evidence For All: The Best Of The Best, Sir!

Hi, these are examples of why Ariobarza should not get banned (this is the whole kit and kaboodle), and how User:Ev is currently waisting time, but accuses me of waisting time, very interesting. This is since the October 2008 topic ban proposal, I kindly ask of anyone who is reading this to; by following the directions below, to please look at these neat links which I have provided, and come to your own conclusion. You will know whether it is OR or not. And it is also not synthesis to comparely mention these sources for the Tigris battle, BEcause if the historians (which if you check the links they do) mention other historians (who by the way are in the article already) in relation to the Tigris battle, then the historians have already done synthesis for me! Therefore, there is no reason for me to do synthesis, which currently I have not done, and the synthesis allegation was an old one. So by comparing their collegges{friends} findings, they are trying to indirectly prove that such an event happened. I ask everyone reading this to please be patient with this message, because it is a interactive thrill ride. Prepare to be amazed!

Collapsed in the name of sanity - don't clog up this page with massive copy and paste dumps, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

For User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris, I said months ago, that for the invasion of Babylon, {two} battles happened by the Tigris River, the Battle of the Tigris, and Battle of Opis (which is also by the Tigris), then all of Babylon submitted to Cyrus; Virtually all of the translators and historians agree, that Babylon and Persia had some sort of military fight with each other (you will realize this later in the message). However, they are divided on whether it involved the Babylonian king or another king by the Tigris, because of the year the tablet dates from, that year is known to historians as the year Cyrus invaded Babylon. At the time, there was (other than the Babylonian king) no other king (there was Gobryas{satrap} and Gadates{nobleman} and they defected to Cyrus, and Cyrus fought a battle on the Tigris to free Gadates, this is according to Xeno, funny coincedence huh?) by the Tigris, so that fringe theory contradicts the known history of Babylon. The historians who translated the event are as follows (similar words boldened); Date Translator/ Historian Text Source 1925 Sidney Smith "... fought. The river Tigris ... In Adar Ishtar of Erech{or Uruk} ... of the sea-land(?) ..." Babylonian Historical Texts 1950 A. Leo Oppenheim "... Tigris. In the month of Addaru the image of Ištar of Uruk [lacuna] The army of the Persians made an attack..." Ancient Near Eastern Texts 1975 Albert K. Grayson "... Tigris. [In the month of] Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ... the ... [the ...]s of the Sea Country ... [arm]y [made an] at[tack] ..." Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles 2004 Jean Jacques Glassner "[...] was killed. The Tig[ris ... (?). In the month of] Adar (?) Ištar of Uruk [...] the [troops] of Per[sia{ns}... the troop]s [...]." Mesopotamian Chronicles 2007 Amelie Kuhrt "[...] killed(?)/defeated(?). The river ... [...] Ishtar of Uruk [...] of Per[sia{ns} (?) ...]" The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period Read the last sentence of page 144, book is from 1998, and bases it's finding's on the inscriptions, not Xenophon. I will keep bringing up the question of Xenophon's reliability, to show that I do not even need his approval, User:Alvestrand keeps mentioning that he is not reliable {which I agree}, I am even willing to omit Xenophon account on the Tigris battle. But I want to stress the point that Xenophon appears in only 1 of my references, and all he does is further confirms the battle, so I consider Xenophon's account as unreliable, but still worth mentioning. I wanted to get that out of the way, and so here is the link that has nothing to do with Xenophon. [3]. Now I only use Xenophon(note:his other works like "The Persian Expedition" are mostly history, and some of his battles, such as Battle of Thymbra has also been confirmed by Herodotus and others, the Cyropaedia however is as Ev says, [partly] true) his accounts appear on Wikipedia's battles already, so why not include for the Tigris battle? His account only ConfirmS what is already said on the inscription. This book compares fact and fiction and uses SeCONDARY sources, plus say's Herodotus' and Xenophons' versions of events both describe the same event, not seperate invasions (Gobryas and Gadates were together by the way), and is from 1993. Read pages, 255-6, 257, 259, 263. [4]. This book is from 1988. The next books down this list of sources for the Tigris battle are AlL scholarly books (they include thee best and award winning scholars in the fields of Near Eastern history, no jokes folks, go to main page of the Tigris battle and click on their names). read the first paragraph of page 121. Then, look for Note65 in the last sentence of the first paragraph, which the explanation appears near the end of that page. This is new and damning evidence that now shows, that out of the 5 translations, only 1, which is the most outdated and oldest translation, mistakes Persia for Sea Country (by the way if it was Sea Country, the tablet say's "on the Tigris", the Sea Country people were on the Euphrates more than a 100 miles south of the Tigris in northern Arabia, not in northern Iraq(Babylon)! The old translation even calls Uruk, Erech, so the oldest translator has problems. Therefore, virtually all of the new translators and historians (plus other authors who STUDIED the tablet) agree it was the Persians, if you go to the Tigris article, and look at the translations, you will see this. I said months ago that maybe the translation refers to a Persian advance party, therefore meaning Cyrus invaded into Babylon near the end of 540 BC(February 539}, not September 539 as User:ChrisO believes (he went to the {city} of Babylon in September, but entered the {country} in February 539. [5]. Though this link is not the strongest evidence, this book makes the mistake of saying the sixteenth year of Nabonidus was in 539 BC, but the fact that it say's sixteenth year (FacT:meaning the end of 540 BC), would then mean he is refering to the inscription (it is the only inscription too that has end of 540 BC on it) that describes the Tigris battle. He is saying Cyrus BegaN his invasion in the end of 540 BC, not 539 BC, so by February?, the battle or some border scrimage happened. The book is virtualy from 1900, but even then historians were pretty sure when the invasion happened. [6]. Amélie Kuhrt's 2007 book, is by far the best evidence. User:ChrisO, who I remember I had a minor (as compared to other users) dispute over whether Cyrus killed the people or army of Akkad in the Battle of Opis, he even thinks she is the best for translating these texts, and because most historians believe Cyrus killed the people which she agreed with, he said Lambert's translation(note:it is also interesting that users say for the Tigris battle, that there is no consensus on which translation is right, so the Tigris article should not exist, Yet for the Opis battle, there is AlsO no consensus for the best translation, so why is there a article for it?!) for the Battle of Opis is a fringe theory (which I now agree with). Now for the directions, on page 53 read NoteS 4, 6, 7-8. You could say, "but note.4 is refering to something else." BuT, note.4 say's Von Voigtlander (1963: 194), and in note.6 it say's Von Voigtlander (1963: 194-5) again, note.4 and note.6 are describing the same event. Here it is, I know it sounds complicated, but be sure that you know the directions before you do this, or you will get more confused. I am sorry I can not make this simpler. [7]. Some have even said Herodotus' invasion story is purely false. Yet, in this 2006 book, we now have evidence that he mistaked the Median Wall, with the wall of Babylon. And that he does not mistake Darius' invasion of Babylon for Cyrus,' he mentions them as two seperate events. Therefore some positive changes could be made the Battle of Opis. Basically meaning it is better if a tale is confirmed by Herodotus than not confirmed at all. Although I agree that Herodotus is not that reliable either way, page 356, 358. [8]. For this book, it is from 1989, and spends one full page on the supposed battle. It states that there is some truth to Herodotus' via Xenophons' account, and that the Persian army was doing something on the Tigris in February 539 BC. The only thing he does not mention is the fact that on the inscription it says the "army of the Persians made an attack." He notes that then the Persians had to have already begun the invasion near the end of 540 BC to already be stationed on the Tigris by February 540 BC. And their march on the {city} of Babylon was September to October (therefore this sentence does not conflict with the known history of Bablyon). Do not forget to look for note.3 on page 44, the explanation for the note that is at [the bottom of the page] and say's Grayson, which is one of the translators, prefers reading it as Persia not Sea Country. So now 1 translater (the outdated and oldest, plus possibly dead guy) does not agree with; me, the four other translatiorns, plus at least five other historians that believe the event happened (this does not mean that only ten people know about this, more undiscovered people and books are still out there. This looks like a 90% consensus that such a event did happen. That is why all they think is that probably the border patrols of Babylon had a minor encounter with the invading Persians, and were driven away. And also, in the bottom of that page too, it say's the translation for Persia in its thesis was written in a unpublished paper on the inscription. [9]. There is a snippet link for this one (but do not worry, you will see everything that is here, there too). The late, yet renowned historian, Olmstead, is pretty sure of what he is talking about. I have this book from 1960. It say's this, and you are welcomed to find this book yourself to confirm what I say here as the truth. Furthermore, a passage (in page 40) from Olmsteads book (History of the Persian Empire) reveals that upon Oppenheim's translation, he agrees with him in coming to the following conclusion... Heading of the page reads; "FOUNDER CYRUS[it is actually in capitals in the book]: "Conquest of Babylonia" "The way thus paved by the dissaffected elements of the population, Cyrus made ready to invade the alluvium as soon as he had returned from his eastern campaigns. Before the snows of the winter of 540-539 could fill the passes, he (Cyrus) was on the border. Nabu-naid brought the gods of Eshnunak, Zamban, Me Turnu, and Der to the capital before their capture. He (Nabonidus) suffered a defeat {on the Tigris}, but the only defense he could think of was to bring to his aid Ishtar of Uruk in March.[91] Nabu-naid might try to explain the deportation as protection of the capital against the foreigner; the citizens complained loudly of temples abandoned by their divinities and lying in ruins." Here is the semi-full link, [10]. On the next page (in page 50), Olmstead say's, "Cyrus fought ANOTHER battle (this time) at Opis." I also checked the note.91, and it say's, "Chron,. col. III, 11. 1-2." And found out it is refering to the inscription that records the Battle of the Tigris!!! Here is the jaw dropping link, [11]. Overall, Olmstead argues that when the inscription say's, Ishtar of Uruk, and as we all know Ishtar was the goddess (statue) of Uruk, Nabonidus wanted divine help from her. As we go more into the future, the inscription gets more worn off. So when it was legible in the 50's, it was mostly complete. And to this day, no historian has come forth saying what Olmstead say's is wrong (so it is a reliable and unrefutted source). The historians however, now because the inscription is not legible, neglect mentioniing the battle in new books. That is why {only} the best scholars on the subject know about it, and other less experienced authors do not mention this battle. So we know now that Olmstead and most others believe and explicitly say that two battles happened, and the first one was a real but minor battle with no specific details. The book is referenced like this, Olmstead, A.T., History of the Persian Empire, University of Chicago Press, [1948]Paperback edition(1959) p. 49-50. ISBN 0226627772. Conclusion on Battle of the Tigris: Well, what can I say, I could say that the Tigris battle, with this much material has the potential to be a long, debatefull, good sourced, and interesting article. I might even change the title to be more appropriate. And totally revamp it, to make the content in the article more neutral. By presenting ExcatlY what every historian/ translator has said about the inscription. {The fact that such an event is support by MosT 90% of the top notch scholars who are the best on the subject and the most reliable sources out there, plus ancient accounts, archaeological evidence, and even recorded on a tablet from Babylon, makes it hard to deny.} If anyone denies it, they are baised at best, and that is the inconvenient truth. I do not know what is going on out there, but know someone or something is indirectly suppressing this information. Whether it is part of a broader agenda, or a grouped of user(s) with grudges, it is a real mystery to me. Keep in mind, that the scholars have better materials with them, than is available to us, so a smoking gun was discovered, and they agree the some vague but true battle had occured. Finally, I hope this information I provided was enlightening, and wish the best for all. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Gordium (November 2008): Almost a year ago, instead of looking for sources, I accidently (I thought the "siege" word had been sourced) took the mention that "the Macedonian commander Parmenion captured the city [of Gordium]" from the Wikipedia article on Gordium (copied verbatim from livius.org, but without inline citation) and the unsourced mention of a "Siege of Gordium" from a Wikipedia [12] Later during the discussion I interpreted the book snippet "Alexander conquered... Phrygia (there he took a strong Persian fortress Gordion)" as a POSsible confirmation of the siege taking place: "And according to the most recent comments, I think someone has found this siege to be true, am I right?" I never thought it had happened for sure, and I already explained in my first big message here, that Ev chose what part to take out of my message, thus misrepresenting what I had said (he did not include what I said after and at the end of the issue). Again, this is explained in my first big message here. You are welcomed to look at it. Talk:Battle of Thermopylae (February - November 2008): Actaully the edit block on the article was a mistake by User:Dougweller, I had one small dispute with User:MinisterForBadTimes (a user that I always respect for expanding the article) on the number of Helots in that battle, I gave him links to books that have different numbers for them, it was never my own personal interpretations of ancient primary sources. He disagreed that it would change the format, and I disagreed. But BeforE the block had ended, he proposed a deal, I accepted and proposed an extension to that deal. After the block expired, I let him edit freely, and he let me make minor changes to the article, issue solved. Talk:Siege of Sardis (547 BC) (February - December 2008): I think Ev didn't bother to actually read my message on that page, which I clearly gave evidence on that siege taking place in 547 BC. I was never argueing with anyone, I put it there for everyone to see. Deleted entries in Ariobarza's userspace, which it is arrogant on Ev's part to say that these articles are much more of the same, when I have only started. And he is suggesting we put a due date on them, I guess he likes to rush people. User:Ariobarza/Battle of Pasargadae — (AfD: redirect to Pasargadae) User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Marsyas — (AfD: delete) User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Median Fort User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris — (AfD: delete) User:Ariobarza/Siege of Doriskos — (AfD: delete) User:Ariobarza/Siege of Kapisa — (AfD: delete) User:Ariobarza/Siege of Pasargadae Hill — (AfD: delete) And there is a possibility of making these articles to, [only when I am finished making the ones above, and I wont request to make the articles, until they have been approved by multiple users.

This is one of the final messages of User:Ariobarza on this page, he is currently tired of spending 3 hours to make this message. And hopes that users will finally realize what is finally going on. The readers are now welcomed to take deep breaths. Thank you and good bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

All that time that I supposed waisted the time of other users is already compiscated, because I patrol my watchlist, and prevent vandalizing and look out for other articles, while I edit in my userspace. For once I want to thank you Ariobarza, because no one here ever mentions how much you contribute to Wikipedia. Bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• Oppose ban - the User is not not entirely detrimental, and errors can be fixed. See WP:GRIEF. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Experience has shown that 'fixing' takes an inordinate amount of time. Are you volunteering? dougweller (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Indeed. Experts shouldn't have to waste their time on crankery, especially if encyclopaedic content suffers. Wikipedia is not therapy has some cogent things to say about this whole affair. --Folantin (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Improper canvassing by Ariobarza

I note that Ariobarza has responded to this discussion by canvassing a number of other (presumably fellow Iranian) editors to intervene. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. That's clearly improper canvassing, and it's not a sign of good faith. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a WP:CANVASS violation. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Links to the full comments Ariobarza made between 12:57 and 13:01, 18 Dec. (UTC) at the talk pages of Alborz Fallah, Kamranmirza, Wayiran & Xashaiar: "The time has come, you can go here, administrators' noticeboard to oppose my ban, I need as many votes as I can get to survive". - Ev (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Shamefull misleading of information with lies by ChrisO

Improper canvassing and threats to more than one user, [19], I'm sorry, is this the best evidence to get me banned? If your going to accuse me of something, make sure you have not done it yourself. I was notifying the users in Iranology to come on this page freely, and decide if they are for or against my ban. Only on one or two of the messages, I thought the user was against my ban, and I found out he ultimately was. So in this case, you have nothing better to do, but exaggrate my actions again. Your not sticking to the points I am making on this, changing the subject is unwise.

I would be ashamed of myself to list old errors as a ban page for ChrisO or anyone else, because I know that renewing old hostilites will hurt progress on Wikipedia, but apparently Ev and ChrisO LIKE doing this. I presented evidence here that the Tigris battle happened, and he has yet to acknowledge that he's wrong. This is a content dispute, not a user dispute. Below is a list of what ChrisO has done that he acccuses me of doing, plus more, I have removed the signed comments of other users for the protection of their privacy. I do not want to change the subject of my ban, but I have to get this off my chest. I have collected the information recently because I was appauled at what I saw. I am sorry I am putting this information here, but I am tired of ChrisO's hypocrisy. After reading the below message, you will hopefully be more aware of this issue, and hopefully wont waste your vote, thanks.

Collapsed to not clog up page.

Sorry, this message is long, but I saw that a user complained about an admin on the ANI page, about he getting blocked for not even violating any rules while messaging, well, it happend to me too. Hi, I saw that some admin was imperiously using their powers, were you commented in the noticeboards incidents, well the same thing happened to me. I had recently, well a lot of people too, have complained about the admin ChrisO, please do not contact him. I had been blocked for being a little mean to him. I was not experienced and I started making unsourced articles, which half got deleted. Now I make them in my user space. He has formed some sort of gang of 4-5 admin that will do anything he says. Ever since last month he came here, saying he is neutral, then trying to point his own point of view here, he was blocked once for excessive redirects. He has made various pages with a list of users to be punished, especialy calling me an iranian nationalist, for editng persian related articles. He is a major source of disruption, I and someone else got blocked for two weeks. Then now he has gone through so much length to prove us wrong, I know he has an agenda. Then I got blocked for saying he is too strict and wants to add PATRIOT ACT type laws to Wikipedia, FOR THIS SENTENCE, I was blocked by one of his minians. He is very strict, he told me to shut up. And other users like him say occasionally bullshit, crap, and other mean words, then saying I am uncivil and attacking them, I am losing it. They just come and delete articles not contribute. If you can help form a study group if you have the time or agree to make with me an investigation of these users, I would appreciate it. Specialy ChrisO here is some rules he has broken, note: he has ties to the top of Wikipedia, making a ANI page for him will be hard, because he has a lot of supporters, some good, some bad. HE HAS a POV OWN revisionist policy that is making editing on Wikipedia a hell, he mostly and only accuses me of OR, which later I get the sources and prove him wrong. So going back to the story I was blocked for the patriot act sentence, can you believe that for a day I was blocked. I do not really have the time to make an ANI page, people let him get away with a lot of things as an admin. He ignores me when I come to solutions. Here 75% of the wrong things he has done, plus canvass, spy, and threaten... A) ChrisO deleting comments from valid sources (including Briant) from the archives: [20] and then files claims in ANI about my so called original research! I have hardly edited this article. I am discussing three valid sources and why they are not included in the aftermath. I am not discussing Lambert, I consider that part to have been partially resolved (we can of course add his linguistic arguments to the reference). I am wondering if the three sources I mentioned from published textbooks are WP:OR that ChrisO deletes them from the archives before they have been put in the article? B) Note the three sources which were deleted from the archives by user ChrisO: 1) "In the month of Tesri(October), says the chronicle, 'Cyrus did battle at Opis on the Tigris against the troops of Akkad' One battle broke the Babylonian king's paid army; and there was no popular resistance anywhere. Indeed one reading of the text, Akkad broke out into open revolt, and Nabonidus' last military achievement was slaughter of rebels" (Andrew Robert Burn, D. M. Lewis, "Persia and the Greeks", Published by Stanford University Press, 1984. 2) Pierre Briant: "Besides the chronicle (III. 12-13) refers directly to an initial battle won by Cyrus at Opis on the Tigris, dated 10 October 539. This victory was followed by an immense haul of booty and the massacre of those who attempted to resist" (Pierre Brian, From Cyrus to Alexander: History of Persian empire, Published by EISENBRAUNS, 2002) (note those who attempted to resist were soldiers obviously and the important part is "those who attempted to resist" which is not covered in Grayson's translation but it is scholarly intrepretation by Briant). 3) "Opis revolted against Babylon when Cyrus attacked. Allegedly Nabonidus massacred the confused inhabitants for revolting" (Paul John, The Genesis of Misconception: Book 1, Published by Trafford Publishing, 2007). C) ChrisO quotes Kuhrt in half(deleting the crucial part of a sentence) and cuts off half of her sentence: [21] and then deletes it from the archives when this is pointed out: [22] D) ChrisO violates 3rr as an admin and gets two hours and simple warnings. Sometimes he is just let go. E) Finally ChrisO has been driving away different users from contributing in this and various other articles. In the last two months, he has had problems with at least 5 different users. I believe he adopted a policy of WP:OWN with regards to different articles and uses his administrator power to enforce WP:OWN through threats of permanent bans on non-admin users. In the last month or so, he has had problems with several users (Iranian, Jewish and etc.) of variety of backgrounds and constantly labels them. Obviously as an admin he can be rude to these users. F) I made a mistake for not reporting him another time for 3rr violation. Partly due to what I thought was a veiled threat by another admin [23] but partly I was just trying to resolve the issues nicely in this article. Unfortunately that was a big mistake by me and I should have reported him. G) I will take a break from this article, since with the effective bureaucracy, it is obvious what happens to those who point out ethical mistakes by the user who is also typically rude (behind the monitor). Amazing someone can delete three valid sources from the archives, cover his track (when caught deleting half a curical sentence) and delete other parts of the archives, break 3rr when he feels like and violate WP:OWN. Sure he can cross out his own comments or delete them, but he should not delete comments by other users from the archives. Specially considering the treatement of other users( Tundrabuggy and etc.). The ChrisO (talk · contribs), an administrator who is heavily involved in some content disputes at Middle East-related articles, is maintaining a subpage in his userspace which seems to be violating the Wikipedia attack page policy, User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I attempted to remove the infringing sections,[24][25] but he has simply kept putting them back, and has now used his admin tools to protect the page to prevent further "vandalism".[26][27] He has now passed 3RR,[28][29][30][31] is maintaining a policy-violating page in his userspace, is misusing his admin tools,[32][33] and is accusing an admin trying to enforce policy, of performing vandalism. He also just threatened to block User:Elonka.[34] So if he's misusing his admin tools in this way, more admin eyes are definitely needed. The list of articles is not the problem. The issue involves personal attacks at other editors, such as referring to them as Iranian nationalists. Those were the sections I was trying to remove,[35] and still feel should be removed, per WP:ATP and WP:NPA. This is part of his larger effort to paint a legitimate editing dispute as a policy issue. Chris has also canvassed dozens of editors to watchlist the page, essentially turning it into a vehicle for vote-stacking ([36]), stalking, and defaming other users. Many of the people involved in this discussion were canvassed earlier as well ([37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], and a dozen more). As for attack pages, again, how about the section misconduct issues on Talk:Battle of Opis and the one 'pure lie and misrepresentation of the problem" at the discussion page[45]. This shows exactly how some people are working behind the scenes to back each other up even it means twisting statement. I did not call ChrisO a liar. I said: "pure lie and misrepresentation of the problem" which is stating an opinion on his opinion about me (his opinion is in violation of WP:ATP, specially when he started that page, he had targed 6-7 editors[46]. Please note ChrisO even accused me of edit warring, which is a lie. I hardly edited those pages. If anyone was edit warring, it was ChrisO who is an admin and yet broke 3rr on that page. Possibly, I broke 1rr but not even 2rr. Stating an opinion on an opinion is fine in Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPA where it explicitly states: Comment on content, not on the contributor.. Personal Attacks are not fine, but that was comment on content. Of course ChrisO has constantly called anyone who disagrees with him as an "Iranian nationalist". For example I have listed some Iranian nationalists here starting from Plato, Herodotus, Xenophon and etc to modern Western scholars:[47]. Trying to change the topic now will not work and change focus. How about this comment by ChrisO with regards to me: [48]. Please note his threats and intidimation. The whole comment violates many rules of Wikipedia. " Carrot first before stick?" shows complete arrogance (due to administrator power) and WP:OWN mentality and I even believe that is how ChrisO feels about who disagree with him and are not fromt he same area. Or how about this: "could provide a final opportunity for the editor in question to take account of feedback". This is a threat for permanent banning and it is intidimation. All this, due to a content dispute (and I hardly edit any of these articles before discussing them and I have never reverted in any of these articles or broken 3rr like ChrisO). As per the issue of the Kurdish literature template, I have no doubt it is related. Incidentally if I was an “Iranian nationalists”, I would not create a Kurdish literature template. I have already mentioned templates which include: [49] [50][51] and have existed for some years now. Why were those not put to deletion after two-three years? So what I have done is create a parallel Kurdish Literature template when I saw Urdu, Turkish, Persian and etc. templates that have existed for some years. If there is a Turkish literature template, Urdu literature template,..etc., why not Kurdish literature template. If I was an "Iranian nationalist", I would have just let there be a Persian literature template and then redirected Iranian Literature to Persian literature instead of making that page a dab page. As per ChrisO being knowledegable in the classics, when it comes to ancient Persia, I also have a knowledge of Old Persian language as well as have read many history books and articles. So that does not give an execuse to misue administrator power. ChrisO has abused his administrator power to intimidate other editors and has violated WP:ATPWP:NPAWP:3RR numerous times. When he disagrees with them, he labels them instead of concentrating on content and this leads to an atmosphere of intidimation(of course since he is an admin and he knows the other side knows he is an admin, this makes the threat credible). You are trying to change the subject. I commented on content and not the person which is common to Wikipedia rule. ChrisO had made the comment here. Neither unlike ChrisO, I have intidimated users and threatened to ban them or treat them as inferior animals(carrots or sticks comment) or have canvessed 40 users to my talkpage and then defamed 6-7 users:[52] and then used my administrator power to lock the article which defames individuals. I hope that clears things up. As per the Kurdish Literature template, it was the tone of nominator which was the problem. Note the nominator said: This navbox appears to have been created by a tendentious editor in order to pursue his agenda. The template relies on a nationalistic definition. Most of the entries are not linked. . ChrisO then puts "per nom". The reason for deletion should be given without labeling the editor. And the template had no agenda. The template follows regular patterns in other Wikipedia templates that have existed for many years (Urdu, Turkish, Persian literature templates..) and there was no agenda by a tendentious editor following a nationalistic definition! Now if those other templates that have existed many years are inappropriate, then reason should be given rather than labeling editors as the nominator did. As per bias, I'll leave it to other editor. Lets not get into semantics. If statement is wrong, then it is a lie. It could be an intentional or non-intentional lie, but it is a lie. One definition of lie in my dictionary is:an inaccurate or false statement. Now, if somethings falls under a label "editors of concern", the word "lie" is appropriate since it is an inaccurate satement! Per Wikipedia rules, you can make comments on content but not label editors. You brought this matter up, but as you noticed, it does not go against any Wikipedia rule since I am commenting on content. As per 3rr and ChrisO, it occured twice, not once. Breaking 3rr twice is edit warring, specially in the same topic. But one revert is not edit warring. So ChrisO has called my editing pattern for that article as "edit warring"(which is a lie: false/inaccurate satement) where-as he broke 3rr twice on the same article. He was blocked once, but then he did it again, I was about to file a report, but I withdrew (out of good faith)[53][54]. So I did not continue it. And it was right after he broke a 3rr before. As per me edit warring on battle of Opis, no I did not edit war. Predicting banning and then putting my name constantly next to a banned user, is intrepreted as a ban threat. Grouping different users and putting my name next to a banned user is an intidimation tactic. Also "Carrot and Stick" is intidimating comment as well as arrogant. I am sure you would not like such comments applied to you. There is no need for me to repeat myself and I think I was clear. If you disagree fine. I think that such pages as ChrisO's are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia, definitely not appropriate for an administrator to have (who is supposed to appear neutral as an administrator), reflects POV and possible SOAP problems, and violates many editorial ethical concerns. I think, at the very minimum, such pages should be immediately deleted and the user warned against creating such thing in the future. They are not compatible with consensus, civility, or any of Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia is about working together, finding unity in which all people can be agreed upon, and not the place for one person who has "truth" to pass blank judgment on all others without actually getting into discussions, focusing on specific events, wording, phrasing, etc. Because that list focuses on content and not the contributor. It's also worth pointing out that that particular contributor was the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance and was completely banned from the topic area for a year. The problem with ChrisO's subpage is not the list of articles. Having a list of articles that need cleanup is absolutely okay. The problem with ChrisO's subpage, is that it is also being used to snipe at other contributors. If he removes the personal attacks, the page is fine. I am not sure if you have read everything here, since this is about behaviour. I did not concentrate on content but on actual mislabeling of editors and their defamation. Yes we need to dispute content, use RfC, follow WP:OR and WP:Synthesis and etc. But ChrisO has been having problems with 6 or so editors within one month and has used many labels for these editors and violate 3rr and etc. Again I think it is simply best to forget this whole episode and concentrate on content in articles. But it is very important not too label editors whom we disagree with and not use comments such as "carrots or stick" and etc. for them. Then the whole atmosphere is ruined. So let us follow civility rules and not label editors, but work on content and use RfC and etc. Threats and intidimation and etc. should be stopped. The main goal of editors in Wikipedia is to create an Encyclopedia that is reliable, so lets work on that goal rather than labeling editors or choosing sides/making groups. I have always tried to be civil and polite and I do not appreciate comments like "Carrots before sticks" or "has edit warred"(when I hardly edited that specific topic) and etc. Thank you. The main problem is that ChrisO mislabels people instead of concentraing on content and various labels in order to render input from other editors with diffing viewpoints as null. His "Carrots over stick" comments I believe shows arrogance and WP:OWN. Also by defaming people originally and then canvessing editors to look at the defamation, he has created a poor atmosphere. Also as an admin who broke 3rr twice on the same page, he accusses me of edit warring (I hardly edited the topic). Overall though, we can use his help for these articles, but I he should not abuse his admin privilidges to induce an atmosphere of intidimation. I think RfC and mediation when there is content dispute is the best way to go. Also scholars can differ in viewpoints and the main goal is to represent a variety of differing viewpoints based on weight. I myself have emphasized quoting specialists. So when I pointed out Wieshofer/Kuhrt are not specialists in Akkadian (and we found out that Wiesehofer did not make a translation even unlike what originally ChrisO said), I was ignored. So to cut it short, if ChrisO stops mislabeling/defaming editors, then these articles can be fixed keeping in mind pertaining wikipedia guidelines. The matter should not go beyond a content dispute. It's a personal review. In fact the user had some very good ideas which you did not address. I agree with his view of this completely. How does labeling other editors as "bad editors" help you "fix" the problem? Simply because you disagree with the perspective of others does not make them "bad editors." Making such statements about good faith editors shows a lack of AGF as well as of Civil, a core Wiki value. The page should be refactored without name-calling and disparaging remarks or else completely deleted. Well said. The mislabeling and disparaging remarks about editors should stop. Lets not forget this originally started when the page he created had disparaging remarks about editors and then he canvessed 40 or so people to view the disparaging remarks. So if the intention is to improve the quality of articles, lets discuss the problems of these articles in an appropriate wiki-project rather than a userspace which can be locked. Doug - "This page disparages the contributions of other users. Are we going to delete every page that discusses problems with other editors?" This page does not list others, cite where they have problems editing, and keep that list up for everyone to see. Any list that collects editors and criticizes their editing ability instead of working to form a consensus is highly inappropriate. If ChrisO had a problem with those editors, he could either work with them or come to ANI. Furthermore, an admin compiling such a list can be very problematic, as it would remove all ability to view their actions as neutral or looking at the situation neutrally, and it can have a chilling affect as a pseudo administrative warning to those editors without going through proper channels.

--Ariobarza (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

off the rails

I support a full ban of Ariobarza. The problems with his misunderstanding of the no original research policy have been amply demonstrated here, as is another problem: any "discussion" w/Ariobarza quickly gets spammed with vaguely relevant wall-o'-text posts, which render the thread completely useless. This is a form of disruptive editing, not to mention a gigantic waste of time, both for Ariobarza and whoever actually bothers to read through the thread. Let's put an end to it, shall we? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah wow. I was willing to give some latitude, but my patience is well and truly exhausted. User would rather obfuscate the issue than learn. Time to say goodbye. //roux   03:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, me presenting evidence of why I should not get banned means I am off the rails, wow, your funny. So a bunch of users are going to decide to delete me because of my wrong impression, I would like a bigger audience to decide if I am about to be deleted or not. bye.

Yes, Akhilleus lets put an end to Ariobarza (in the same way T-1000 puts an end to other people), if I'm about to be terminated, I will spread the hope of salvation for future generations, thank you all.--Ariobarza (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Other than producing your own rants, why Dont You look at the sections smoking gun and misleading, and all your questions will be answered, is that too much to ask? Why do you people like to fill up this page with uneccessary comments that fuel lies. If you done this in the begining, you would not say I do OR, SYN, CIVIL, like I said, you will be amazed. Use common sense for once. Why make things so complicated, so I can get mad? And give you an excuse to ban me? How mean, how very mean of the supporters that want to ban me, my feelings and wisdom teeth are hurt. I am still not sure why I am going to be banned, I not did break any rule, edit only in my userspace since my block, resolved issues with old conflicts of other users. This is an ELITIST and Opinionated page dominated with uncommon sense users(I am only refering to the users who are for my ban). When I type, I say things straight forwardly, so I am not afraid to hide my true feelings, and act in a taboo matter to just follow the herd, I am not sheep. My all be enlightened. Warmest regards.--Ariobarza (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Okay, new suggestion

Block Ariobarza with the caveat that he may use his talkpage to develop articles. Anything good that is developed may be added to extant (or new) articles, properly attributed of course. Anything not good may simply be ignored. Ariobarza gets to keep contributing, edits get vetted without any concerns about OR or SYN being introduced into mainspace, everyone is happy. Endorse/oppose? //roux   04:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse I totally agree with your independent input on my ban, and glady accept your proposal if that is what it takes for me to contribute free knowledge to Wikipedia. I want to give you my greatest thanks for giving me one final chance to redeem myself. I have already evacuated my userspace articles on my own Ark, so just in case I was to be banned I could email them to proffessional historians to be peer viewed. Like I kinda said before, I will request my userspace articles to be created, only when they have been reviewed and accepted by multiple users. I am willing to take other users advice to heart, and I will do my best to learn from them. Thanks again.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• Who is going to spend their time reviewing Ariobarza's contributions and arguing with her about why they're unusable in articles? Ariobarza has already spurned Animate's mentorship and ignored all the advice she's been given about following NOR. Are you willing to spend weeks or months on it? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Who said Ariobarza is going submit all the information at once so it will take a long time for others to review it? If I am giving this chance, I will submit my contributions piece by piece, so it will be easier on others. The reason I have not really looked into me being mentored by Animate, is because he himself said he was not going to be a full time mentor, and at the time I did not need his help. I only need my mentor for reviewing what I submit, but before I could submit anything, Ev proposed a ban on me. So I have to constantly waist time coming here to see what becomes of my fate on Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedian's interested in Iranian related articles look optimistic in helping me, and I already favor a broader community to review my work, so it will not have any POV in it. So finally all the work I submit will be verifiable (no OR or SYN), plus it could be neutral and fairly balanced. Thank you all.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• While drafting the ban proposal I did consider restrictions like this one (user space only) & AniMate's alternative (user space & discussions). I concluded that in all likelyhood it would not work, for two reasons:

  1). It requires a volunteer willing to devote the time needed to review Ariobarza's contributions thoroughly (and do the arguing), because any original research moved to articles for a lack of proper vetting would still be a drain on the time & energy of other editors, thus probably reducing the magnitude of the problem but not solving it.

  2). I really don't like the idea of declaring someone's user space an original research heaven especifically destined to promote novel ideas (Wikipedia not being a blog or webspace provider, or a memorial site for martyred editors for that matter). Keep in mind that Ariobarza has consistently engaged in personal interpretations, and appears unable to grasp or adhere to the concept of "no original research". - Ev (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support this new proposal. I can't see anything wrong with it. Other people use their wikispace to work on articles. Ariobarza clearly has something to offer wiki. She is not vandalising articles, or POV-pushing, like so many on wiki do on a regular basis. If Ariobarza can find other users who will review her contributions it should not concern those editors who are not involved. I, for one, would be willing to be one of the editors to at least take a cursory look at anything she is ready to submit and offer criticism. I am sure there are other editors here, more experienced than I, who would do the same. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: There seems to be broad agreement that Ariobarza, over a period of many months, has engaged in persistent original research, and inserted huge amounts of material (sometimes entire articles) into Wikipedia based on their own speculation and guesswork about events in ancient history. This has made WP articles about ancient Greek/Persian history extremely suspect and unreliable, and has caused far better editors to waste hours of their time (both in terms of locating the errors, and then working through WP's cumbersome procedures for removing anything which is not blatant and outright vandalism). Several of those articles were - correctly - deleted. However we seem to have offered those articles a get-out-of-AfD-free card, since they still exist in Wikipedia and come up as the first result in Google searches, albeit they are now in Ariobarza's userspace. This proposed arrangement would formalise and validate that situation, and in fact encourage Ariobarza to continue adding nonsense articles and made-up information into the system here. Ev is 100% right of course about WP:NOTMYSPACE. Nor is it a question of giving Ariobarza time to find sources or build these articles into mainspace-worthy pages. When many of these articles were deleted, it was because there were no sources to be found - they were mostly about entirely fictitious events, as other editors had to show by doing their own research into the issue. Most of these articles are never going to "come good", yet they remain here with Wikipedia's imprimatur. And even if this were to be possible in some cases, who is going to vet and approve every single sentence of every one of these articles? I note Tundrabuggy has offered but given this comment in one of the AfD debates (the diff is actually to my response to that comment), I doubt that would help much. I don't feel comfortable about demanding bans of any sort, but I don't see this userspace proposal as being a workable or happy compromise in any way. --Nickhh (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Implementation of Roux's new suggestion by Guy

My apologies for the lenght of this post.

Guy, you have implemented Roux's new suggestion (diff. & diff.). Although I don't want to extend this discussion more than necessary, I'm unsure whether such action corresponds to whatever degree of consensus has developed so far in this discusion, and I'm pretty confident that it isn't the right solution here. – At least not in its current form.

Akhilleus, AniMate, ChrisO, Dweller, Folantin, llywrch, Looie496, Mathsci, Ncmvocalist & myself support a full community ban.

6SJ7, Bearian, Everyking & Nepaheshgar oppose any ban. But only Nepaheshgar appears to have given some thought to his opinion. –– The fact that 6SJ7, Bearian and Everyking don't see any significant problem here (and basically view the situation as a regular content dispute) leads me to believe that they simply didn't look enough into the issue (I refer again to Nickhh's comments during the previous ban proposal). And please allow me a short rant: I simply cannot understand how someone would consider acceptable continuing to subject our knowledgeable unpaid volunteers to the monumental waste of time & energy that dealing with Ariobarza through our normal dispute resolution mechanisms entails.

Only Dougweller, Roux, Tundrabuggy and Ariobarza herself support the implemented restriction to user space only (or something along those lines). It is specifically opposed by Nickhh.

Moreover, significant questions about Roux's new suggestion (raised by ChrisO, Nickhh & myself) remain unanswered:

1). Who will review Ariobarza's work (and do so in a competent and thorough manner, to actually free other editors from this task) ? – Tundrabuggy volunteered to "at least take a cursory look" into Ariobarza's contributions; but his previous experience at this very task doesn't look promising.

2). How will we manage Ariobarza's user space content ? To which extent are we giving Ariobarza permission to use her user space to freely engage in original research (something that, in my opinion, implies using Wikipedia as a blog) ? Because that is what she has done consistently until now, and will continue to do for the forseable future.

a). Should we impose time limitations for how long each proposed article can exist in her user space ? Should we use standard deletion mechanisms (MfD), with all the time it would consume ? Or should they be allowed to remain in her user space "forever" (as Ariobarza's personal compendium of novel ideas) ?

b). What can we do to eliminate -or drastically reduce- the dissemination of that misinformation (through Google, Wikipedia mirrors & such) ? Please, excuse my total lack of technical skills. – Do I need to remind anyone that providing the resources to disseminate misinformation to the world blatantly contradicts the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation ?

And on a more general note, probably not to be answered now, just pondered:

c). Are we establishing a precedent that further denigrates the importance of our core content policies of Verfiability & No Original Research ? Is the understanding of & compliance with those policies not relevant for "articles" kept in user space ?

So... wouldn't it be better to re-open this discussion for a few more days ? - Thank you for your patience. Best regards, Ev (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty presumptuous for you to say that I (and a few others) did not look closely enough into the situation. Perhaps you are not being objective because you are one of those involved in the dispute. There is one other person involved here (not you) whose involvement leads me to believe that Ariobarza is being railroaded here because he/she does not agree with this other person. That is this other person's standard operating procedure. I'm not naming any names to avoid further drama. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I did look again at one of the copied over articles (Siege of Doriskos). It does not have the edit history for the previous version of the article; so my edits - the links, sources and "Account of Herodotus" - look as if they were made by Ariobarza. The lede - all that Ariobarza wrote - is completely incorrect and, as I mentioned above, the claimed source does not support the material there. I don't see why any editor should have to devote their time to ironing out the problematic WP:OR contained in the lede.I assume this applies to other articles. There are other untagged articles still out there like Battle of the Persian Border which are probably also WP:OR and improperly sourced. Mathsci (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's very much the case. I suggest asking Ariobarza to work on those pages off-wiki and getting them deleted via WP:MFD. Draft articles on completely made-up subjects, such as battles that aren't described in any published history, are never going to be suitable for inclusion in article space. There's simply no point having them around, since there's nothing useful that can be done with them. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

6SJ7, I note that you wrote above: "The "gestating" article on Battle of Tigris looks sourced to me." That tells me straight away that you indeed didn't look closely enough into the situation. If you had, you would have seen that the article had been cobbled together from fragments in various sources, with Ariobarza's personal interpretation providing the glue. Furthermore, there's no reliable source of any kind that anyone has been able to find that describes such a battle between Persians and Babylonians (it helps if you know something about the subject matter). The problem here is that Ariobarza simply doesn't accept NOR. As soon as "Battle of the Tigris" was deleted from article space - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris - it was copied into Ariobarza's user space. She continued with exactly the same OR-based work that resulted in the article's deletion in the first place, and showed no sign of paying any attention to any of the advice and instructions she was given about not engaging in OR. The same pattern has been repeated with several other articles deleted via AfD that are now in her user space. As I've said above, they're unusable. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I would add that comments that Ariobarza's material appears "sourced" and that this is simply a series of individual content disputes prove exactly why this situation is so problematic. That is indeed how they often appear at first, yet proper inspection would reveal that this is totally wide of the mark. A common trick is for Ariobarza to note (accurately) that a particular town or city is recorded as having been under the control of the Persian Empire at some point, then to create an article called "Siege/Battle of XXX" which speculates about how and when that control might have been acquired. Cites are provided to tangentially relevant sources, which however - when you actually go to read them - do not mention the event in question. Nor do those sources appear to be out there in the real world. Obvious hoaxes and vandalism are quickly spotted and reverted here - subtly misrepresented or totally made up material with "ooh look, 27 footnotes!" has a veneer of authenticity. That makes it a) harder to spot and deal with; & b) more likely to mislead even the more sceptical passing reader, and hence make a laughing stock of this place. --Nickhh (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Blocks are preventive, and we have a significant number of experienced editors here stating that they are having to spend a lot of time cross-checking edits to mainspace for original research and other issues; the user in question seems comfortable with the idea of a block to prevent them getting into more trouble, so I really don't see the problem. There are people working with Ariobarza, and I am confident that if and when they have fixed the problem at source they will come back here and inform us that the block is no longer necessary. But right now I would say it is needed, because what we are protecting here is content and one of the most important policies we have. Similarly, if Ariobarza's user space edits step over the line into blog or MySpace territory then we can review that as well. The solution as proposed seemed to me to represent progress and some kind of a middle way, with the open invitation to redemption. What exactly would you change about that situation? Guy (Help!) 10:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm too unseasonably pessimistic when preferring to cut our losses now instead of hoping for improvement through a system that could continue to generate problems (be it Ariobarza's original research being introduced into articles by middlemen, be it more AfDs, MfDs or unblock discussions with editors seeing "27 footnotes", be it about the management of Ariobarza's user space in general). – Granted, resources management is not my field (and know even less when it comes to a charity's unpaid volunteers), but I can't see her involvement in Wikipedia as anything other than a net negative to the goal of building a reliable encyclopedia. As others know better (I mean it; no irony intended), I won't press this point any further.

Ariobarza is already using her user space as a free webspace provider. With few exceptions, our deletion discussions evaluate the viability of a topic, and not an article's state of development at the time. The "articles" in Ariobarza's user space were deleted because no sources were found. For Wikipedia, their continued presence in user space serves no purpose. – Yet, they are not innocent text, but misinformation available online under the wikipedia.org umbrella.

What exactly would I change about that situation? Either to:

• enact a full ban,
• actually find someone willing and able to do the reviews (& discard non viable topics), to free our knowledgeable editors from ultimately having to do this task anyway,
• if no one volunteers, at the very least (and this already enters MySpace territory) to place further requirements to her user space activities to prevent the dissemination of its contents, namely:
  • A requirement to always blank the content when not working on it (possibly replacing it with a permanent link to the last version to help the reviewer/s), and/or
  • some other technical mean to "hide" the content from Google, Wikipedia mirrors & such (along the lines of "NOINDEX", which I don't know how effective or encompassing is; simple wiki-syntax being the limit of my computer skills).

What I don't want is a collection of original research sitting in her user space & being disseminated throughout the web (ultimately forcing our knowledgeable editors to argue at MfDs anyway).

However, as I said above, I don't want to prolongue this discussion more than necessary. This is probably my last request to review the issue. - Regards, Ev (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that I have changed my mind now that I have recalled that stuff in her userspace would be on Google and would in effect be using Wikipedia as a personal website. With no solution to that problem in site I have to support a full ban. dougweller (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ariobarza can and should be banned. He's persistently disruptive and pushes a consistent nationalist POV. I've watched him in action for a good while and have concluded that this user simply has nothing of value to contribute to the encyclopaedia, and it is not worth our while keeping him around. Ultimately our needs and his suffer from a fatal disconnect, at which point we need just to cut our losses. Moreschi (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• If Ariobarza's userspace weren't indexed on Google, I wouldn't have any problem with Guy's solution, but I don't want to risk Ariobarza's misinformation being spread under Wikipedia's auspices at all. Nor should we be forced to argue yet again for the deletion of Ariobarza's OR-fantasy battles at MfD. A ban is the best option. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I believe the magic word __NOFOLLOW__ will install a meta robots nofollow meta tag in the page, preventing it from being indexed by any major search engine, if that's the concern. Jehochman ^Talk 01:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the concerns. How does one put a magic word on a Wikipedia page? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this. I've been involved in MfD's for user's pages where the main issue was that the page was being used to get publicity through search engines, and I can't recall anyone suggesting this as a solution. And if it's easy, why isn't all of userspace protected from indexing? dougweller (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A bit of digging suggests that Jehochman may mean the {{NOINDEX}} template. This discussion [55] seems to be saying userspace is not indexed. Not true. If you search for 'Siege of Doriskos' the first hit is Ariobarza's userpage article on it: [56] - a good illustration of the problem we face in allowing her to edit in her userspace. dougweller (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Dougweller, before starting this sub-section I did some quick searches for all entries involved. Some don't figure within the first 50 results, but others are among the first 10. "NOINDEX" is all I had found too, and according to Wikipedia:Searching "Google indexes all namespaces except article talk". But even those are picked up by Wikipedia mirrors, which in turn are indexed by Google. – Not indexing certain namespaces is a rather perennial proposal; the usual argument I saw against it being that, in the absence of a good quality internal search, Google is the best manner of searching the entire site (to find old discussions, content in user space, you name it). For examples see this village pump discussion & Wikipedia:Talk pages not indexed by Google. Of course, it would be better to discuss the issue at another place to keep this thread focused. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza says she's leaving Wikipedia

Hi, been monitoring Ariobarza for a while. Almost deleted his user page (thought he was going to be banned). I advise all users here to go to User:Ariobarza's talk page ASAP. He has a request. Issue resolved, discussion closed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.47.253 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The above refers to Ariobarza posting a message in her talk page saying that she's leaving Wikipedia. I don't know whether we should close the issue now, as I wouldn't want to have to repeat this long discussion in the near future. - Ev (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2008 (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.

Tony Danza

Resolved

 – Blacklisted the fake news domains. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A few more eyes on this might be useful. According to one and only one [http://tony.danza.swellserver.com/news/top_stories/actor_new_zealand.php report] he's died which may lead to more of this. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder if it's fake news or something. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, talk about embarrassed. I even managed to miss the "tony.danza.swellserver.com" I am now off to yell and swear at my boss, that always makes me feel better. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not your fault! There was one of these a while ago that caused quite a bit of a scrap - seems the trend today is to fake death reports and try to use them as reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Tabloid-on-demand. See [http://tony.fox.mediafetcher.com/news/top_stories/actorplane.php], [http://tony.sidaway.mediafetcher.com/news/top_stories/actor_st_tropez.php], [http://charlotte.webb.mediafetcher.com/news/top_stories/actress_new_zealand.php], etc. Might be a good reason to blacklist these domains, at least in article space. — CharlotteWebb 21:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, that'd be an excellent idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested here. Matt (Talk) 05:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And done Matt (Talk) 02:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment, Bullying and Unfair Treatment of editor Worldfacts

There is a thread in the archive about the recent 24 hour ban of Worldfacts. I edited that thread but my edit was reverted on the grounds of not editing an archive. OK I accept that.

My statement regarding the treatment of Worldfacts (regarding the USS Liberty article) is : "And with the bullying and harassment WF has been dealt why would WF want to participate ?" WF is obviously being harassed and bullied. --HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Diffs and links would help, here... //roux   19:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I, uh, fail to see how issuing a block to shut down a blatant WP:3RR violation (see the history at USS Liberty incident and this report for background) is harassment and bullying. The admin who issued the block noted that the editor in question hadn't participated with discussion on the talk page for well over a month. Discuss, don't revert blindly, is a good policy that wasn't followed here. I don't see a problem with the block. Tony Fox [[User_talk:Tony Fox|(small> 20:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I would urge admin to check Henry Winklestein's contribution history for the context in this. The user's only real contribution is running around wiki talk space supporting WorldFacts (With one contribution to article space on Six Day War to add in a diatribe about the USS Liberty incient which was soon reverted). Though my own behaviour in the debacle is hardly stellar, my good faith has failed and I have let myself get drawn into the silliness, I would still suggest that the whole thing does need to be looked at, as it most certainly is not a great atmosphere ATM. For my part I am only going to be involved in the debate around that article now via the efforts of BQZip to mediate. Edited to add: There was a ANI about the article that fizzled here --Narson ~ Talk • 20:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC) edited 20:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Narson is right: Henrywinkelstein seems to be behaving in a very odd manner for a genuinely new and separate editor. See [57], a very unusual distribution of edits. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead --- do a checkuser, check my IP against theirs, I happened to come across this issue and its perked my interest. You wanna come see my computer and look at my eMails too ?? gee - I'm sorry I do not agree with the "in" crowd. So be it ... The plain and simple truth is that WF has been constantly and consistently bullied. WF has asked the same question several times and has yet to receive a legit answer. All anyone ever does is hide when it comes to this. What a whitewash. --HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Among those edits are barnstars awarded to WorldFacts and to PalestineRemembered. Need I say more? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And whats wrong with awarding barnstars ? Or do you need to be in a particular "club" to award them ? Are they not worthy ? Just as worthy - and probably more worthy - than most of you. NEED I SAY MORE ? --HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What happened to civility? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Winklestein: please tone back the rhetoric. You are bordering on becoming disruptive with your comments here and on other talk pages. I highly recommend that you reread WP:CIVIL and comment on content, not the contributors, in future. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I hadn't seen this thread before I started one on WP:AN/I. The first thing WorldFacts did on his return was to edit war with another revert. Apologies, if this came across as forum shopping. Justin talk 00:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have blocked Henrywinklestein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a disruptive mission poster who seems unable to assume good faith on the part of those with whom he disagrees, coincidentally a large proportion of those he has encountered in his short time on Wikipedia - this kind of thing: [58], [59]. No objection to an unblock if anyone is prepared to mentor him or can get him to grok the problem. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

WorldFacts launched a direct personal attack calling me a liar here [60], I'm surprised given that he launched this attack on AN/I that there hasn't been any admin action. There have been persistent personal attacks against any editor that disagreed with him on the USS Liberty Incident. Just how personal does it have to get before any action is taken? Justin talk 19:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Feh. Ignore it and move on. It's no big deal. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would but this has been going on for a while and I'm sickening of it. Justin talk 20:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I define personal attacks as X is an idiot, not as X said this and it's a lie - to say that it's a lie is hyperbole but part of the legitimate process of disputing a conclusion. If the user persists in describing it as a lie after it is proven that it is actually true, then it becomes uncivil, and if the user spreads the "it's a lie" meme beyond the very narrow scope of the original dispute then that, too, is a conduct problem requiring addressing. Yes? Guy (Help!) 12:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree. Have a look at Talk:USS Liberty incident and you'll find that describing anything said against WorldFact's proposed edits is nearly always a LIE, or its censorship or its suppression of the truth. However, this may have slipped admin attention as so much hyperbole is posted there that an automatic archive has been set up to regularly clear the Talk Page. So yes it is a conduct that needs addressing IMHO. I wouldn't be complaining if this was a one off event, I've had a lot worse on other articles and I ain't no shrinking violet. Justin talk 20:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been pondering this over yule and I have to say that Henry was the editor whose only purpose was to raise pressure. WorldFacts seems to have big misunderstandings on how wiki operates and how to put himself forward. If the view is that there is an editor there that can be salvaged into a productive editor, perhaps the solution is removing him from the midde east topic area by topic ban or by using a mentor to steer him? As it is, it is no problem for me or someone else to revert him every week or so, as that is how often he pops around, but I doubt it is an enjoyable experience for him and it is a big wiki. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD needs reopening?

This AfD was non-admin closed, after running only 6 hours, by User:Ecoleetage as "nomination withdrawn"; but I believe that such a close is justified (by WP:SK) only when no "delete" opinions have been registered in the discussion. Here the opinions, discounting the nominator's, were evenly split 3–3. Shouldn't an admin reopen this one? Deor (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please read the bottom of the AfD -- the editor who put forth the AfD requested that it be withdrawn. I was not being bold -- I was simply following the nominator's request to withdraw his nomination. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that matters as long as some users have advocated deletion. See the link to WP:SK in my message above. Deor (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    • (2x ec) IMHO, there is no reason to reopen; the AfD would likely result in "no consensus" anyway, which defaults to "keep." Process for process' sake is to be discouraged. Hermione1980 01:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Reopening an AfD that has already been abandoned by its nominator doesn't seem like a practical use of time and energy. The nominator has already made it clear that he considers the subject notable and has added to the article. If you feel the subject demands erasure, you are welcome to renominate it for AfD consideration. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Nominators don't own deletion discussions. Withdrawal by the nominator does not suddenly close a discussion. It certainly does not close a discussion where other editors have opined to delete. (The correct thing to do is to invite the other editors to review the discussion and their opinions in light of the additional developments.) Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Nothing to do - someone nominated, withdrew their nomination and it was process-closed. Orderinchaos 03:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • As above: Nominators don't own deletion discussions, and a discussion is there to form consensus. Consensus isn't formed by steamrollering the discussion closed after 6 hours. That doesn't even allow editors in other timezones the ability to comment, let alone to form a consensus. There are good reasons that AFD discussions run for a period of several days, and that is the process, not closure without letting all members of the editor community at large a chance to comment if they wish to. A closure after 6 hours is not in-process. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• The point stands that "nomination withdrawn" is part of the SK criteria and we shouldn't be closing AfD's well before the "appointed" time unless they are snow closes, bold closes or speedy keep/delete. Arguably any action is 'bold' if taken without prior consult, so I can understand this. I think this closure was wrong. I do not, however, think that it should be reopened (even though an admin could just revert the close). Eco, I have your talk page watchlisted and I see admins come to your page every so often telling you they have reverted your NAC's. Usually you judge the eventual outcome correctly--if you said keep and close it XYZ hours early, it is often 'keep' when closed finally. I have also seen you make something of a production about 'being vindicated' by this outcome. I would suggest gently that you are probably better off just waiting and closing AfDs which would be less controversial to someone interested in preserving the process. There is a fine line between bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake and process for the sake of process, but the AfD procedure is written the way it is for a reason. Most of the time when people raise their eyebrows at a close like this it is because they are concerned about the integrity of the process. XfD & CSD need to be viewed as fair (meaning impartial, equitable and predictable) in order for them to retain community trust. In order to ensure that fairness, we have to push back against certain closes. This doesn't mean reopening them or seeing whether or not they match the eventual outcome. It means ensuring that the guide to deletion appropriately matches what we see on a daily basis. Just some thoughts. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Protonk, you are referring to three isolated incidents regarding reversions of AfDs that, in turn, were re-closed very quickly (one within an hour's time, the other two in less than a day). I find it amusing that you are able to see how I am "making a production" over commenting on the closure of an AfD that should not have been reverted but you somehow miss the comments by the reverting admins who made a production by rudely calling my intelligence and competence to question (not exactly in keeping with WP:BITE and WP:NPA). Ecoleetage (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Probably because they aren't there. I for one certainly never said anything about your intelligence, although I spent almost a whole day continually patiently explaining AFD shorthands and why we don't close discussions early to you again and again, in the face of refusals to listen and outright straw men. However, as Protonk notes, you do make a production of being "vindicated" when in fact you aren't at all. You do not understand the process at AFD and, despite your claims that you do and that no-one has challenged your closures, you will continue to get into hot water like this until you follow the advice that I gave to you and stop refusing to listen and learn. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Uncle G., and a Merry Christmas to you. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the resolved on this. This is not resolved. The AfD should be re-opened. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, it shouldn't. The issue "a non-admin close was made outside SK and NAC" does not necessarily require the remedy "reopen the AfD and let it get closed as keep again" in order to provide relief. What possible good could reopening the AfD do? Is the article likely to be deleted? Does it fail to meet our inclusion guidelines? If the answer to those questions is no, then re-open it. If the answer is yes, then opening it would waste everyone's time. Let's just move on. Protonk (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• This specific situation was discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 48#Withdrawal of AFD. Flatscan (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • A speedy close is not appropriate when there are delete !votes. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I understand that. I'm saying that recognizing a specific wrong does not require overturning that decision. Protonk (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Considering that the AfD received multiple varied votes that weren't in any way inclined towards a speedy close, a withdrawal of nomination shouldn't directly result into closure of AfD. It is obvious now that there are members who are against keeping the article. The nominator's withdrawal should be noted and the discussion should run its course. However, I'm not in support of reopening the present AfD. It is obvious that this was more or less procedural close that was done purely in good faith, albeit hastily. Those parties who feel that the article be deleted should simply renominate it and see what the outcome is. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 06:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Process for process sake alone is a waste of everyone's time. Article was originally nom'ed on the basis of notability, which has now been established by two references. As has been said before in this discussion, the AfD, if left to run, would have been a "no consensus", and now if re-nom'ed, on what basis would that be, since notability has been established? Seriously, let's move on, folks. AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Process is important. Deor (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Process is critical, especially in deletion debates. My point is that Eco has seen the feedback on this thread and that's what we can do. We can recognize that the close was inappropriate while refusing to relist the article at the same time. Protonk (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree with Protonk. This particular article seems unlikely to gain a consensus for deletion, and the "delete" votes were not terribly persuasive, so it wouldn't serve any good to immediately re-list it. The closing editor has seen some objection and will likely be more careful in the future about applying WP:IAR to one of Wikipedia's more rule-based procedures. Unless it becomes a persistent problem what more can we do? I would ask for another few sources to clearly establish notability. They're almost certainly out there, but if nobody can find them and you really think the subject is not notable, I see no harm in waiting week or two then re-nominating it, carefully explaining your reasons so as not to appear sour grapes. That creates a lot less drama than overturning a close. Wikidemon (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I think you people are still misunderstanding. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted, and I certainly won't be renominating it for deletion. I simply think that this was a bad, out-of-process close and thought that an admin might want to deal with that. I was clearly wrong. Deor (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't think so. You were clearly right. It was a poor out of process close. I'm not sure what an admin was going to do about it, but Eco did get some "forceful backup" about this. I just think that people agreed the right action was a warning, not a reversal of the decision. Protonk (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Could you give me the lottery numbers for the upcoming draw? This AfD was only open for 6 hours of its normal 7 day run time. How can you know which way public opinion may swing in the next 6.5 days? Just because we have a split in the beginning doesn't mean 20 people won't suddenly show up and decide its not needed. I've seen it before.--Crossmr (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
          • First, AfDs normally run 5 days and not 7. Second, if you are so much concerned about that article being kept and feel that it doesn't pass notability, why not just renominate it? Like Protonk said, Ecoleetage has seen the response to his premature closure and hopefully would be careful in the future. Reverting the closure would merely serve to prove a point. Could someone restore the resolved tag on this one? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 12:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• I can't believe this conversation is still going on. C'mon, people, stop beating a dead horse. I made an honest and completely benign error -- I thought a non-admin could close an AfD if the nominator withdraws the request for deletion (I recalled seeing being done before -- maybe by someone who got away with a mistake?). It won't happen again, okay? You know, it's really ironic -- since I've become active on Wikipedia, I've done at least five or six dozen NACs without any problems and I never once got a thank you for helping the project on that front...but I make a single mistake and I get dragged in here and everyone jumps on my back. What a sad commentary. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Except that it's not one single mistake in a whole raft of closures. It's at least the second such mistake. Certainly it's the second time that you've been explicitly told that what you did was not the correct AFD process, and that there are good reasons that AFD has a deliberative and inclusive process. If you keep thinking that it is a single isolated mistake (which is what you argued when you made this error the last time, too) each time that you do this and are chided about it, then you'll fail to learn that you are repeatedly getting this wrong. Uncle G (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If no one has anything further to add, I apologise for my error in regard to the closing of the AfD on the Monserratian population in Britain and I would like to wish everyone present the best for the holidays and the coming year. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Eco has gotten the message and won't be doing anymore controversial NACs of AfDs. Should this issue arise again, I'm sure he'll be happy to no longer take that particular duty on himself again in the future. If anyone really feels the article should be deleted, send it to AfD again and I'm sure the closing admin will take the previous discussion into account. AniMate 15:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm touched....

How thoughtful of you to wish us a Merry Kitzmas, as it's an American holiday...you've warmed my heart, thank you. And Merry or Happy Christmas or Saturnalia or Yule or Belated Solstice to you as well. Where I am, it's Christmas all the way,no Jewish temple in a town of 120,000, the closest mosque is 300 miles away, and being a Wiccan et al. will just end up getting you shot at. :)

But as a Buddhist/stoic, I really don't care, I just go with the flow. Although if I could have a preference, I'd like one of those later holidays, like the 6th of January that the Catholics celebrate. Though I'd hate to have to convert just for that... :P Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Scots say "Happy Xmas" like the Brits, right? I wonder where in the hell we get "merry" from... Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry...did you post this in the wrong place? either way (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Any right-thinking BRITON would choke on "xmas". It is "Merry Christmas", sometimes colloquially Chrimble or Chrimbo, and for those who are not too inclined to invoke the name of the Christ-child "cool yule" is acceptable. The error is an easy one to make, though - Christmas is the religious festival falling on December 25 (checks watch: nearly time for midnight mass here in GMT), whereas Xmas is the trading season stretching from September to the start of the January Sales, traditionally on December 26 (boxing day in the BRITONS' Britain). And with that I will wish all Wikipedians a Merry Christmas or Cool Yule according to personal taste. Slap me if I edit again before December 26, I am supposed to have a family and a life. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never actually heard anyone use the term 'Briton' IRL. How do you pronounce it? Is it like Bry-tawn, or like Brit-in? I don't think it sounds good though. Call yourself English or Scottish or Welsh or whatever, but don't call yourself a Briton.--J. F. Mam J. Jason Dee (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you not? So, when someone refers to themself as a "Brit" what do you suppose they are referring to? Also, I have just a little problem with referring to myself as English - since a quick review of my grandparents surnames brings up a mix of English, Scottish, Norman French and Huguenot French (and who knows how many other "ethnicities" have passed through those families). My major problem, though, is how on earth you refer to British citizens with (recent) ties to China, Asia, West Indies/Africa, Australasia, Europe, etc. Are these not now Britons, and if not what then do you call them? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not aware of anyone calling themself a "Briton"- all too reminiscent of the long-dead nation of Brittany. Better "English", "Scottish", "Welsh" or "British". J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

@ LHvU - coincidence. John André was one of my forebears, I also have Gaelic ancestors (from Ireland in my case). The capitalisation of BRITONS comes from that fine publication The Weekly, maintaining Britain's standards since the dawn of the Electric Internet. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And a Happy New Year ... -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dammit, this is an encyclopedia, folks. Doncha read yer own damn encyclopedia!?! Just to be pedantic: Xmas. Just to be Brittanic: [61]. Just to be semantic: In New Britain, Connecticut, as the WP artice helpfully informs us, the good citizens pronounce it "New Breh-EN" with a glottal stop imported from Poland (New Britainites would call it "gloh-UL") [62] And it appears that those overly commercial Anglo-Saxons were messin' with "Christmas" for over a thousand years now, including in that Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of theirs. [63] (Just to be Germanic.) Or at least since 1551, according to OED. Byron, Coleridge, Lewis Carol, Oliver Wendell Holmes are all on the Xmas side of the "BAH-ul" (just to be cite-anic). [64]. It was used in the Canadian North in 1896 [65]; and as far south as Oz [66]; and closer to the equator [67] (just to be tropic). But it's true that the usage is informal and frowned upon by many, so sometimes not a good idea to use (just to be politic). So don't get yer knickers in a twist about any of it, but if you do, New Bri-ENites can help you with that, too. [68] (just to be hygenic). -- Noroton (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Noroton, if you really want to twist their nickers, tell them how we pronounce "Thames River", the one that runs through New London, Connecticut. Jehochman ^Talk 17:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The correct way, of course, just as it's spelled. Unfortunately, Connecticutter Noah Webster was unable to reform the entire English language as he did the American version before passing on to a better place than even Connecticut. Nutmeg-state superiority in these (and all) things, of course, has had its ungrateful reactions and tratorous apostasies. It is, however, flattering that so many other locations have been named after places in Connecticut, sometimes even before the Connecticut places were named, which is even more flattering. We can't expect them all to get the pronunciation right, but give 'em time. -- Noroton (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, snap...(blushing) Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion needed

Resolved

 – The category is no more!

Can someone please delete Category:Poschiavo. Reason: To make way for a move or author request. The Rolling Camel (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, after seeing this, I'm not so sure about this deletion. Could you explain more why you need this deleted? either way (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done — Aitias // discussion 22:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I deleted it one minute before either way posted his question here. — Aitias // discussion 22:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Make way for a move? I thought Category: pages couldn't be moved... --MZMcBride (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Seth hilton

Strange case, this one. He's using his user and talk pages for self-promotion and band vanity. Frankly, I think his claims are somewhat inflated. Not only that, he's ignored all attempts at contact. Kind of like MascotGuy with a resume.  :) Anyway, Merry Christmas, all. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Something seriously wrong with Alaska Airlines

The article on Alaska Airlines appears to have been replaced with an advertisement promoting Nazism, however the article's source code is perfectly normal. This only happens in the article. --Nat682 (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism? Looks OK from here so has probably been fixed. --Rodhullandemu 22:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow. That made my eyes hurt. Hermione1980 22:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST seems to have been hit by a spammer, but I'm having a dickens of a time finding the template. // roux   22:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

See here. Special:RecentChangesLinked is usually pretty good for finding template vandalism. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed that highly disgusting/insulting version. — Aitias // discussion 22:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked an anon vandal who hit 4 or 5 templates around 21:32, and would appreciate advice as to whether the targeted templates should be semi-protected. I don't know if this was the same vandal, but it's probably the same payload. If anyone wants to delete the "highly disgusting/insulting" version of those templates, be my guest, although I don't necessarily consider it important. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sprotect should suffice. Keeping the despoiled version in the history may help to form a case if there are further examples of such vandalism, so deleting is likely not necessary. Full protection may be required if a few autoconfirmed accounts start vandalising again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

6 articles protected or sprotected. Please review my choice of which ones I fully protected under WP:HRT, and which should only be sprotected, or which should only be sprotected for a period of time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The two IPs caught so far are the same user, by behavior. They are using open proxies. These should be blocked for a long, long time. Last time I asked, the standard was five years. Jehochman ^Talk 23:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I blocked a couple of IPs (also open proxies) that were doing the same thing. Unfortunately it appears that Santa did not give our friend anything better to play with today. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Economy of India article has a Nazi advertisement. Could someone more knowledgeable remove it?Lalit Jagannath (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Qadian article is also vandalized because of similar issue, please help fix it. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 22:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There is something seriously wrong with Alaska Airlines... it's called having a monopoly on flights in and out of Alaska and thus being allowed to charge $900 for a flight from Juneau to Seattle... whoops, wrong queue. l'aquatique |✡| talk 05:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

At least their flights to Vegas are cheap. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Shirley field" should be "Shirley Field"

Resolved

 – page moved

// roux   23:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I created an disambiguation page (Shirley field) and inadvertently named it with the second word uncapitalized. Would an administrator please fix this? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done didn't need an admin. // roux   23:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it didn't need an administrator, but it did need someone with a clue. Thank you for being that person. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Midway class aircraft carrier

Resolved

 – Offending templates deleted and salted by J.delanoy and MBK004

Could someone please look at Template:Midway class aircraft carrier? There is a speedy tag embedded in it which I can't remove, and that is leading to several articles which transclude that template being listed for speedy deletion. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Refresh your cache, someone was messing with the {{USS}} template earlier today. We took care of it. (I don't see anything wrong with this particular one right now) -MBK₀₀₄ 02:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A concerning RfC

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.

---

In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Law Lord, Law Lord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be asking the community to allow him to mandate a particular version of the content of his user page. I am concerned by this because it is a fundamental denial of WP:OWN and WP:SOAP, but a lot of people seem to have been drawn into the side-issue of whether a particular vague criticism is uncivil or legitimate or not. Regardless of the merits of the comment itself, I would say that what the user is specifically asking in the RfC, which is to be allowed to maintain a particular version of the content of a particular page on Wikipedia, is something which policy forbids the RfC from delivering. Am I wrong there? Guy (Help!) 11:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well certainly it is not a particularly equitable form of dispute resolution to come into a debate saying, "I want X". There doesn't appear to be a negotiation as such occurring. So on that I agree, however I also agree that the comment is general enough, and non-fringe enough to be taken more as a current phenomenon rather than wild accusation (q. v. Adminwatch etc.). Anyway, how is it any worse than this farewell statement?, and I am sure there are others around too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I was accused of making a personal attack where I saw none. Therefore the RfC is about whether I did in fact make a personal attack or not. Consequently, if I did not make a personal attack, my statement should be allowed to stay, because a user i allowed to voice criticism on his user page. I am not going to litigate against you but I certainly do not share the view that WP:OWN and WP:SOAP applies (at all!). WP:SOAP does not apply to criticism of aspects of Wikipedia (how then would the project ever improve?) and WP:OWN deals with article ownership. I do not think there has been voiced any Copyright claims over my one-line-farewell. At least not by me.

I could be bold and suspect that your post here may in fact be caused by the RfC not going the way you wanted? --Law Lord (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You could be, but it would be better to go by his actual words: to whit, the RFC is being side-tracked by irrelevancies. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It would appear certain admins want the comment removed and will try any tack; ironically, some of those have had civility issues in the past. Minkythecat (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why this topic isn't being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Law_Lord where this whole situation is already being discussed by several administrators.

Also, just as a note, the majority of people who have commented on the issue there are against the position that JzG has taken. Not only my words but another user's as well: [69] . Anyways, since you've brought the issue here:

WP:OWN has absolutely nothing to do with this matter as WP:OWN clearly is not referring to userpages. Users actually have a certain degree of ownership over their userpage in that they can decide what material remains on it (as long as it doesn't violate any guidelines of course) as opposed to others getting to decide what material they want on someone else's userpage. WP:SOAP has to do with advertising, promotion, self-promotion, etc. Opening up a request for comment from the community to give their own opinions on a dispute does not fit into that category. Cheers! Cheers_Dude (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly have no current opinion on the matter, or none worth posting, I do want to point out to the poser above me that yes, WP:OWN does apply to user talk pages, WP:UP#OWN. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Presumably he merely typed in the wrong shortcut: WP:OWN instead of WP:UP#OWN. If you're going to base your entire case on a mistaken link and on not reading the relevant ones (1) WP:UP#OWN: 'As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community' and 'Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere'; 2) WP:SOAP: 'Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages), you'd best re-think it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And the community seems to have spoken on the RFC in question, predominantly in the direction of supporting this user's right to opinionate on his user page, though also with strong undertones of criticizing everybody including him for participating in so much unnecessary drama about it. JzG seems now to be forum-shopping and wikilawyering in order to keep the drama going. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. Why are we pandering to an already-banned user at the Danish Wikipedia for much of the same crap? Speaking of forum shopping... User talk:Jennavecia#LawLord Case seicer | talk | contribs 16:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, is this the Danish Wikipedia?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Dan, actually the issue is precisely as I stated it: a user appears to be attempting to use RfC to enforce his being allowed to own his user page for soapboxing. If that is indeed acceptable then it is a very significant change in policy. I know you are a militant free-speech advocate, but that is a battle we are not even fighting here. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The point here is that the agreement is about the wrong thing. People broadly agree that the comment, inflammatory and useless though it may be, is not prohibited. That, however, is a long way form saying that the user can use RfC to enforce a particular version of his page. WP:OWN and WP:SOAP, two long-standing policies, suggest that we should not use RfC to deliver that outcome. As I have noted before, Cheers dude, if you are a new and inexperienced user as you claim then you should probably steer clear of this kind of debate, since your judgement calls appear to be based on gut feel rather than policy, and you've backed the wrong horse most of the time as far as I can tell.

As a wider question, at what point do we consider Law Lord to have become excessively disruptive? He has clearly violated WP:CANVASS in respect of this RfC, he is asserting ownership of his user space, he has gone round giving barnstars to anyone who agrees with him in the RfC, and he is already banned on the Danish Wikipedia. This is beginning to look like a disruptive drama-monger. [70] (Interiot's tool) Guy (Help!) 16:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Strictly, and without commenting on Law Lords's edit history, he is not using RFC to "to enforce a particular version of his page" so much as to seek community consensus. Consensus so far seems to be that he is allowed to issue generic criticism of certain admin behaviour. I do wonder whether there is any link between the growing consensus and the increasing quantity of "playing the man not the ball". MikeHobday (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's nto what he's asked. He has asked for endorsement of a particular linked version of his user page. And judging by the Danish ban discussion it is well past time he dropped the stick and backed slowly away from the deceased. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You may well be right. I wouldn't disagree. But the same doesn't apply to you? MikeHobday (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to count up my total edits in involvement with this dispute? I've given it maybe an hour of thought in total. Law Lord seems to have thought of nothing else for a very long time, to the extent of being banned form one project because of it. I've only looked at it at all because of the crossover with Guido den Broeder's block. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG, as if we hadn't beaten this horse to death at the RfC. The statement is one full sentence which NOBODY can deny the accuracy of. Anybody who takes offense to this statement needs to grow a thicker hide! FACT: There are admins who lack civility. FACT: LL is tired of dealing with them. FACT: If the statement, I have had enough of administrators who lack manners is a personal attack, then we have gone so overboard in our demands for perfect civility, that reality no longer exists here at WP. That's right for those who haven't read the objectional user pagematerial, it consists of, in entirety, I have had enough of administrators who lack manners. This is perhaps one of the most begign departure statements I've ever seen, and yet a few thin skinned hypersensitive individuals are crying to mamma. It is the most ridiculous RfC, I've ever seen, and the fact that somebody has decided to whine about it here, it even more ridiculous. And in case anybody has missed it, this isn't the Danish Wikipedia. There are a number of people who are admins or even 'crats on one project who would never be given the bit on a sister project. Plus, as I've said before, let's assume the worse, the comment was made about a single admin. Who will read "I have had enough of administrators who lack manners" and interpret a specific editor? This whole drama could have been avoided if LL was allowed to leave in peace. Let him get his rather benign pot shot off, and walk away. Hell, hold the door open for him this is ridiculous. I have had enough of administrators who lack manners is not a personal attack. Let him have his EIGHT words, and leave.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Guy's own talk page has the appropriate quote for this situation: "the internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers". لennavecia 18:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy, you're seriously calling drama-mongering and canvassing on Law Lord when you're bringing an RFC which is already being commented on by several admins here? Him being banned on the Danish Wikipedia has nothing to do with his edits here. And WP:OWN doesn't apply, nor does WP:UP#OWN. This statement wasn't a personal attack. As Casliber pointed out, there are much more detailed retirement statements on this site that have survived MFD and such. The fact that such shameful and pathetic amounts of time have been invested in this one sentence does say a lot about those who've chosen to battle over it, but Law Lord is not the one who needs to be chastised for not dropping the stick and walking away from the deceased. One vague sentence should have never been an issue. And you bringing it here does nothing to help the situation. You are forum-shopping and wikilawyering to further drama. Admins shouldn't be in a position to strong-arm editors into removing things from their userspace that are not in violation of policy, which is basically what you're promoting here. And Seicer, you may want to read up on what forum-shopping is. Calling a post on my talk page forum-shopping... that doesn't even begin to make sense. لennavecia 17:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There's actually quite a tradition of users (including departing users making parting rants) saying possibly-inflammatory stuff about what they dislike about Wikipedia on their user page... such as "This user is tired of silly drama on Wikipedia... If you are going to be a dick, please be a giant dick, so we can ban you quickly and save time. Thank you so much." But if one is to engage in any sort of boxing, soap or otherwise, they've picked the right day for it at least. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. And absolutely no tradition whatsoever of allowing users to enforce particular versions of any page, unless you can point to anything that has changed in the relevant policies lately. There is a difference between "wide latitude" and ownership, as the relevant policies make clear. As such, the requested remedy would represent a significant change in policy, I would say. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Okay, I did not realize that Guy had placed a statement in the RFC and then come here to gain support for it. This is just ridiculous and, as Dan pointed out, hypocritical. لennavecia 18:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't realise it because it didn't happen. I made a comment there and then came to ask fellow-admins (and the experienced users who hang out here) whether my reading of it is right. I think it is. I think Law Lord is asking the RfC to deliver a result expressly forbidden in policy. Dan always says that everything I do is hypocritical, that's just Dan. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, you didn't just make a comment there. You posted a statement then ran here with your loaded wording to gain support. It's pretty clear from the RFC what's going on. If you need to ask others to explain it to you, perhaps you should refrain from dropping your opinion. When it comes down to it, it's about whether or not his statement is a personal attack and whether or not it should be allowed to stay. You came along and introduced OWN and SOAP. Well guess what, Guy, that's HYPOCRITICAL, and if he's forced to remove his statement from his page, I'm removing your much worse statement from yours. لennavecia 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is now three users. Jennavecia, Dan T., and myself all wondering why this has been brought here instead of the talkpage of that article where it belongs. As Jenna stated, it's nothing more than forum-shopping and wikilawyering. Also, if this is such an issue, Guy's statement is far worse on his userpage. Glad that has been pointed out. Cheers_Dude (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is no statement on my user page. My user page is a redlink. HTH, HAND. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Same as hypocrisy doesn't look good on you, neither does smartassery. User talk:JzG:

This user is tired of silly drama on Wikipedia.
If you are going to be a dick, please be a giant dick, so we can ban you quickly and save time. Thank you so much.

لennavecia 18:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the quote above, I can reply to that "smartassery" comment by repeating that hypocrisy does not look good on you. Cheers_Dude (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you don't know any more about usage of the English language than you do about Wikipedia policy. Now if I had a comment stating that I was opposed to anyone mentioning things which would imply significant changes in policy, then you might have a point, but I don't, so you don't. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, on the talk page of the user at the center of this, the offended admin has recently offered to drop his objections to the user page content in question if the user in turn makes a statement to the effect that no personal attack is intended by it; and the user seems to have agreed to this. In light of this, the best course of action for everybody else is to regard this as settled and move on to something else, even if there isn't as much fun drama in it. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oh Dan, how bored we would be without our dramas. I have no caring, myself, as long as the RfC is marked as archived and not used to assert ownership. That (to my eyes) implied policy change was all I cared about. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Dorksandlosers

Resolved

 – I left a cautionary note. JodyB _talk 14:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of this users edits have been to add external links to the same website. Last time I checked the user had created two articles and to both of those articles as well the user added a link there. It appears that this user is promoting this website on Wikipedia articles. This username was also reported by a bot as an unappropiate username at Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention/Bot. --Knowzilla 13:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, no one has warned him of the error of his ways. I will. JodyB _talk 14:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow up. Apparently no one had spoken to the user about the links or the username. Please do not bring things here for us to solve before making an attempt yourself. Second, the links are to a significant music review site which has a Wikipedia article at Blogcritics. That site has been noted by Forbes.com as a notable site. He has been warned to use caution. JodyB _talk 14:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

please rename local file

Resolved

 – commons image showing through Skier Dude (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Doug E. Fresh.jpg needs to renamed because there are picture with same name in commons, could someone help me--Musamies (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted it as a useless, encyclopedic photo. --Deskana (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ya, because, you know, we aren't making an encyclopedia here! Who needs those silly encyclopedic photos anyway? (I bet Deskana meant "UNencyclopedic photo" but I'm not one to immediately assume good faith when I can squeeze in a riff on a typo first.) ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I got one of the deletion summaries wrong as well. Shucks. --Deskana (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry.

[71] read that and tell me what you think.  Kalajan  18:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see socking. There should be a note on the Dumpster account that the person now edits under Contra, but there are no blocks and I don't think I saw any time overlap in contribs.// roux   18:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Is anything abusive here? ayematthew ✡ 18:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec's)I think you need to tell me what exactly your query is. FYI I checked the page and noted a lot of pro wrestling newsletters; believing that that may not be the problem I noted that the "Update" title was an account noting that they were previously a different name - one which had been "taken down"... Well, I checked and that account has no blocks, and although there are several notices and comments in the history there are no high level warnings. As for "taken down", I would surmise that this is a common phrase in pro wrestling fan circles to denote "kaput", broken, etc.

Under the circumstances I fail to see why this is being commented upon here, and if I am missing some big piece of info it may be best to assist me and others in future by spelling out your concerns when reporting something. It sort of helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my bad.  Kalajan  17:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

contents on Nazism in Intrauterine device

I am a sysop at chinese wikipedia, today when I checked interwiki Intrauterine device on en wikipedia , I found the page was full of red and with contents on Nazism like this:

<wikicode removed per WP:BEANS>

I've tried different browsers , but this problem always exists. When I logged out there's no problem. I'm wondering why this thing could happen? Is there any way to solve this problem? Thank you.--Kegns (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The above was posted on my talk page. I do not see the content he's talking about in the article, not even when in edit mode. Could this be something caused by his ISP or if he's in China, the Chinese firewall/etc issues? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a spree of template vandalism and is being dealt with. I will respond on your talk page so the OP will see this. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, disgusting template vandal. See also this section above. Regards SoWhy 19:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I hope you can fix it ASAP. I was just confused about that , I've never seen such vandalism at Chinese wikipedia..... --Kegns (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the code, hope nobody minds. Garden. 21:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all-important in this case, but imho it shouldn't even be mentioned that something has been removed. Nor that you did it. Nor that it happened based on BEANS... just my 2 cents. 78.34.130.247 (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing admins should do if look at articles attacked and check for all unprotected templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of request for adminhelp

Resolved

User blocked 24h for this edit [72] which violates WP:DE, WP:NPA, WP:RS and WP:COI all at once. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm looking for impartial editors at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:News4a2 [diff]News4a2 (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Two impartial admins and at least two impartial editors--myself included--have attempted. You don't seem to have much interest in any opinion which doesn't agree with you. Given that so many don't, perhaps you should consider the idea that you are wrong. // roux   21:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't give you the right to delete my request for adminhelp.News4a2 (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You had already been helped, you had already been told the same thing by two admins. Continuing to use the template is a very strong indication that you will keep asking until you get the answer you want. Seeing as the answer you want will never be forthcoming, there didn't seem any point in leaving it there. Note that I haven't removed it again, but I would strongly counsel you to remove it yourself and learn something from this experience. Namely, that you are wrong, ZZB didn't hound you, and you need to be a bit more civil in the future. // roux   21:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG

C:CSD is empty. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not any more. Majorly talk 23:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS, damn you! :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I promise I won't let anyone know the next time. Unless all the SD backlogs are empty, of course :D Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Good, that's... hey, wait a second... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw that a few days ago as well, I wondered if I should report it as a bug of our users ;-) SoWhy 23:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes to POV tag

I've brought this up here because I think this is a very important issue. Just before Christmas, three or four users at Template talk:POV decided to change the wording of the POV tag. I only noticed the change a couple of days ago when I went to an article I myself had tagged and couldn't find the familiar POV tag.

The tag wording was changed from:

The neutrality of this article is disputed

To:

Editors are currently in dispute concerning points of view expressed in this article. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message.

I am strongly opposed to this change. I believe that where neutrality disputes are concerned, it is vital that our readership is clearly informed that the article's content may be biased toward a particular POV. A failure to properly inform on this issue, which I think most of us would agree is one of the most damaging problems we face here, is essentially handing a freebie to every POV-pusher on the project.

I have expanded on my views at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#POV_tag but I think this issue is important enough that it should be discussed here. Gatoclass (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that such a major change in substance on a widely used mainspace template without a wider consensus was premature; I have reverted it with a suggestion to seek opinion in a wider forum. — Coren ^(talk) 06:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much Coren! I greatly appreciate your intervention. Gatoclass (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Users transcluding Template:Administrator who aren't admins

Resolved

 – template removed from those pages on the list. Raven4x4x (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

These are likely the result of poor copying and pasting, but can somebody please deal with them?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jk29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bloodholds
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SkyBullet
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J1nxwiki
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Samo00099
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Petero9
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gnrl._Galmer
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OdedraA
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robyc73
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hex1106

Just remove the template(s) and leave a note on the talk page explaining the removals. There may be others, so somebody might want to check Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Administrator more thoroughly as well.... Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll deal with those ones you've listed. Raven4x4x (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

All have been removed. I didn't bother to notify. So if you want to go through and do that. Please do. I figured saying what was removed in the history was enough. Rgoodermote  07:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Parichha article hijacked

Resolved

The article on Parichha, a town in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India has been vandalised by an expert pro-nazi group. I don't know how to fix it? Its article history shows nothing!--KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 08:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that might be some form of template vandalism. I can't see how to fix it either though... It's certainly very awful. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through the templates which appear on that page through the edit window, but I can't find anything... D.M.N. (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the article to an old revision of the article as an interim measure. I'll try to reinclude any constructive edits that were made since - if I miss something, please do add them back in. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody explain wtf just passed us by? --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 09:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was a cache issue—some template vandalism was included and even though it was fixed, the article still displayed the prior vandalism. Thus, even checking the templates wouldn't reveal anything untoward. I've seen this happen a few times. A null edit might have taken care of it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Mind-boggling when something like this happens, but I also couldn't find anything. Anyway, excepting one or two edits which aren't that helpful, everything should be restored. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was template vandalism here, with the offending edits having been removed from the page history. _Gb^T/c 09:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English (2) Wikipedia‎

There is a proposal to close the Simple English Wikipedia. Additional comments would be appreciated. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed this post a few times, but was reverted. This is off-topic for this page, and this Wikipedia really. What does the proposed closure of an unrelated project have to do with English Wikipedia, let alone Wikipedia admins? While this is not directly canvassing as such, it will be skewing the overall result with bias from English Wikipedia, be it in support or opposition. I should also note that closure of active projects will never happen, so the proposal is going to fail anyway. I suggest this off-topic post be removed. Majorly talk 19:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well if the project was closed, the content would need to be merged here and we would need to figure out a reciprocity policy for individuals holding admin rights there, so it probably would make sense that we discuss it, even if it is only how we should plan. MBisanz ^talk 20:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think there is valid concern that if closed, we might be forced to merge content from some 41,000 aticles there, and what about the very active community... they would need some place to continue to contribute in English, yes? Perhaps this is a valid post. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing will get merged, the project won't get closed. It will most likely be moved to Wikia, where people can continue productively. As I said already, nothing to do with English Wikipedia, especially not this page. I am more lenient with the village pump, but it's off-topic all the same. Majorly talk 20:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps we should wait for the project closure discussion to conclude? Or should we make pre emptive preparations? On another note: STOP ADDING ARCHIVING TEMPLATE TO MUTE THIS! NonvocalScream (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How do you know what will happen, Majorly? Got a crystal ball? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I lent him mine... Majorly - You are holding it upside down. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm making a guess based on other such proposals that have happened in the past. Majorly talk 20:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the proposal, but can we please stop archiving and de-archiving this, at least? It's of some vague interest to the community, at minimum, and the archiving is making my watchlist asplode. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you guys don't already know, then I should tell you, most of the active contributors on simple wiki are banned editors on english, and I have seen while talking to this users on IRC as to why they were banned here and believe me, I'll have to agree with them that it was unjustified. So if that wiki closes down, you can expect more vandals on enwiki because simple wiki has become a vandal-reforming wiki because enwiki admins keep sending them their, we are like Australia, a land filled with convicts from the bigger nation which within the last 150 years has become a powerhouse...Happy Holidays ...--Cometstyles 21:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You just alienated Simple English Wikipedia, by calling their userbase "like Australia, a land filled with convicts". I'll ask you not to attack other projects, I'm sure they are not full of banned users and vandals. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hum, please be aware that Cometstyles is an admin at simple, with almost two thousand edits there. I think that he is not "attacking other projects", he is describing his own project. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It is still an attack. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he is meaning that they learn not to be vandals there - ie he's saying it functions as a self-paced reformatory for some users. (I'm not commenting either way, I'm just concisely rewording what he said.) Orderinchaos 23:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll comment. It's absurd to extend the logic of NPA to descriptions of places or organizations. It would be a personal attack for me to say thay Judy from accounting at DHS is incompetent. It is obviously not the same thing to say that DHS is incompetent, or that DHS is filled with incompetent people (despite the fact that the latter statement is a completely indefensible generalization). Beyond that, he clearly wasn't attacking simple. It tok a heroic act of misquoting to make it seem so. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I took something out of context. Nobody wants to see simple folk attacked at all. If that was not the case, then disregard me. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Alienated??, on contraire, Australia is one of the most successful nations in the world which grew because of its people and same as simple wiki, it has succeeded because of our community. We really didn't care that they were banned on other wikis since they did a good job to build this wiki. Just over 18 months ago, the same wiki was slow and barely had 12,000 articles, now we have over 42,000 and the editors are trying hard to get it to 50,000 by January end, and no I'm not attacking any projects, just preventing a good project from being attacked and thanks Eric, I know people always misunderstand what I say..nothing new ;) ...--Cometstyles 22:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

ThePageChanger was a bullet of pure drama who continued to MySpace and create sockpuppets. How SEW even considered unbanning him after he claimed he committed suicide is beyond me and it only took the miracle of his absolute stupidity in sending ten emails with the middle finger ASCII to finally get the community to ban him.

There is yet to be a wrestling FA (HornetMan/ChristianMan's expertise). Ionas68824/Jonas D. Rand's proudest contribution is an article that's largely a stub. Steve Crossin/Samekeh has done good work, but he wasn't banned here for any serious behavioral problems like the others, just for account sharing. Punk Boi/Da Punk repeatedly keeps retiring and unretiring and creating various accounts (Da Punk '95/'08, Spiderpig). I cynically view it as a power game, especially when you consider six RFAs for PB/DP, six for HM/CM, and three for SwirlBoy39.

Who contributes the content? The Rambling Man, an admin and b'crat here, has five VGAs. That's the most notable thing I can think of. RyRy/RyanCross, who has 1 VGA on the simple, has 1 FL/3 GAs on here. The point? I think the belief that SEW is a place for banned en users to rehab isn't as strong as you seem to indicate it is. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm failing to see the relevance to en's admin noticeboard. Orderinchaos 23:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I also fail to see why this is being posted now, after a 3:1 majority opposes this after almost a month... NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And we will probably never know... why now?  :) Want my crystal ball? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The proposal looks likely to fail; not much more use in taking it up here. I also agree that it would be far more likely in the unlikely event that simplewiki was closed, it would move to Wikia rather than merging here. Stifle (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Concern at Daniel Rodriguez article

Could someone please check on a recent activity by a KP Botany who has suggested that all my previous additions of recent months maybe undone at the Daniel Rodriguez article. What is this about. I have been trying to build, as Wikipedia has noted that they would like to expand this article. I have no conflict of interest. Not sure exactly what is meant to infer, but I have not vandelized or in anyway done anything other then try to do what Wikipedia seems to be trying to do, in building on a good informative article to make it even better. I won't be able to spend time for several months now, but please could someone watch over this situtation. Thank you kindly. 71.87.55.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC).

• He's right. An unpublished biography ([73]) is not an appropriate or acceptable source. Please see our sourcing guidelines. Most of the article has good sources, I don't think the content is at risk. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Links, for the Daniel Rodriguez talk page here and for my user talk page me here. Talk pages for articles can be found by clicking on the tab that says "discussion" right above the article lead. Thanks, JzG, for checking some of the other sources and for removing a few problematic links. Yes, please, there have been past problems with edits to this article, all editors who wish to check this user's and any edits on the article, please stop by. Please feel free to discuss any issues on the article's talk page, also. --KP Botany (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD Survey

Well, I've gone through a number of CSD nominations from the past month and found about 40 that I thought might pose interesting questions on how people perform CSD's. Basically, I'm asking people to review the article in question and answering the question, "how would you handle this" with one of four options:

1. Agree with criteria for deletion.

2. Disagree with criteria for deletion, but would delete the article under another criteria.

3. Disagree with the criteria for deletion, but this is a situation where IAR applies.

4. Disagree with speedily deleting the article.

To see the surveys, go to this page. I'm hoping to get a good mix of people to participate in the surveys---people who agree with my interpretation of CSD and people who have different views. I'll post the results in a couple of weeks after getting a decent return.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. Reminds me of one of the optional questions from my RfA. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking Wikipedia article by Google

Resolved

 – article is indeed showing up on first page of Google hits. Not really sure what else can be done here.

// roux   20:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not an issue relevant to administrators, if it is an issue at all.  Sandstein  15:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)}}

Our article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_engineering is, apparently, blocked by Google. Does anybody know why? Thanks, Shustov (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be the case. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "Blocked by Google"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you search Yahoo or Copernic, to say nothing of Wikipedia, for Earthquake engineering, you will immediately receive Earthquake engineering. In the case of Google, you will not receive it at all. Shustov (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this a matter for admins? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia administrators should be concerned about selective black-outs of Wikipedia articles by a major Web search engine, shouldn't they? Shustov (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as the "black-out" is not achieved by deviously manipulating content on our end, not really. — CharlotteWebb 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:GWA perhaps? OK, not...that applies to editing, not to just viewing. Stumped as to what happened. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Google is not blocking the article- if it was a search with the string "Earthquake + engineering + Wikipedia" wouldn't return the article as the first hit- which it does. Remember that Yahoo works in a fundamentally different way than Google, the results are rarely the same and almost never in the same order. This could even be a bug. I really think it's a non-issue, but if someone here disagrees they should contact google. I doubt, however, they will much care about our griping that we can't show up first for every possible string... l'aquatique |✡| talk 08:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Our article? Thatcher 14:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

When I google for earthquake engineering, the Wikipedia article shows up on page 3. Google is not blocking anything. Aecis·(away) ^talk 14:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say there's an important difference between 'excluded from Google's results' and 'not on the first page of hits for a particular set of keywords'. Incidentally, it seems that large portions of the article have been plagiarized from U.S. Geological Survey documents. Give credit where it's due, people! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Google filters out duplicate content. If we have a page that is in large part a copy of a document that Google has already indexed, they may decide to downrank or filter out our page. Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Just because we tend to be the first page on Google, Yahoo, MSN, or whoever for a given phrase, doesn't mean anything is wrong if we're not, nor should we expect to be/think we're entitled to be for any specific topic. How search engines do their thing is their business, not ours, since we're here to make articles, not worry about marketing. :) rootology (C)(T) 15:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The only Wikipedia value for the world community is its articles. If any of the articles is maliciously blacked-out, that value will decrease. I highly appreciate any (!) of the above opinions, but not untrue facts. Unfortunately, Wikipedia article Earthquake engineering remains completely invisible in Google search engine. Aecis•(away)’s statement that when he googled for earthquake engineering, the Wikipedia article showed up on page 3 is not accurate up to this moment. Again, it is not a matter of being on the first page, it’s a matter of the complete blocking! By the way, wouldn’t TenOfAllTrades mind to prove that ”large portions of the article have been plagiarized from U.S. Geological Survey documents”, please? Shustov (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In my case, it appeared on page 4: [74]. The copying is being discussed on the article's talk page, where it belongs. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, the norsk version of the Google search results differs from the english one. However, the issue remains! Shustov (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems pointless. Google has no reason to "maliciously black-out" one of our articles- they've done some weird stuff but that's not part of their MO. It's one article. We can't be first everytime. Now, can we get back to things that actually matter? l'aquatique |✡| talk 19:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue doesn't remain. Search on the string earthquake engineering (without quotes) and the article comes up on the third or fourth page of hits. The nature of Google's backend means that the results won't be in precisely the same order each time. Search on the string earthquake engineering wikipedia and our article comes up at the first hit. Nothing to see here. It just means that the rest of the internet hasn't defaulted to our article as the most reliable or popular source on this topic (yet). (See PageRank for more details.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If anybody does not like the word malicious, forget it: you may find a better explanation. Of real importance are these facts: 1) I started improving the article in June 2008. 2) Since then, the traffic to Earthquake engineering has increased dramatically, from 436 viewers in May 2008 to 9832 viewers in November 2008 (22.6 times!). 3) During this period, the article first showed up on the page 3 of Google, then slipped to the page 8, and, finally, disappeared for good some two-three weeks ago. Any questions? Be my guests. Shustov (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read what TenOfAllTrades wrote above. The article does appear in Google. Indeed, on the first page of results. Not really sure what you're still concerned about here, so I'm marking this as resolved. Again. // roux   20:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And it's currently on page 6 of English-language Google. Seriously, calm down. Google are not part of the Massive Conspiracy against your article. – iridescent 20:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorrrrry, I have seen it neither on page 1, nor on page 6, no anywhere else (I browsed Google up to page 22). Anyway, thank you all for trying to help! Shustov (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Click this link
2. Hit ctrl-f
3. Type "wikip" in the search window
4. Watch in amazement as your article is displayed
5. Quit flogging this dead horse which doesn't appear to affect anyone other than you, and has nothing to do with Wikipedia admins even if it did. – iridescent 21:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Google doesn't just have one server (can you imagine how busy it'd be?) -- it has multiple servers, and sometimes they output results in different orders until they sync up later. Nothing to worry about, just don't expect everyone to see the same things you do. DreamGuy (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Google also gives different results depending on what country you search from, and even the language you use. Searching from Spain it automatically sends you to "google.es", where the article appears on the fourth page [75], searching from "google.com" it appears on the second page[76] (but only if the interface is set to english language! my browser is set to prefer the spanish language so google will automatically set it, and then it will display the same results as google.es), searching from google.fr it appears at the end of the fourth page[77], etc. This is because google will give preference to pages linked from local websites (pages hosted on IPs on your own country, or written on your own language), and other tweaks to fit your locale (your browser is surely already set to your own locale).

Also, these national-dependent influences will change over time as new websites are written on your language and old websites are modified or taken down, even if you don't take into account the regular maintenance tweaks to the algorisms. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sgt dizzle guy/LouPepe indef blocked

Just a heads up: tonight I indefinitely blocked the following series of abusive sockpuppets of already indefinitely-blocked troll Newcrewforu (talk · contribs) after recent checkuser confirmation.

• Sgt dizzle guy (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• LouPepe (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 347Editor (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

He has been casing quite a bit of trouble, to put it mildly, over at beer style and flag football for some time. He shows a certain degree of aggressive persistence, so I expect that he will reincarnate shortly. – ClockworkSoul 09:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

More details at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/96.247.37.61 (3rd). BradV 21:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Article at wrong title due to technical restrictions

Wikipedia - The Missing Manual. This is a very odd situation. In the browser window it is displayed as Wikipedia: The Missing Manual (the correct title) but the article's location is at the title mentioned, with a dash. If moved to Wikipedia: The Missing Manual it would be in Wikipedia project space, but is there not a way the software could be changed to overcome this technical restriction?--CretinInsiduous (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of this seems more appropriate for the Village Pump, than for the Admin noticeboard. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Creation of Spring-return toggle switch

Resolved

This page is requested, and it seems that it would be useful as a redirect here. However, the page name is for whatever reason blacklisted. Could we have a sysop create the page? Thanks. Quantumobserver (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Created and redirected. Not sure why that is on the black list. Protonk (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

88.111.44.234 (talk · contribs)

This anon user is being very hostile regarding edits made on Radiohead, and is refusing to assume good faith. I went to his talk page and tried to point out that he was acting rather rudely, and directed him to WP:GOODFAITH, but he simply became even more hostile and called my message on his talk page 'abuse'. I have left another message to him, telling him that it was a very normal edit dispute over wording and nothing to get upset about and left him another link to WP:GOODFAITH, but I really don't think he's even going to look at the link I gave him. Zazaban (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I see the editor has had several comments on their talkpage, and the article remains in their preferred version - which is grammatically better, IMO. Providing that there are no further inappropriate reverts and use of uncivil comments/summaries I think we should just move on. (ps. I have modified the header to allow any other reviewer quicker access to the logs - I trust this is okay?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Review of Protection of User talk:KoshVorlon

Resolved

 – Unprotected. Admin trout-slaps himself. --Smashville^talk 23:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I reverted an edit of KoshVorlon's instead of blocking him for 3RR (I let him know he had already broken it and warned him for continually harassing another editor). He went ahead and reverted my edit...I guess by making this edit, I became an involved editor. After his block, he continually referred to my edit as "vandalism" and posted a notice on his page (which he later reverted) that he was being censored by the blocking admin. After a discussion with him went nowhere, I protected his talkpage for his own protection because it seemed as if his anger was escalating, and I didn't want him to do anything to extend his block. So...was my protection out of line since I seem to have unwittingly become an involved party...despite the fact that my involvement is predicated on notifying him to stop the behavior which lead to the block and ultimately my page protection? --Smashville^talk 20:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with your actions, you were clearly acting form an admin viewpoint rather than that of a involved party, I would have done the same thing--Jac16888 (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering because I think by reverting his edit and pulling out another one, despite my initial intent, I unintentionally became involved in a content dispute with him...--Smashville^talk 20:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You protected the page because of inappropriate use while blocked. What exactly was inappropriate (could you provide any diffs)? That would make a review much easier. :) — Aitias // discussion 20:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute... so instead of blocking/warning/protecting for revert warring, you ... reverted him, continuing the revert war? That doesn't sound like a very good solution. The point of having rules against revert warring is to prevent disruption. I don't see how this was supposed to do that. This is not at all de-escalating the situation. Also, there was no edits between your last response and the page protection? Why all of a sudden protect the page. Lastly, we have the "Allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked." blocking option specifically so we don't have to full-protect user talk pages like this. Mr.Z-man 20:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why I brought it here...I had second thoughts and so did another editor...I'm sorry if my finger didn't immediately go to the block button the first time... --Smashville^talk 23:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have unprotected KoshVorlon's talkpage, so that they may make whatever comment they wish - and to take any consequences of editing in a way that does not help resolve the situation. I have done this because, primarily, Smashville requested review of his actions and, secondly, I do not believe we should be presuming that a blockable/protectable action is incipient; sometimes you do have to wait and see if they cross that line. As I have taken this action I do not feel that I should comment further on the block and matters that immediately preceded it - although I do commend Smashville in raising it here. 21:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs)

I'm fine with that...that's why I brought it here. --Smashville^talk 23:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:UAA Backlog

Resolved

 – All gone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Folks there's a bit of a backlog over at WP:UAA... – ukexpat (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic edits by IP user

Resolved

95.112.248.60 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) has been adding categories such as "Jewish fraudsters" to various pages. He has not received any warnings, and frankly, I'm not sure if this qualifies as vandalism, tendentious editing, or something else entirely. I just thought that you, as the "powers that be", should know about this. --Eastlaw (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Next time report similar to WP:AIV for a likely quicker response. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We really don't mess around with stuff like that. Thanks for bringing it up. Grandmasterka 04:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Numero Uno

Unresolved

 – This 'article' is now a soft redirect to Wiktionary — Gavia immer (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This 'article' is a fragment of a sentence and 2 stubs, one about a band, one about a music publishing group. I'm not sure what the best way is to straighten out the mess. dougweller (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The redirect was called retarded in the next editor's edit summary. I guess the next step is going to be AfD, it isn't an article or a dab page.

Reverted to {{wi}}, but a disambiguation page would be possible. (I decline to call the union of 4 stubs with each of its categories "retarded", although that seems a reasonable description.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Undeleted a talkpage please

Resolved.

Hi, could someone undelete talk:Trojan Knights? Thank you! -- Banjeboi 02:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Self-identifying minor

Is the information on this page too self-identifying? Should it be removed? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with the user page and given the user some instructions as to how he should be editing articles more than his user page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

vandal only 70.136.121.160

The user 70.136.121.160 has vandalized four sections of the FC Dallas page (the vandalism has been undone). It seems that the only thing this user has ever done is vandalism.

who is reveals this info:

AT&T Internet Services SBCIS-SIS80 (NET-70-128-0-0-1)

                                 70.128.0.0 - 70.143.255.255

Heath Netport, LTD .6327 SBC07013612000021051121121215 (NET-70-136-120-0-1)

                                 70.136.120.0 - 70.136.127.255

Charliehelms (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism should be reported to WP:AIV, the user concerned hasn't received any warnings and hasn't edited in three days (so blocking them will probably do nothing). Hut 8.5 10:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Vanity, all is vanity...

That is enough about me, though... I would like a sanity check on a series of deletions I have just made; if people would care to see the deleted contributions of Jaeda123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and especially Asyrafa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); much of the deleted content relates to supposed contestants of Weekend Splash Concert season 6, all of whom appear to be colleagues of the author, or the musical releases by Asyrafa - all around this Christmas. The competition does seem notable, in that there are ghits, but I have a suspicion that a bunch of friends decided to live out their fantasy life a little. Anyone more familiar with the South Pacific media culture may be able to help here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee work

For those who are interested, a brief update on work behind the scenes. Just a bullet list and outline at this point (too early to really say more).

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

La academia

Could somebody please move La academia to La Academia? Thanks. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And La academia USA to La Academia USA? Thanks. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• I moved the first one, but "La academia USA" seems to be the capitalization used in the second article, so I'm not sure which capitalization is correct. Wickethewok (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The official website at http://www.terra.com/laacademia/ seems to use both capitalizations, but it only seems to lower case in the logo, the rest of the website uses upper case. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

La academia USA is still not moved...Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Added at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_uncontroversial_moves --Enric Naval (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:Suspected Sock Puppets Major Backlog.

There are 29 open sock cases there, some dating back a month. The Backlog tag has been on the page at least 5 days. Can it get cleaned out? I note this because among them is a report I filed, wherein the puppetmaster is now engaging in edit warring. ThuranX (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The backlog was recently up to 61 cases. We need more admins to help here. Jehochman ^Talk 16:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the huge backlog is so large because hunting out sockpuppets of people is one of those admin jobs that only a select few admins feel qualified to do. Perhaps we should be hunting out those with skills in that area to assist, be they an admin or not. I also feel since sock-hunting does not really have anything to do with writing an encyclopedia, many feel it not worth it. Majorly talk 16:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd encourage everyone to skim it at least, some of the cases are sufficiently obvious that no magic pixie dust is required. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Many feel hunting socks is not worth it until socks disrupt the article they are working on, because it is impossible to write an article under those conditions. No special skills are required. You just look at the contribution lists of the users, and the edit histories of the relevant pages and apply common sense. If there are doubts, requests for checkuser may be filed. The sysop bit is needed to apply blocks, but any user can review the evidence and post comments as to whether there has been socking or not. Jehochman ^Talk 16:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. Very often the input of an experienced non-admin with knowledge of the articles in question will be of particular value. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

From the couple times that I tried to help out there, the main thing that drove me away wasn't the hard work, it was the people making the reports. Rather than reporting blatant vandals who also happened to be socks to AIV, they'd report to SSP, where the user might not get blocked for a week. Groups of IP addresses in the same /24 dynamic IP range would be reported as "potential sockpuppets." New users who hadn't really done anything disruptive are reported and asked to be banhammered. Diffs given as evidence show that 2 users are likely the same person, but no disruptive edits and no actual attempts to deceive. Its just one big WP:ABF party with a few legitimate reports occasionally sprinkled in. Mr.Z-man 18:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's frustrating to have SSP reports ignored. Block durations are absolutely meaningless unless we are vigilant against socking. There are certainly reports that are filed out of ignorance and stupidity, but it's important to get those cleared out quickly so that real reports can be noticed.—Kww(talk) 18:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the good thing about working on SSP is that you never seem to get any edit conflicts. :-) Hermione1980 02:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think sometimes when an administrator makes a conclusion in the conclusion section, and blocks users, they forget to add {{SSPa}} to the SSP case page, so the case pages sit there and the bot doesn't know to archive them - making it look like the backlog is larger than it actually is. Perhaps clearer and/or more prominent instructions about the use of {{SSPa}} is warranted. Cirt (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Having worked on SSP for almost half a year but stopped recently, I can tell you the real reason why SSP gets less admin attention than RFCU. The underlying truth is because in SSP, most blocks are judgement calls based on behaviour and editing patterns. If the admins made a mistake, they take the full responsibility. In RFCU, the false-positive ratio is much lower and admin can pass the burden of mistake to CU result (or blame it on the CU because it is them who calls the "very likely", "likely", "possible", etc.) It's just being a human, nobody wants to risk losing their tools in return for gaining little from it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's back up to 33 cases. ThuranX (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• And back down to 21. I closed a couple and then realised that EBotII hadn't worked since 0615 UTC today, so I manually archived everything that was closed (don't worry, I added them to the archive!). Black Kite 23:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Disabling indexing of non-content namespaces

There's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NOINDEX of all non-content namespaces regarding disabling indexing of non-content namespaces. Comments would be appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Is what I did appropriate?

Today, I handled an unblock request of Pope Rory Spencer, in which he admitted being a sleeper sock of Hamish Ross and requested an unblock for his IP address. Upon investigation of the Hamish Ross case, I decided to block Pope Rory Spencer in a similar manner to the recent Hamish Ross socks - e-mail blocked, can't edit own talk page. Later, when I remembered that A dark handsome stranger seems to have a similar record (from when I responded to his unblock request), and saw that he only had a standard VOA block, I modified his block in a similar manner. Is what I did correct? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I see a suspectsock template on the userpage, but I think a notice under the declined unblock request noting the sockmaster account and the inability to edit and email would also be appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I placed the suspectsock templates on both user pages around the same time I handled the blocking. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no record of User talk:A dark handsome stranger receiving a template. Perhaps that could be rectified when noting no access to email and talkpage? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, when I blocked I didn't realise this was one of a series of socks that should have the edit talk page block enabled as well, given that its only contributions were harassment I just blocked it on the spot. Interestingly, the given IP is a workplace one, which may leave some options if the harassment continues. Black Kite 18:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Pope Benjamin Lister (talk · contribs) and his socks may be related. Acroterion _(talk) 23:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at Pope Benjamin Lister and one of his socks, I don't think they're related. Hamish Ross tends to harass The JPS, mostly by accusing him of being a pedophile. Pope Benjamin Lister seems not to be doing that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is part of a large amount of sockpuppets that I discovered after I blocked some accounts harassing other users. He has since begun harassing myself, and Sam Korn, FT2, and a few other checkusers have been working on preventing this user from editing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

When a user makes an unblock request like this, it shows that he is doing his/her absolute best to harass a specific user, and is proud of it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Unblock reviewed

It's hard to believe it's over two years since I created {{unblock reviewed}}. I'm glad it seems to be useful. I have a suggestion, and I'm not sure whether it would be best in that template or a new one.

There exists a class of blocks where the user requests unblock, and we then call the blocking admin (who is most familiar with the case). In such cases, and to keep the unblock category clear (and thus avoid wasting people's time) I would suggest we should perhaps have a template called "unblock pending" or some such, which will put these requests in a sub-category until the blocking admin has had a chance to review.

Such cases are generally the non-obvious ones: not blatant vandalism, but blocks for patterns of disruption that require knowledge of the history, which the blocking admin presumably has. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes all sorts of sense. // roux   20:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a great idea, really. Would be very very useful. — Aitias // discussion 21:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good (er... Is there an opt out situation re "assumed knowledge of blocking admin?") LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair point (slap me, slap me, bad man, not Dec 26 yet) . Do you mean where the admin has not left a note on the talk page saying the conditions under which they would support unblock? Incidentally, I think a statement of that nature is a great idea for long blocks, in case one is on Wikibreak or some such when the appeal comes. Nothing wrong with letting the user know the realities, and if the unblock condition is the heat death of the universe then we should say so right up front. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, no... not really. More like, "when blocking admin knew it was the right thing to do when reported, but after all this time - perhaps days, maybe hours - is a little foggy on the reasons why..." sort of thing. Y'know, past the hot white heat of the present situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I think this should be triggered manually by a reviewing administrator, such as by adding a parameter like "needscomment=1" to the {{unblock}} template. That should leave the unblock request open, assign the talk page to a subcategory of Category:Requests for unblock and add text to the effect of "the blocking admin has been notified of this request at xx:xx UTC" to the {{unblock}} template. The actual notification could be done by bot, perhaps by DavidWSBot (talk · contribs), who already does block notification.  Sandstein  08:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the reviewing admin should be the one to leave a message - he can, in addition to notifying the blocking admin, leave a personal opinion (i.e "a block of six months seems to be too much for a single [link_to_diff personal attack] by the anon" - a real case I handled, where I found out some useful information by contacting the blocking admin). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Created

I have created Template:Unblock on hold and Category:Unblock on hold. — Aitias // discussion 16:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tested everything, works well. :) — Aitias // discussion 18:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The template needs to NOT be substed - otherwise, it's a painful amount of wiki-gibberish to figure out what to replace with the decision template. Just like the unblock template, this one needs to be left in place as is until someone replaces it with unblock reviewed. --B (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed that. :) — Aitias // discussion 15:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

sloe eyes

Why does this topic redirect to Prunus Spinosa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faucon24 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The plant is also known as the "sloe" and its color is the origin of the phrase "sloe eyes." If you want to write an article about the phrase, you could give it a whirl. Avruch ^T 19:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that a whole article is needed. The "Cultivation and uses" section defines the term "sloe eyed" and gives its origin, and there's not a whole lot more to say about it. --Masamage ♫ 19:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

File Name Uploading Conflict

It has been some time since I have uploaded an image to this site. Since that time, it seems that people have changed things aroung a bit. I am interested in keeping the formatting of unit emblems in the Air National Guard the same as I have uploaded them before. A quick glance at any modern Air Force Unit page will show that the names of the emblems follow a kind of standardized order. I'd like to upload a file to the site that is named AFG-080109-029. Keeping the name makes it easier to find what one is looking for on the site. It also doesn't significantly mess up what the government did. I would like to keep this system in place and I know that I have more files to upload, that begin with the AFG-080109-0 designator. In keeping with a spirit of not having to go against what I have done before and to keep with the style of others, I would thus like to have permission to continue loading unit emblems with this name style kept the same. I would also like to thank the one who responds to me beforehand for any help that they might bring. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here. Honestly I don't like those filenames as they're really non-descriptive. e.g., File:AFG-080109-092.jpg might be better called "192nd Airlift Squadron emblem.jpg" with the string "AFG-080109-092" in the summary; you'd still be able to locate the file by that string via searching. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically I there is a sort of way that they are uploaded, and this is more like a list fashion. I'm trying to keep their names as close to the others that were uploaded before the policy change. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You're probably hitting the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist (and rightly so in my opinion). Please use descriptive file names. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for input

I'm writing here to request input on a form letter for reporting possible threats of violence to law enforcement organizations, which can be found at User:Mendaliv/TOV letter. I'm hoping to make the page more like what's found at Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter, at which point I'm guessing it should be moved out to the Wikipedia namespace. Thanks in advance for your help! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama article probation

Would an uninvolved administrator please check Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories where the article's title is being discussed. Things seem to be going in circles and getting disruptive. I encouraged one editor to start an RFC, which seems to have helped establish a consensus, but now there are multiple threads being started and an allegation has been made that proponents of a fringe view may be attempting to wear down other editors in order to get their way.[78] A community article probation is in effect. Perhaps it is time to issue warnings about the possibility of topic bans. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And do you think "that proponents of a fringe view" are "attempting to wear down other editors in order to get their way"?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of old IP talk pages

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.

---

About 45 minutes ago I left a message on the talk page of MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) regarding his mass deletion of IP talk pages (is that supported by policy?). Over the next half-hour, I left him two more messages ([79], [80]), however none have elicited any response. In the meantime, he has deleted approximately 300 more IP talk pages at a rate of 5 - 7 per minute. Since past experience with MZMcBride has shown him to be a very diligent and responsive admin, I am concerned that he may not be in full control over his account (either due to some run-away script or the account being hijacked). --Kralizec! (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It is Christmas Day. One could safely assume that he's not watching his talkpage minute by minute. Give it some time... I don't see any reason for this to be here, given that you have contacted him on his talkpage. // roux   18:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That is actually part of my point. I am not aware of any admins that would ignore the orange "you have new talk page messages" bar for over an hour all the while continuing to delete pages by the hundreds. If these sorts of deletions are not supported by policy (and I do not pretend to know either way ... hence my query on his talk page), then we are going to have an awful mess to clean up since he has deleted over 4000 IP talk pages. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ehh.. I dunno. There are times when I (not an admin, obviously) ignore the New Messages thing because I'll deal with it later. I think it's fair to assume others do the same. Note I'm not commenting on the merits (or lack thereof) of the deletions. // roux   18:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The point is correct though, I never heard of mass-deletion of IP talk pages being housekeeping. He responded at User talk:MZMcBride#Mass deletion of talk pages though, but I fail to see why this is done by him. It looks like a standard task for a bot to me... Regards SoWhy 18:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

MZMcBride continues to delete IP talk pages despite users (myself included) voicing their concern over those deletions. That's rather inappropriate. --Conti|✉ 18:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless the IP is static (such as a school or corporate firewall) there is very little point in maintaining a history of warnings when the offender moved on to another IP ages ago. Although I generally only blank the page ("archive to history") I do not see anything broadly harmful in deletion. Thatcher 18:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think that with people voicing concerns over this, it is rather inappropriate for the bot to be continuing. Bots are not supposed to be run without permission. If people are unhappy with the idea of a bot deleting old talk pages, it should not be running. What do we do now? Majorly talk 19:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If he does not respond, maybe it will be needed to block him until he responds? SoWhy 19:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There is little harm in deleting the IP pages, I agree, but then again, what do we gain from deleting them? It seems rather pointless to me. Blanking seems like the more sensible option, if one wants to empty a rather crowded talk page. Anyhow, this is besides the point. No admin should use a bot (unauthorized or not) without responding to user's concerns. This is definitely not the first time this has happened with MZMcBride, either. --Conti|✉ 19:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have left this comment at MZMcBride's talk page. — Aitias // discussion 19:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite has blocked MZMcBride for 12 hours. I find this appropriate, all things considered. Majorly talk 19:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect he left his bot running by accident - no big deal. As soon as he responds someone can unblock him, we just need to know he's in control of his actions. --Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate this noticeboard. Anyway, I've responded to several posts on my talk page over the past few days about these deletions. :-) (That's mostly in reply to Conti.) I think everything else is pretty clear. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please point those of us who are unfamiliar with this practice toward the policy or guideline that prescribes these deletions as being standard housekeeping? Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure anyone's bothered to write it down yet. (Much like CAT:TEMP, I suppose....) Is there a particular issue you have? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

While blanking of IP pages is fine, deleting seems problematic as non-admins will be blind to any past warnings an IP has received. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's very likely that the IP has been re-assigned or there is a different user behind it. Also, without any blocks, templates on the page, edits in the past year, or talk page activity in the past year, how much do you think there is to see? There's also the issue of the new messages bar and a quite confusing diff... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"without any blocks, templates on the page, edits in the past year, or talk page activity in the past year, how much do you think there is to see" - well, then what's the harm with just leaving the pages intact? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a nice experience to come to Wikipedia and be accused of something like: "Racism is not amusing. Kindly refrain from posting it, or you may be blocked." --MZMcBride (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's very likely that the IP has been re-assigned or there is a different user behind it Just curious as to how you are determining the length of the DHCP lease? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Does that matter? And if so, how? (Short answer: I'm not looking at DHCP records at all.) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If an IP is a long-term abuser, deleting the talk page deletes the history. Some ISPs assign their IP addresses with long-term reservations, 6 months, longer or perhaps even permanently. It'll still be same person behind the address. Will we be able to determine a long-term abuser if we (non-admins) can't see the history? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

How many long-term abusers have 0 blocks and 0 edits within the past year? ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

While I am not opposed to this practice as long as we only employ it for "old" talk pages and then do it consistently, this cannot exactly be called "standard housekeeping" if no one has ever bothered to write it down. Without some form of standardization here, I could see new but highly enthusiastic admins running with this idea and deleting month old talk pages, which I am sure we would all agree hinders instead of helps the project. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points. With things like CAT:TEMP, we wrote down the instructions on the category description page. With IPs, is there a similar place? Perhaps a project-space page somewhere? Wikipedia:User page, perhaps (as that covers user talk pages as well)? That seems pretty reasonable. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Started a conversation there. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bluntly, I for one consider this to be worrying enough. — Aitias // discussion 20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Scripts are far, far more accurate than any human could ever be... (Addendum: I suppose it would also be prudent to mention RSI here too. As much as I enjoy this project, I'm not going to hurt myself for it. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point of deletion over blanking. Deletion ensures that only admins can see what has happened in the past, and most of the people who work against vandalism aren't admins. It would be useful for them to be able to click on the history and see patterns of abuse, if any, which will inform whether they will warn or get an admin involved to investigate whether e.g. it is a school IP and needs a longterm block. // roux   20:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• So, you're browsing Wikipedia, clicking around and suddenly you have a new messages bar. You click "last change" and this is what you see. How is that fair to our readers / potential editors? I know if I weren't familiar with Wikipedia, that would be incredibly confusing. Look at the right-hand column.... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I see what you're getting at, but if you just had your bot blank the pages with either an edit summary or a note on the page saying something like "Everything older than X has been removed, as this is the talkpage of a dynamic IP" there should be no issues I think. And maintains transparency for non-admins. I just don't see why deletion is necessary. Or, even, the bot could make a double edit; one to blank, one substing {{null}} into the page. Then the IP would see nothing untoward in the diff. // roux   20:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • That seems rather silly given the dynamic nature of editing anonymously (and wasteful with all of the extra revisions). The German Wikipedia deletes these pages; and without any edits in the past year, any talk page activity, no blocks, etc., I just don't see the need for them to stay around indefinitely. And then of course there's the issue of blue links leading to blank pages which drives me mad. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
      • You're making a common error. Wikis are not filesystems. Deletion does not free space, nor does it reduce the size of the database. Deletion of a page actually increases the database size. Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • What? Dynamic whatsit? A fair bit of the planet would still have no idea what you are talking about, for sure. Even more confused, on top of seeing something about how they've been abusing the site, are racist, an edit warrior, "sockpuppet", strangle puppies, etc. I can see plenty of benefit to deleting these over blanking them, in 99% of cases. SQL^{Query me!} 01:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Well.. I dunno. I just don't see why we should be reducing transparency for non-admins. There's a general permanent backlog of things that need admin attention, and I'm not sure that adding "Can you please look at the deleted history of this talkpage for problems?" is something we need to be adding to that list. No great harm is caused, but no great benefit is gained, by deleting instead of blanking. Alternatively, couldn't ClueBot (or clone) be configured to visit IP talkpages and archive after X period of time? // roux   21:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I think you may be forgetting that any contributions by an IP are still completely visible to any user... --MZMcBride (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
          • That just puts the onus on people looking to comb through the IP's contribs and figure out what they may or may not have been warned for in the past. Leaving the page undeleted lets non-admins skim through edit summaries looking for things like 'warning' and 'monthname year'. Again, what I'm saying is about transparency to non-admins; why make it more difficult to suss out patterns of abuse? // roux   21:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides that: I don't think MZMcBride's deletions can be justified here at all (cf. WP:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_talk_pages.3F and Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#User_pages). There is no reason why this policy can't apply for IP talk pages as well. — Aitias // discussion 20:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous users and registered users are treated (sometimes very) differently in the software and in our social customs. I don't see the point you're trying to make. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)User talk pages are normally not deleted because they have content that might be relevant at some time in the future, such as a discussion or sockpuppet templates (though I question the usefulness of putting a sock template on an IP talk page). In this case, any content is going to be completely irrelevant. For example, my current IP address is 71.227.54.220, one address in a block of 16,000 dynamic-ish IPs used by Comcast in Michigan. It was used for vandalism in 2006, then again nearly a year later in 2007, then a few months later, it reverted some vandalism. In the time between the first instance of vandalism and now, its probably been reassigned at least 3 times. Any message on it or in the page history (how many vandal patrollers seriously check the page history for warning?) is going to be completely irrelevant after each reassignment. Mr.Z-man 21:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

MZM deleting IPs which have had no posts or blocks or contribs for a year seems innocuous and perhaps beneficial. Thre should be some consensus that 1 year is the correct time, so someone does not run around deleting IP warnings from 1 month or 1 week ago. Does deleting the talk page remove the block log? I look at the block history to decide how long of a block to give an IP. Edison (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't delete the page if the IP has ever been blocked. :-) But to answer your question specifically, the block log (and user contributions) remain visible and fully intact regardless of whether the IP has a talk page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering [81] implies that the issue was not clear-cut last week, and is likely not clear-cut now. MfD seems quite capable of dealing with problem pages, and has not been overwhelmed with requests to delete the (thousands?) of pages unilaterally deleted. Collect (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Paperwork for the sake of paperwork? ;-) Seems a bit antithetical to our principles of (trying!) to avoid bureaucracy. And I think quite a few more people have commented here than that Village_pump thread (understandably, really). --MZMcBride (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to keep talkpages around, especially for IPs, where vandalism might be spread out over a period of months or years. We routinely block school IPs for a year at a time, so it would cause a hardship on other admins if the entire page, including the {{SharedIPEDU}} template, were deleted for inactivity. --Elonka 21:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Err.. you seem to be missing a key point or two. :-) If the page has any templates, it is skipped. If the IP has ever been blocked, it is skipped. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

From time to time I get a message from an irate anon giving me grief because I have left a vandalism warning when he has never edited WP before sample 1 sample 2. It usually turns out that the warning was left in another age for another person. So, I can see some utility in clearing IP talk pages, and I'm fairly sure there used to be a bot that did it. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think blanking the page can be equally confusing and irritating to an anonymous user, if not more so. Did you see my diff above about this? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd think an anon who is knowledgeable enough to look at a diff is knowledgeable enough to know that the earlier message was aimed at a prior user of the page. I agree that we ought to have a policy for clearing out old IP talk pages (I actually just finished blanking a batch of about 20,000). I'd say a one-year-old warning should be blanked, and anything over two years should be deleted - even if the IP has been blocked, or was identified as a school IP or the like. Any school-assigned IP address from which no edits have come in over two years is likely inaccessible to students anyway. bd2412 T 21:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh? A bright orange bar with two bright blue links to click isn't too difficult for most of our anons. ;-) But I think what you're saying makes sense, though I do see a glitch or two. (For example blanking the pages essentially resets any clock...) Discussion of this should probably continue at WT:UP, though. I've started a thread there. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

While many of MZM's arguments are sensible, I have not been convinced that deleting these pages is preferable over full transparency for all users. Whether messages are 1 day old or 1 year old, whether an IP has been used yesterday or last year, history of use and interactions should not be purged. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

These aren't "interactions." In 99.9% of cases they're template warnings that probably received no response, or vandalism in response. They were left for a person who is by now using a different IP. Please tell me what possible use the content of User talk:71.227.54.220 is, keeping in mind that that IP has probably been reassigned to different people at least 4 times since 2006? Mr.Z-man 16:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the content of that page has little utility, which is why I (and others, I believe) support blanking the page in such cases. But I strongly feel we should strive to keep the historical record of all messages left for all users (exceptions for privacy violations, etc). To me, the argument that "because they are old and reassigned" might be true, but is not sufficient to merit purging all history. Transparency and openness should be paramount. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the point? There is no use for these pages. What's the point of useless transparency? MZMcBride has pointed out several small, yet real benefits to deletion here and/or on Wikipedia talk:User page with regard to making maintenance easier. This is like making the foundation employees post what they had for lunch on their userpages. Its transparency, but its information that no one's going to use. This though is just template warnings, its not even interesting. You keep talking about "interactions" and "messages" like there's conversations or something. Its just the standard vandalism warnings repeated on thousands of talk pages with no incoming links. You seem to agree that the content will never have any use. If we have an article that's completely incorrect (its attributing vandalism to the wrong person after reassignment), we don't blank it, we delete it. Usefulness and reasoning based on logic and cost-benefit analysis should be paramount, not ideals for the sake of having an ideal. Mr.Z-man 06:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

ARGH... I hate forum shopping... I don't mind this if it were to inform this page that a discussion is ongoing elsewhere: hereand here --- Plus Mz's talk page. I think we need to consolodate these three conversations into one area an hash out specifics for incorporating this into G6 or a new criteria.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 15:00, 31 December 2008 (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.

Vandalism of Autogynephilia

Resolved

 – template vandalism--Patton123 14:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just noticed a bit of vandalism to the article Autogynephilia. In the first line of the article the text "== Bold text ==Cole Cochran" appears. It does not appear in the editing window. I just noticed this a few minutes ago even though I have edited the page since it's addition. I edited sections further down and did not see this. What can be done? --Hfarmer (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The offending text was actually on the {{Sexual orientation}} template, which is transcluded onto the page. I have reverted it.--Patton123 14:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

internal server error or misconfigeration repair or reset

Resolved

 – No admin help possible. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 16:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

need help in rewpairing or reseting my internal server error or misconfigeration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albablatt60 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, we can't help you here. Have you tried Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing - preferably with more information? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 16:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Shameful errors on the main page

I went to the error report for the main page intended to detail that the first entry in "In the News", prominently displayed on the entry page of this top ten in the world internet site, seen by millions, is broken English, almost gibberish, and no real sense can be parsed from the language used, even putting aside the grammatical problems. To my surprise, I see that a number of people have already commented and yet the entry still appears unchanged. You really should remedy this and not at your leisure. I think it is a terrible reflection on the site to see such unprofessional writing appearing on the main page. I also think you need to do something about whoever is in an editorial oversight position who let that material through. I would think this should be treated as a very serious matter by those who care about the reputation and integrity of Wikipedia.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone please go change it to something not unlike:

• Chinese paleontologists announce discovery of a massive dinosaur fossil bed near Zhucheng, China, believed to be more extensive than any site previously unearthed.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

it currently reads "Paleontologists announce the discovery, near Zhucheng, China, of a bed of dinosaur fossils believed to be the world's largest fossil site.". that's completely proper english, using a dependent clause. Nothing to fix. The phrase "near Zhucheng, China" modifies the nouun 'discovery', indicating the location of the event. Perfectly acceptable grammar. ThuranX (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but your post is non-responsive since you apparently didn't check the timing. The text you quote reads properly now, thankfully, in direct response to my and previous user's posts at WP:ERRORS. It existed in the prior, garbled version for appoximately six hours. The specific matter of the current posting is resolved, but I do think something should be implemented to ward against future repetition.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be useful to quote the problematic item here, lest one should have to check the history of T:DYK: "A paleontologist discovers the largest dinosaur fossil site near Zhucheng, China". That the inelegant item was up so long is, as you well observe, egregious, but I'm much too tired to offer any grand meditations on the lag that usually attends WP:ERRORS entries, except to note gently that it can never hurt to have more admin eyes at ERRORS, particularly during the times when there are likely to be fewer admins active. Joe 09:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, It was actually much better in that version than a later version. For the record, the text I was truly on about was: "A paleontologist discovers the world's largest collection of dinosaur fossils site near Zhucheng, China" (which is far more problematic than the first version you quote). Please note that I was not speaking before about the lag time to fix it, but rather the editorial oversight—the lack thereof—that okayed it to be placed. The fact that through this discourse, I have discovered that the first version was not nearly as bad as what it became (quoted above) mitigates my concern to some extent.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)the item for tomorrow reads "The discovery of a bed of dinosaur fossils near Zhucheng in Shandong, China, putatively the world's largest fossil site, is announced." ie verb comes 19 words in and passive voice construction to begin. Not a good look. Mccready (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to get into grammar, I'd also like to suggest that the version ThuranX quotes above is of dubious quality considering it splits the noun compound, "discovery of bed" with the phrase "near Zhucheng, China"; I believe it creates a bit of lag in interpreting the noun compound. Furthermore, the topicalization of "Zhucheng, China" suggests that the location is the most pressing/interesting piece of information being relayed- I'd say in this case the fact that a new, record-size fossil bed has been discovered is far more important than the location. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any compelling reason that this conversation is happening here and not at WP:ERRORS? What compelling admin action do we need to be notified of at this noticeboard? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason I posted here (which I think is fairly evident from my original post) was that the problematic main page material was still up; that the postings by multiple users to WP:ERRORS had not gotten any eyes on the problem. I had assumed that this page might function to alert more admins where posting to the more arcane errors page had not. The compelling admin action, was to get embarrassingly sophomoric writing off the main page and thus out of view of the general public, which is 1) an action that can only be done by admins, and 2) seems pretty compelling to me.--71.247.123.9 (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

ITN team would be glad if more users participated in the debates about the candidates. Usually, when a candidate is nominated, there is also a proposed wording and can be improved then. WP:ITN/C. --Tone 12:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Menadaliv, no, in fact there ar just two phrases modifying 'discovery', one is the location, (where), the other the thing discovered (what). You could reverse them and still have an equally functional sentence. ThuranX (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just a comment: By the time someone read and responded to this thread here, someone at ERRORS had already fixed the problem. Regardless of the lag time in ERRORS (esp. on New Year's Eve), it was still faster than posting it here. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:File other

This is protected from creation with the comment "Due to planned change from "Image" to "File" for that namespace, this name is reserved for the move of template to this name." 'Template' presumably being Template:Image other. Can an administrator either move it there or make Template:File other a redirect to Template:Image other? -- Gurch (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Created redirect. Horologium (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Protected the redirect as well. — Edokter • Talk • 18:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Eep. Thanks for taking care of that, doc. (smile) Horologium (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Karnak666 disruptive editing

I would like to bring this user User:Karnak666 [[82]] to your attention. He continuously removes sourced content from the Andre Agassi page. I have reverted it back to the last edit which was done by User:TennisExpert [[83]]. He has just reverted it back to what was when he edited it. He has done this in past without discussion whatsoever and he continues to push his POV into this article . I would appreciate it if you could do something about this disruptive editing. This page was once a featured article candidate which contained that he was indeed Assyrian here [[84]] until some Armenian propagandists changed back to their POV pushing. I have contacted him and he has not responded, he continues to remove sourced material and he has been rebuked by a tennis expert in this discussion. I think he has already violated the 3RR rule. I have provided many sources and they have been confirmed by and expert in the field, I would greatly appreciate it if someone can wiki-disipline this user for his disruptive behavior, constant edit wars with established sources, and POV pushing without providing any of his own input. He has even gone as far as labeling an entire race as cultureless here [[85]] to prove his naive point. Ninevite (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for reporting problems, which may be just as well since the message you left on the above editors page would likely have got you into a bit of trouble anyway. I realise that people pursuing an agenda can make life frustrating, but it does appear that you have quite an agenda yourself - and you are not shy in voicing your bias. There are several steps in dispute resolution which you may apply in this matter, but the very first thing to do is WP:AGF and act WP:CIVIL. Take it to WP:ANI if dispute resolution doesn't work, and hope your comments are sufficiently buried and in the past so no-one considers sanctioning you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Case needs review by intelligent and humane person

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked. Hermione1980 22:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone with the stated credentials please review this case [86]. It seems that the administrator has acted on insufficient evidence. Thank you. TerryFried (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser is not insufficient evidence. By the way, who are you? I see you've registered today, but you seem to already be involved in some conflicts. --Smashville^talk 22:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

TerryFried obviously part of the sock circle noted at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Barryispuzzled_(2nd) as well. Ends here as Barry. Also, his talkpage makes it obvious he's in the sock circle. Block needed. D.M.N. (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Smashville has taken care of it. Hermione1980 22:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda dumb to point out the sockpuppetry, the indef block and then start signing your post with your old name. --Smashville^talk 22:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Deep sock drawer

Posted above at #Is what I did appropriate? and described in short at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive179#Request for unblock of a 2-year IP block, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Palm Tree Tommy, and several accounts listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Man with a tan (user whose name the RFCU is for is unrelated), there have been a slew of accounts created by Hamish Ross (or someone simply easily linked to that name) were created in an approximately 2 hour period on a day that I will gladly give out if necessary. Lately, a few of these accounts decided to show up again and harass some users, and my blocks of these accounts made me one of his new targets. I've been bugging checkusers to try and shut down this idiot (Sam Korn, FT2, and Coren have all helped out) and I've got a list of approximately 400 accounts created in this range that have no edits (Hamish Ross seems to like creating several accounts in a short period and let them be unused for a year). When new accounts showed up, they all came from the list that I initially compiled.

As I previously stated, these accounts have zero (0) edits. The user's most recent sock posted this and this account is on the list I have. What I am looking to do is put this list through a script to indefinitely block these accounts with a message along the lines of "This account has been blocked to prevent abuse from a user who has created possibly dozens of accounts in a specific time period. If you wish to edit, please use {{unblock|Your reason here}} on your talk page, and someone will get to you as soon as possible."

I'm aware that this is extremely controversial, which is why I am proposing it here, first.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, as you note, you’re going to be blocking innocent accounts that aren’t socks. There’s not simply a chance of this, it will happen. I don’t like the idea of that one bit. People create accounts to change their settings and don’t edit for years, then they might decide one day to make an edit - if they find themselves blocked then they’ll be unimpressed to say the least. We should never block accounts unless they are abusive and we have evidence to show that they are. Here, the only evidence is a 90 minute time frame – that’s going to pull in too many innocent accounts as well. Just blocking the socks as they appear is the best way to go here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

While that is what we are doing now, another issue (that I forgot to mention) is that this individual has solely been editing from IP addresses that belong to the National Health Service, which seems to be something that may affect more innocent users. I'm very aware that innocent users may be affected, but I do not know the probability that users who registered in 2007 and never edited from them will remember that they made an account (the 30 day log out thing seems to affect anyone remaining logged in indefinitely) or remember the password. This sock master seems to be proving this wrong. A good percentage of this user's accounts come from this single time period. There seems to be a low cost/benefit ratio if innocent users who have never editted get blocked, which is why I worded the block message I plan on using the way I did.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably support a move to do this for the 2007 accounts, but not for anything more recent. However, one thing I'm curious about... how would a helpful admin know how to respond to an unblock request? --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing more recent (mostly because a lot of the NHS's IPs have been blocked as a result of this user's anonymous edits). And for unblock requests, I would take a look at what has happened at #Is what I did appropriate?.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And what if the unblock request has no self-condemning information? The admin unblocks, presumably. Not sure what we've gained. --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This user, as far as I can tell, has no use to edit constructively (if he did, then my suggestion would not have occured).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sleeper socks from 2007 with zero contributions? Yup, block them indefinite. Legit accounts will have either forgotten the password or even their existence, or have an outside possibility of them created as anti-impersonation accounts (so a block will actually be effective in that situation). I do not see blocking these particular will have such collateral damage potential to count against the likelihood of reducing future disruption. Should there be consensus for blocking I would be prepared to work through a list, using the agreed wording. Other more recent accounts can be tackled either as they pass 1 year since creation, or if others of that vintage start being activated for vandalism/block evasion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Front of House Gary Howard is one of the socks who is on the list of accounts.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Support block of all such accounts with 0 edits, subject that any unblock will require a checkuser to confirm it's not working from Hamish Ross's IP address. Additionally, block them with autoblock disabled, so that there won't be any collateral damage from any accounts which are used merely for watchlisting pages and using personalized settings. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh there'd better be some collateral damage!!! Dame Sue Napier (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested block on above user. — neuro^(talk) 12:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Not sure how to tag but it's blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it. — neuro^(talk) 12:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nonsupport for the blocking of newly created accounts unless checkuser supports that they are socks. I do not like collateral damage. Due to a bug in the software, I was blocked yesterday while logged in, and I was disappointed. Imagine the feeling for a new user who is legit but never edited logged in. They log in and they get the block message? Wait for the disruption, then block. We are not on a hunt here. And we are not at a game. Very best! NonvocalScream (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  This is standard WP:DUCK. It is utterly blatant. — neuro^(talk) 13:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  It's not standard DUCK - in one 10 minute period about a year ago (same time period which we're talking about, although the specific 10 minutes have nothing to do with the 2 hours), there were 18 accounts created with currently 0 edits. Assuming that all times of day are equally represented in creation of accounts which will never be used, this would mean somewhere around 216 innocent accounts out of 400. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  There are no newly created accounts at all. They are all older than one year old.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Sorry, I completely misunderstood Nonvocalscream. I thought he was in opposition to the blocking of socks reiterating the message on this page. — neuro^(talk) 16:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Due to recent sockpuppets, I have extended the range I searched in an additional hour and now have 200 more unused accounts, two of which I've already blocked due to a match with this user's other account names (there are very little similarities, but those that do exist I've picked up on). This now brings the count to a little over 600 accounts made in a 150 minute period over a year ago. These accounts still have zero edits to them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it's better to block 270 innocent accounts which will probably never be used to edit, than to leave 330 likely sockpuppets unblocked. (The number 270 comes from the 18 accounts per 10 minutes above). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Block them all. Year-old accounts with no contributions are very unlikely indeed to suddenly start editing productively. In fact, I would be tempted to suggest an adminbot that goes through old accounts and blocks those more than, say, six months old with zero contributions automatically (with autoblock disabled, of course). We would always add a note on the user creation page to say that this will be the case. Black Kite 15:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nonsense, your sleuthing, why are we on this witchhunt? There is no secret conspiracy for "secret" dormat sleeper socks. If any wake up, block them then. Anyone remember User:!!? This is reminiscent. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  You mean that where at least a few dozen accounts that all come from this range, with more showing up as this user decides to take them out to play, they should not be blocked? These accounts have never edited. This is why I've constructed a block message as neutral as possible and one that says "Hey, you can edit if you want to. Just tell us." and at that point, we can tell if we're working with a sockpuppet or not. I can tell you that the two accounts that have posted in this thread come from the 600 or so that I acquired. And as Od Mishehu says, the cost-to-benefit ratio is fairly low if there is consensus for me to go through with this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  User:!! was active, and had edits misinterpreted - these accounts have never been active. Different situation entirely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  In the following context: We have found a new and interesting way to block accounts that have not done anything disruptive on the premise that they might.  !! was selected using a new and interesting way, on the premise that s/he was a sleeping sock. That is the context I used to compare and contrast. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  There is a big difference between an arbitrary never-active user, and sych an account which was created in a 2 1/2 hour period when several known socks of a single user were. I strongly oppose blocking the first, and strongly support blocking the second. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  And the second is exactly what I am proposing. I'm not saying "I'm going to pick this arbitrary time period, get every account that never edited, and block them all." I have a known range of accounts created, and have taken a list of them that haven't edited, ones that Hamish Ross has, and proposing that I block them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  NonvocalScream, may I suggest that if the recent spate of SPA/socks do come from this range that we block now - and then continue the discussion on whether we should stop disruption from potential sleepers. Really, if a legitimate account has been unused for such a long time then it is extremely likely it will never be activited - they will have created new accounts by now. In fact, as you seem to be the only voice against it I feel that we should declare consensus, recognising your objections, and get on with cleaning out this drawer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  I think you could wait a couple of days. See nick's comment below. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I blocked a suspected HR sock myself a few days ago. Under these conditions there's a low risk that we will alienate good-faith contributors, and it seems worthwhile to eliminate these as a source of annoyance. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Any risk to a new contributor is too great. Just wait for disruption. I doubt we are going to be overthrown by sleepsocks. They are not going to infest and destroy everything good about Wikipedia. Just leave them be... incidentally, has checkuser assistance been requested here? Perhaps a check can be run on a handful to see if there is technical evidence that they were all created by the same system? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Too old for checkuser. Any with recent edits can be checked (and probably was), and any making a reasonable looking unblock request can, but the others can't be checked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Last time I checked the public site code SVN, checkuser data is maintained for 90 days. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  These accounts are 420 days old. These accounts were created in November 2007 and in a few hours it will be January 2009.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  And even then, how would accounts created over a year ago be "new contributors"? In all reality, the only person who has seemed to remember that they had these ancient accounts is Hamish Ross. And his "claims" of having thousands of accounts would very well be quelled once we get rid of a hundred or so based on what he has done so far.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  And this by definition, we are sleuthing for the hidden thousands of accounts, so we can quell them. I don't see a pre-emptive battle strike as a high priorty, in fact, I see collateral damage as an avoidable outcome. We ought not be doing this thing based on a perceived threat, instead wait for disruption. I encourage checkuser participation into this discussion as well. Perhaps the tool can help here. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Does cost of the users in this 600 who might begin editing again being blocked outweigh the benefit of blocking this user's sockpuppets, of which there are already several selectively blocked in the range? I don't think so. It is a very small probability that the users, if they would be innocent, would be blocked and then decide that they come back. It's a higher probability that Hamish Ross has more accounts in this 2.5 hour range of which I've already narrowed the field down.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Too risky. Why mess with it? Just block them if they disrupt. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Because I may have found them before they disrupt. Your arguments aren't really saying much here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to query the db to see how many dormant accounts (say dormant for 1 year or more) begin editing (and don't end up blocked). It seems to me that we're shooting in the dark and some information would help in making an informed judgement on whether or not we should be blocking potential socks. Nick (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be possible to check all such accounts which were created since 22:16 on September 7, 2005 - the earliest the user creation log goes. However, deleted edits are a complication here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support blocking the dormant accounts per Ryūlóng and Black Kite. In other areas, we make the tradeoff that we can't stop abuse without inconveniencing some innocent users. This happens with range blocks, where the innocent users will have to make a request to get around the block. Since the case proposed by Ryūlóng has been carefully studied, I think the risk of inconvenience is low enough to be worth taking. In fact, the number of legitimate users who will be inconvenienced is quite likely to be zero. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I will be running the script (which is freely available in my monobook.js) sometime tomorrow, during which I will be blocking the now ~600 accounts that have 0 edits among which several sockpuppets were created by this sockmaster.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ignorant question Which Checkuser is doing all these checks to confirm this? rootology (C)(T) 01:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  The accounts are too old to be linked to any existing accounts, although I suppose it might be ascertained that they were created from the same range/isp. I have no idea what form of information can be retrieved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  Too much time has passed. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Safe to say, I'm currently blocking these accounts that were listed under this section by the banned sockpuppeteer.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:HOUND IP user identified (User:HerkusMonte) -- made false claims in Administrator's Noticeboard

A few days ago, I reported in this noticeboard (relevant ANI thread (archived)) on disruptive behaviour on the part of an IP user whose IP user kept shifting. He replied by making claims that were prima facie false. (Sometimes their falseness was shown by the very diffs he cited - this verges on the frivolous; apparently, he was hoping somebody would not follow them, and was trying to create an impression of bilaterality, at least among casual readers.)

He has since been identified [87] as User:HerkusMonte.

The IP user claimed [88] on this noticeboard that he used IPs (and, by implication, only IPs) because he is not a regular contributor to the English-language wikipedia. User:HerkusMonte is certainly a regular contributor; in other words, he seems to have told a lie on this board.

The range of IPs is wide, and blocking them would cause much collateral damage. I request that action be taken against User:HerkusMonte, that the fact that the IP user (84.139.*.*) is identical to him be stated by an administrator on the talk pages of the articles the IP user has edited and on those User:HerkusMonte tends to edit the most -- generally as a representative of a faint but consistent German nationalist slant -- and that we wait for further activity before taking any further action on the IPs as such. Feketekave (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(As a complete aside, it's bizarre how extremists of any colour all seem to use the same tricks to further their stance on here. I had one on another project who was doing exactly the same thing with diffs. Do they all go to the same school or what?) Orderinchaos 03:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2 renamed

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2 is renamed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes by motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Is, or will be drekkly? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes spelling as per motion. Unless somebody copied something wrong and then made a wrong move Agathoclea (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Review Board

Consensus having been reached on the core of the WP:Review Board (with the scope limited to auditing CU and OS use only), discussion should proceed to making this policy once the last details have been hammered out:

• Method of selecting candidates for the board;
• Exact name; and
• Procedural details.

Wide community participation is encouraged on the talk page. — Coren ^(talk) 03:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So, another level of bureaucracy? Why do we need it? Why are we imposing more insults and obstacles to the effective fulfilling of the duties expected of our admins, CU's and so on? this effectively says to all the malcontents 'here's another layer of appeals to force others to jump through while you crap up Wikipedia, enjoy it'. As an editor, I thoroughly oppose this notion. ThuranX (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty uninformed comment. At present the only people who watch over CU and OS are other CU's and OS's. That results in the almost inevitable case where the people 'supposed' to oversee their friends are less willing to do so thoroughly AND if responsibility is not noted, everyone will assume that everyone else is watching. This is hardly a level of "bureaucracy" that any normal admin or non-admin will come into contact with. I can't understand this comment of yours. Protonk (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the idea that we are now creating another level of appeals which will slow down the process of eliminating vandals is a problem. Can't make it clearer than that. ThuranX (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You were perfectly clear, I just think that you might be missing the point. This isn't really an appeals process for regular conflicts or infractions. I's there to make sure that some oversight exists for a group of about 20-40 individuals who carry a considerable amount of trust and power on en-wiki. that's all. As such I can't understand the general complaint. Protonk (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That is what ArbCom is for, is it not? I would agree with ThuranX that this is needless bureaucracy. Five "highly trusted" users of Wikipedia overseeing the 20-40 "highly trusted" users of Wikipedia is not going to solve much of anything, imo. However, if people wish to tie themselves up in red tape, so be it. I'll be writing articles. Resolute 07:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom can't be used for this as most arbitrators are also CheckUsers and/or have the Oversight permission. It is indeed an issue of trust: it is hard to trust 40 people, and a bit easier to trust five. Kusma (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I should say that the opposite was true, to be honest; it is only necessary to trust the aggregate, not all the individuals, so it is easier to find a majority you trust among forty than among five. But I still fail to see how this improves on the existing arrangements. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Kusma, you're describing an ArbCom overthrow failsafe system, then. Picking 5 people not trusted to have high privileges to be in charge of eliminating those who go through a lengthy process to become Arbs, CUs, and OSes. It would be a manner of weeks or months till we see the 'CUOSOC' start creating/being manipulated into removing CU and OS privileges from Arbcom members, casting aspersions onto their fitness for the seats, and generally creating another level of chaos. No thanks. ThuranX (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• We already have the checkuser ombudsman. No credible evidence has been presented to suggest that there is a problem to be fixed. This proposal seems to me like a complete waste of time. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What he said. // roux   10:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Checkuser ombudsmen specifically do not deal with complaints of misuse of the tools, only breaches of the privacy policy. ArbCom are a biased group, so they're out as well. There simply is nothing else. Thatcher's essay perhaps gives more background on this. Majorly talk 16:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• If the ACs themselves are putting this through, who know more about potential CU/OS abuse than either you or I may ever even pretend to know, what makes you think it's a waste of time? If 75% of the members of your Parliament or my Senate say something is rotten about the Senate's offices, we are not in any position of value or authority to say, "You guys are wrong." rootology (C)(T) 17:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing on the policy page indicating this was started by ArbCom. It looks more like one user's perception of a problem pushing this entire wheel. ThuranX (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The entire proposal was written and put forward by Coren and FT2 on behalf of the AC as seen here and at Wikipedia_talk:Review_Board/Archive#A_modest_proposal. rootology (C)(T) 19:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a nutshell as noted here to clear up this confusion and apparent misperception. rootology (C)(T) 19:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Arbcom does not currently provide effective oversight (review, auditing, whatever) of the CheckUser and Oversight tools, as described in my essay here. Checkusers and Oversighters could monitor and correct each other, but mostly do not. Arbcom could provide effective meaningful review of complaints of misuse, but mostly does not. The Review Board is a response to my essay as well as similar concerns held by some Arbitrators before I ever wrote the essay. The Review Board would be a delegation of Arbcom's authority to a (mostly) independent committee, to hear and review complaints of misuse (checking without good reason, oversighting edits that should not have been oversighted, etc). Obviously, the Review Board can not function without the agreement of a majority of Arbcom because only Arbcom can hand out access to the tools needed by the board to do its job. The Board proposal seems to have been prepared and to have the assent of a significant number of Arbitrators. Thatcher 15:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on 'trial' implementation of FlaggedRevisions

The discussion on the implementation of a 'trial' configuration of FlaggedRevisions on en.wiki has now reached the 'straw poll' stage. All editors are invited to read the proposal and discussion and to participate in the straw poll. Happy‑melon 17:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with new messages banner

I keep getting the "new messages" banner popping up when I have not got a new message. Instead I keep getting the last new messag when I click on the link. Anybody know what is happening? Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#You have new messages bar sticking; seems to be a widespread problem. Happy‑melon 18:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been accused twice of being a troll

Drork accused me twice of being a troll. Please take the necissary action:

1) Here 2) And here

I trust there is no place for such false accusations here. Thank you. Yamanam (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see a major issue here. Troll looks to be a stretch as far as your contributions to en.wiki are concerned, but you're clearly doing nothing to help achieve a NPOV in the issue discussed. However, it really doesn't appear that anyone else in that conversation is doing much to achieve NPOV either, so you're hardly alone. In the interest of NPOV, I would suggest that you read the thread you link to again in its entirety. What strikes me as interesting is that everyone is pointing out how different cultural biases are evident in the en.wiki, he.wiki, and ar.wiki articles, but not a single person is capable of realizing that all three articles should be improved, rather than held up individually as examples of how flawed the other two articles are. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Hiberniantears for your input, I am not planning to argue more in this matter, if u think this is not a major issue, then neither do I. But in my defence, please read the thread again and see how did I offer to add relaible edits to Ar-Wi to make it more neutral. I said it explicitly:

Don't let Drork mislead you, you are ALL welcome to provide me with whatever you want to be added to the Arabic Wiki article (along with the sources) and I'll be more than happy to add the edit. Wiki Arabic is one of the most Neutral wiki I've visited. Thanks all. Yamanam

This at least shows my good intention. Thank you again. Yamanam (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Yamanam is one of those who blocked attempts to improve the ar-wp article and did his best to introduce further POVized terms there as "massacre", "martyrs" etc. He also insists on relying on Arabic newspapers only, and refuses any reports from other sources. He is very much responsible for the poor condition of the ar-wp, and it would be sad to see him doing the same on en-wp. As for the he-wp, I stopped contributing to he-wp some time ago, so I can't be hold accounted to what is written there, and yet anyone who reads Hebrew can see that the article there is in much better shape, even though it is far from being perfect. I have no complaints about badly written articles when they are describing ongoing disputable events. This is natural. I do complain about using Wikipedia as forum for publishing political propaganda. DrorK (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is Yamanam's last contribution, see for yourself: Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Here's the opening of his response to me after I edited the ar-wp article (I translate): "Listen Drork, if you want to add you racist opinions which comes from the entity of you racist Zionist terroristic occupying state..." w:ar:نقاش:مجزرة غزة ديسمبر 2008. Yamanam is the kind of persons who are nice talking in English, but not when talking in his mother tongue. DrorK (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What I said was: Listen Drork, if you want to add your racist opinions emerging from your racisit occupying terrorist zionist entity state DO SO BUT PLEASE CITE YOUR SOURCES

I didn't stop him from editing or adding but I urged him to add sources. It is not a secret that I extremely hate the "state of Israel", but I don't let that influence my edits. And you know that Drork more than anyone else. Concerning the article, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, I can't see what is wrong with it.Yamanam (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I suppose the list of insults and accusations pointed at me personally and at all Israelis was just a tool to motivate me to find better sources. This argument is pathetic. DrorK (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Watch out Drork, I neither insulted u, niether insulted the Israeli people. Don't add lies here.Yamanam (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, I have recently declined a speedy delete request on the above on the grounds that "propaganda" is not a suitable criteria, and I would likewise comment that the need for better or sufficient sources are not negated by them being wrapped within biased commentary. However, if Yamanam believes that their dislike of the State of Israel does not effect their approach to editing related articles then they are only fooling themselves. I would forcibly point out that while the WP community is helpless in persuading pro and anti Israeli advocates toward peacefully co-existing, the community can ensure that editing of relevant articles by editors of both sentiments will be either done in peaceful co-existence or not at all. I suggest that both (sets of) editors attempt to provide the best references for the article(s) and ensure that neutrally worded content reflects the sources provided. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU I totally agree with you, and would kindly ask you to watch my edits so you can advise me how to improve my neutrality, and how not to let my hate to Israel effect my approach. Yamanam (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yamanam declares he hates Israel, and he insults me as an Israeli, and then claims he actually flatters me, and at the end of the day I'm the one on trial here? Has someone casted a bad spell over Wikipedia in the past few days? If so, we'd better all drink the antidote as soon as possible. If you look at Yamanam edits in ar-wp and in en-wp, it will be clear to you that this person is only here to drag us to turn this project into a battlefield. If you want to cooperate - fine, but this will be the end of Wikipedia as a respectful project. DrorK (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is on trial here, least of all you DrorK. Yamanam started this thread to get an administrator to take action against you, which was declined. Yamanam then proceeds to tell us about his personal hatred, which is essentially tendentious editorializing that clearly crosses the line on civility given the context of this thread. If anything, I am more inclined to agree with you now that he is a troll. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yamanam is clearly trolling. Any time you say "Listen Drork, if you want to add your racist opinions emerging from your racisit occupying terrorist zionist entity state "DO SO BUT PLEASE CITE YOUR SOURCES", instead of ' I find that too controversial to allow in unless cited when added', you're trolling, and breaking CIVIL and NPA as well. Frankly, I find his language to be excessively bigoted. If he keeps it up in here, I'd even support a civility block, and quoting himself over and over would be a reason to block, since he knows it;'s just going to piss off anyone who reads it. Further, in light of the current Hamas/Israel conflict, any editing on those pages ought to be conducted on the talk page first and only brought to the article with consensus. ThuranX (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like to defend myself especially when I am not mistaken, what is happening here, is totally misunderstanding of my intention, maybe I am the cause, maybe I should have added more explanations, but I didn't. One more thing, I quoted myself again for one reason to show the big picture, not anyother reason. Anyways, I don't want this subject to be misunderstood again. So I will be straight forwatd: I can assure you, ThuranX and Hiberniantears, that I am not what you think based on this thread. That is why I am asking both of you to take my input in this thread in good intention, and my coming edits will prove that. I think this is the best I can do now in this matter. Yamanam (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please softblock 216.118.68.193 (talk · contribs) for a week

I have a wireless network that appears to have been compromised by a vandal. I will have a computer guy in by next week but until then please place a softblock on my IP (216.118.68.193) until I get a computer techincian to change the code. Thank you--Ipatrol (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there are recent contribs from the ip. Can you confirm that these are you only (I also changed the header for quicker access). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Addendum - I checked WHOIS who note this was a static address, so I have blocked per request pending response. Any admin who thinks this unwise can unblock without reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User Block Templates

I am wondering what the policy is on USING them. There is a revert war going on at User:Betacommand's page over his indef block template, is it appropriate to keep his userpage intact, though he is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia? I was looking for some sort of policy/consensus discussion about the issue. If it's not required, why do the templates exist? Then clearly the block log is the only useful item in that situation.

Could I get a non-biased opinion please? Neuro√Logic 16:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Protect the userpage in the condition you find it for edit warring, and await outcome from community dicussion or RFAR (if it happens) to determine the template. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Who cares is my honest opinion - It's such a minor deal that this edit war is rather silly. Just redirect it to his talk page if anyone else continues it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Ryan, that solution also works. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I wasn't trying to make mountains out of mole hills, I promise. I was just wondering why I got such a scathing response from both an admin and the user on IRC. I wasn't attempting to troll, or make the situation worse, but...Blocking isn't supposed to intended you got "Pwnt" by "Administrative Justice" so I don't understand the strong feelings, maybe it's just me? Either way, I agree with the redirect to his talk page, and the discussions on it. Neuro√Logic 16:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Does the indef block template still carry the temporary userpage category? Don't think Betacommand's page should ever be in that particular category, so maybe that was the impetus for the edit war? Avruch ^T 18:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not add a similar template to the one on his bot's userpage, with a link to the relevant discussion. I mean, there's no problem with having nothing at all, but it would be confusing to someone who ventured there for some purpose only to eventually work that is he blocked (seeing as he rather quickly archives discussions on his talk page. If I didn't know he was blocked (and to be honest, I only found out when I saw the template on his talk page) then there is currently nothing visible there to suggest it. --.:Alex:. 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Aside

Whoever created User:Betacommand is stupid, throw rocks at him! is obviously an established user. If it weren't fishing, I'd be asking for a CU to be run and for the perpetrator to be severely chastised in public for being such a WP:DICK. It's not okay, it's not appropriate, and it's just taunting a user who has been blocked. I think it's relatively fair to assume, whoever you are, that you're watching this page. So I have two messages for you: the first is to grow up, the second is about sex and travel. // roux   18:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suspect it isn't a user in good standing, rather a troll who's had dealing with us in the past and still lurks here trying to find areas to disrupt. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter}

More likely a user who specifically had problems with Betacommand. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am being trolled and falsely accused of sockpuppetry

A user Kjaer has maliciously and falsely accused myself and another user of sockpuppetry. He has engaged in disruptive behavior and intentionally tried to antagonize me over a citation I added to the Ayn Rand article, which he jealously guards. He made a trivial and self-evidently absurd objection to one of my sound sources on another article relating to Nietzsche (he said he didn't believe the quote from a book I cited was accurate, and continued this assertion even after I provided a googlebook link to prove it was accurate), and tricked me into a 3RR dispute (a rule of which I was unaware until now). Please help me resolve this malicious trolling. He is being opposed by several users who are telling him that he is clearly wrong and who agree that this is a personal vendetta on his part over an unrelated matter. CABlankenship (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for this, you need our outreach department (down the corridor, past the potted plant, second left.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, should I delete this? CABlankenship (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you wish, it remains in the page history and will be archived anyway if no-one else responds, but it is a wiki and it was your enquiry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

We deleted Archimedes Plutonium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in 2007 as a BLP violation and created a protected redirect to List of Usenet personalities. A user, Likebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), disputed the deletion at the time. Indefinite protection of the redirect was changed to expiring protection, and shortly after the protection expired, Likebox recreated the article with the edit summary "if at first you don't succeed". I looked at the history; Likebox was also the user who re-created te article after the third deletion debate closed as delete. The page has been reverted to a redirect and I have now restored protection.

Of interest:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 19
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (4th nomination) (delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (third nomination) (delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (2nd) (keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (keep)

• Past noticeboard discussions

I do not propose to take any further action at this point, but it is clear to me that Likebox is not going to accept a redirect any time before the heat death of the universe. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, reinstate as a redirect and then protect that. Reyk _YO! 09:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The same user recreated the article at Ludwig Poehlmann. I've deleted it again and salted that title. Hut 8.5 16:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that too should probably redirect to List of Usenet personalities. Joe 21:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, I think not. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

continuing disruptive edits

Resolved

[89] has been vandalizing pages up to getting a vandalism4 template, and continues. Can someone please block him from editing? Concrete 00:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked. Next time, please report vandalism to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for a generally faster response. Raven4x4x (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

appeal administrator's ban

I'd like to formally appeal the topic ban placed on myself and Amwestover (talk · contribs). A three month topic ban was imposed on both of us with no debate and very little discussion -- the entire process took about 24 hours, and nobody solicited or listened to the input from myself or Amwestover. The length of the topic ban seems unprecedented, as is the fact that nobody encouraged any other form of dispute resolution. The only discussion was about the wording of the ban. There was no indication of any specific violation of rules other than edit warring (which neither of the affected parties had been blocked for recently) and there was no evidence presented that the dispute resolution process was not worth trying. The ban was clearly punitive rather than a means of protecting Wikipedia. While I understand that some other editors have been frustrated by the length of the dispute, I think it would be preferable to try to resolve the content of the dispute rather than simply blaming both editors. csloat (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What topic ban and discussion? rootology (C)(T) 23:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

this one. // roux   23:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So, forum shopping, then? If you'd like to appeal, csloat, that thread is the place to do it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hand, see Wikipedia:BAN#Administrator_ban: "Administrator-imposed bans should be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard, or the arbitration enforcement noticeboard." --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidents is part of the AN, I don't think it is necessary for policies to list every possible common sense permutation. Orderinchaos 03:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, since there's already an ongoing discussion there, that would be the appropriate part of AN to continue with. I'll strike the "forum shopping" comment, as it was a touch BITEy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So is this not the proper place to appeal then? I don't understand. I would like to note that the edit war on the page we were punished for editing has continued in our absence, which makes it even more clear that this ban was punitive and did nothing to "protect" Wikipedia. csloat (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason we're pointing you to AN/I is that there's already a thread about this ban there. It's best to keep the discussion consolidated in one place. If there hadn't already been the discussion, this would have been the best venue, yes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Small Html Error

Resolved

 – Matt (Talk) 05:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if this isn't the best place to report this. There is a small html error at the bottom of most pages, in the sentence " Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity." The period after "Inc" should obviously be part of the immediately preceding link. All you have to do is move the </a> in between the period and comma. Please fix this, it's rather annoying. 99.250.62.40 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed We pride ourselves on service :D Happy‑melon 22:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Tony1/AdminReview

Just a note that I have semi-protected User talk:Tony1/AdminReview for the time being following some editwarring to insert abuse by a succession of TOR Proxy IPs. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. And User:Tony1/AdminReview too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD Survey Results

Well, I've posted the results for the CSD survey---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 02:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• … but not changed your signature. ☺ The singular of "criteria" is "criterion", by the way. Uncle G (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I did change my sig, but only after I posted here ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Junkers Ju87

We have some new users trying add material without citations. They insist including trivial information in the lead for this article. It is uncited and highly inappropriate for an article let alone a serious one and an introduction! They don't understand how Wikipedia works, they have been "educated", but have refused to take a scrap of notice. It is turning into blatant vandalism now. Could someone do something? Dapi89 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is being trolled, and certainly socked. I will place a short semi-protect on the page and clear up the sock drawer at the same time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3

incivil conduct on Talk:2008 UEFA Champions League Final, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, persistent edit warring on that article and other CL final articles. refuses to debate edits, refuses to compomise, makes wild claims to articles being 'his'. not sure if this is the correct place to report this, but something needs doing Jw2035 (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is harsh, you are the one who is persistently edit warring, in fact I think you are quite enjoying this situation. You have removed large tracts of sourced information, which you claim to be trivia, well if it is trivia then why has the media covered it. You talk at PeeJay referring to articles as his, well you told me on my talk page to leave certain pages alone so you are contradicting yourself. To be honest I'm quite sick of this and hope this is cleared up quickly NapHit (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, this is something of a pots and kettles situation (PeeJay's language is not beyond reproach, certainly) as regards policy violations - but ultimately this is a series of content disputes, and AN is not part of the dispute resolution process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've had a quick look. It appears at first sight that you, Jw2035, are being disruptive. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Strip

Resolved

 – Semi-protected for 2 weeks. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the news, it is perhaps not surprising that this article is getting a huge amount of vandalism as well as useful updates from IP editors. I was considering semi-protecting it, but would be glad to get the opinions of others on the wisdom of this.--Slp1 (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no fault in your logic. Semi-protected for 2 weeks caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from a fellow canuck! I'll be less cautious myself another time! --Slp1 (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD! Cheers, caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

As a result of this case, the community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. If the discussion does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. Until such procedures are implemented Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. Once the procedures are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety ^talk 04:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

Please could the admins provide some input on Dnepropetrovsk maniacs? Thanks, --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What input do you have in mind? Stifle (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything you like, just join in the discussion. This is a very interesting ongoing situation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests need to be slightly more specific to be actionable.Geni 08:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hi, Good site." type vandalism

Hello, I have seen a recent increase in these type of vandalism, not only here but on every other wiki as well. I would like the admins to not "block account creations" when blocking these IP's because most of these ips are from China and we all know that China has a strong policy against Internet as well as Wikipedia and if you do an ACB on those ips, you disallow users from China who are using that proxies from editing wikipedia and thus we become just as bad as their government, For those that don't know about these new type of vandalism that happening, this is actually a Malbot, a type of Xrumer bot known for spamming links on forums and wikis alike and just because in the last 2 years, the developers of wikimedia had made it harder for these bots to function, so they end up with that silly vandalism that we see today. So please admins, Don't block account creation., cause many chinese wikipedians depends on proxies like these to edit wikipedia, thank you ...--Cometstyles 03:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For examples, 195.96.131.66 (talk) and 202.106.121.134 (talk). What do you suggest, then? Gimmetrow 03:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Open proxies are open proxies. Just because we may be affecting people who require proxies to edit does not mean we should not block them. There are dedicated servers, WP:ACC, and ipblockexempt that we can use to help those normally affected.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

unless people using individual ones are actually doing harm, I think we might well want to continue our present de facto method of not being too aggressive in shutting them down. DGG (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Open proxies should be hard-blocked, as should tor output nodes. This is our policy and it is in place for a good reason. It doesn't somehow make wikipedia "just as bad as their [China's] government". If, in practice we don't search for open proxies that's fine, but we still block on sight. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it drives me nuts at Wikispecies because we got hit pretty hard lately there. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be some sort of running gag. Just had one from Germany: [90] [91] ----Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 13:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If it was adding the text, I might be inclined to agree that the softblock is OK, but since it's also blanking the page and using a clearly randomized edit summary, hardblocking is correct. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? It's a spambot and will stop all vandalism when it can no longer edit anonymously. Anon-only/hardblocks and account creation won't make any difference at all. The only reason to hardblock an open proxy is because it will be used by accounts created by sockpuppeteers. It's a problem most other Wikis don't have to deal with to the same extent. 212.183.134.208 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with the anon ip above. Unless they start using accounts to do their work it's not a big deal wether you softblock, or hardblock. As the bot will likely just use other open proxies on other IP ranges. --Kanonkas (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate

Please see the discussion here, in relation to these edits. I am very unhappy that this admin has threatened to block me because he disagrees with my edits, when I have been reasonable in discussing them. This seems to be an abuse of his positition. His attitude to another editor here also seems less than helpful. Mister Lady (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked you twice from your IP address and once from this account to stop deleting sourced info. If there was any kind of consensus to remove the link, that would be another story. As it currently stands, there is no such consensus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you TOLD me not to remove, kept re-adding it yourself, and then threatened to block me. Why did you do that? Did you feel that I was vandalising? Did I not give clear reasons for removing the single sentence? Why didn't you discuss with me, rather than resorting to threats? Should you be trying to enforce your opinion by using your ability to block? Mister Lady (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You're removing sourced information, and edit warring to do so without a sufficient explanation. You're at WP:3RR on the page right now, so I would suggest if you feel the information needs to be removed, take it to tha talk page to try and change the consensus. ONIJ was absolutely correct in his actions, you are edit warring. Dayewalker (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie hopefully would have chosen not to block Mister Lady himself, but edit warring is edit warring and it should stop. Mister Lady, discuss your reasoning on the talkpage and try to get other editors of the page to agree with your position. Avruch ^T 21:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't suppose it's possible both of you could be partially in the wrong, would be willing to admit it, and could use the article talk page to work it out or get more input, or anything like that?
  • Jamie, I must say you started escalating things. The template you dropped on the Mister Lady's IP talk page wasn't really fair; it suggests using an edit summary (he did use an edit summary), and discussing controversial edits on the talk page first (there's no reason to think this was controversial). The IP did nothing wrong with their first edit.
  • Mister Lady, WP:BRD isn't policy, but it has a long history of acceptance here, and I strongly encourage you to use it. Jamie did nothing wrong in reverting your edit. Once you knew an editor disagreed, the proper response was to discuss on the talk page, not revert to your version with another edit summary.
  • Jamie, this isn't vandalism (and indeed Mister Lady has a valid point IMHO), and dropping templates on someone's talk page when, from their edit summaries, it is clear they are trying to improve the article is unlikely to make things better. It's particularly tricky when an admin drops a template implying blocking; it's reasonable for an editor to interpret this as "do it my way or you get blocked", even if that wasn't your intention; and it sort of seems it was your intention.
  • Both of you: this is a content dispute. You're both edit warring (indeed Jamie is on the cusp of 3RR). Please leave the article as it is, and discuss it on talk page like the calm, rational adults you both are.
• --barneca (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Afd deletion

Recently, the automated deletion summary for csd and afd tags disappeared and was required to choose from the droplist. Now most of the items are back but when I want to close some afd debates, there's no automated link to the discussion in the summary. Impractical, really. Anyone knows how to get that function back, it's really time saving. --Tone 21:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a change in MediaWiki:Sysop.js as far as I remember. Or else Mediawiki itself. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but can it be brought back? --Tone 14:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Sorry :( If nobody else posts here, try WP:VPT. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That will be the best, indeed. Thanks. --Tone 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please protect Rodney King

I know this isn't the right place, but WP:RFPP isn't monitored enough and it's getting out of hand. Thanks, Matty (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Already protected., although next time try WP:AIV too for on-going cases of cross-ip page vandalism, many administrators watch that page reguarly. Y. Ichiro (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've anon-blocked the ip editor for 48 hours who was most prolific in the edit-warring.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre and Rollback

I have given User:Sceptre back the rollback button. He has used popups and avelmand since it was removed several months ago and continues to fight vandalism. I understand the reasons for why it was removed but Rollback is no big deal, and in the event it is abused it can be taken away as quickly as it was given. Seddσn ^talk 03:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

6 months ago since it was taken away, I've been told. Is that correct? If so, I think we're ready to see if Sceptre can be more responsible now. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: I am making a few slip-ups, pressing 'r' or 'q' when I mean to press 'y' in Huggle, but I'm being much more careful. I'm default-reverting based on how similar edits are reverted using Huggle. Therefore, can I ask people not to jump on every single mistake I make, or every edit I rollback that should not've been? I'm only following standard practice. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, remember that this is a user who's been blocked twice since then, once for 3 months and last week for three days. Rather risky, I'd say.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Any admin can take it away again, it's not a big deal. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd naturally poison the well. You still haven't gotten over your desysopping (and you should). Sceptre ^(talk) 04:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, I have extended you good faith in doing this, I would appreciate if you could pass this on to others. Seddσn ^talk 04:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith here. But, in the case of Bedford, it is relatively hard to. He has a low opinion of me after he got desysopped, and has an annoying tendency to demonize me in any threads on AN(I) :/ Sceptre ^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. The message is more important than the messenger here, and I am beginning to lose patience. --Rodhullandemu 04:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the block log. I'm still a bit of a "no-big-deal"-er myself, but I understand the position of people who want to say no in this case.--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohkay... and see below... --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Small SNAFU from both sides: he forgot to indicate he was archiving, so I thought it was arbitrary removal of talk page threads. It's all resolved, so it doesn't really need dredging up. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre

Resolved

 – Why are we in this basket and where are we going? Jehochman ^Talk 06:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was archiving a talk page and user:Sceptre reverted me with a vandalism warning. I cannot explain that I forgot to comment, becuase his talk page is protected. I find this highly unsatisfactory. Further he did a rollback instead of a revert, since my previous edit to moving the text off was to add pertinent stuff to the talk page, so it should not have been a rollback. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It looked to me like you were removing a discussion from a talk page, not archiving it. The wikicode in the diff summary indicated to me that you had removed text arbitrarily. In any case, it was a mistake, and you can remove the warning. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, simple mistake; happens all the time. :) In the future, 76, most folks are friendly enough that you can just try talking to them directly first. On the other hand, I understand it's freaky to get a vandalism warning you don't deserve, so, no harm either way. --Masamage ♫ 05:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a commenting mistake, but I couldn't explain to you directly, since your talk is protected. Well, all cleared up now. :) 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Masamage: He can't edit my talk page because it's indefinitely semi-protected because of harassment (yes, really) and vandalism. I think it's time to bring back my RC patrol FAQ I had, in which I apologised in advance for any accidental misfires, and said IPs can remove any mistaken warnings, which was created because IPs couldn't message me. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Sceptre, have you gotten the feeling that the way you've been doing things lately is stirring up too many worries, too often? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit. I don't tend to bring up issues, though, unless I really think they need to be resolved. I'm also trying to refrain from swearing in my posts, too. Fucking hard, though, I'll tell you that ;) Sceptre ^(talk) 05:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not the bringing up, it's the stirring up. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just noting the same thing, Gwen. He's sure appearing in a lot of AN type places lately, rarely for model behavior. ThuranX (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

When do people appear in AN-type places for good behaviour, exactly? ;) I think arbitrator/checkuser/oversighter/clerk announcements are the only times... Sceptre ^(talk) 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit of advice, Sceptre: Please lay off the automated tools for a while. Do things by hand, carefully, using preview, and if you get that tingle of adrenaline as you are about to hit the save button, hit the back button instead and don't do whatever you were going to do. Maybe try editing a nice quiet article for a change. Jehochman ^Talk 06:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can this statement get templated or turned into an essay or something? I have the overwhelming need to have this comment dif ready when dealing with people. JPG-GR (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Adrenaline junkie -- Jehochman ^Talk 06:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

{{subst:junkie}} ~~~~

Copy-paste the above to spead the wisdom of Jehochman :) Gwen Gale (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, that's some service! :) JPG-GR (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you don't allow IP editors to communicate with you, maybe you should consider not interacting with them. DuncanHill (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's an interesting concern. RC patrollers using tools like Huggle are perhaps not in a position where having their talk pages semi-protected indefinitely is appropriate. Sceptre has concerns since he's a target for something or the other, but perhaps in that case he should not be using huggle en masse without unprotecting his talk for feedback. rootology (C)(T) 14:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I know several users who maintain a couple of talk pages. Their main User talk:* and then a User talk:*/IP talk page that is linked from the top of their main page, saying "If you cannot edit here, go here". Saves on the orange bars from vandal IP edits, but ensures there is some communication (also assuming the person watchlists the IP talk and reads it). MBisanz ^talk 14:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Review of two blocks issued by me for continuing disruption to Talk:Ayn Rand after explicit warnings to all about conduct

I would like to request administrators to review and comment on two blocks for 24 hours issued by myself just now to User:Kjaer here and User:Idag here. These blocks were for continuing to misuse Talk:Ayn Rand after sufficient warnings had been issued about working solely to improve the article, rather than continue to make inflammatory comments about one "side" or another in a long-standing dispute. This dispute led me to fully-protect the article for edit-warring (involving Kjaer, who has been blocked for this on another article before) and one other editor, not Idag. The history of the events after the full protection was invoked can be seen here, where it can be seen that accusations of bad faith continued, and led to me making a further warning, which both editors ignored, though Idag responded to a continuation of inappropriate behaviour from Kjaer.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Following discussion with a number of editors, including an uninvolved administrator, I have unblocked User:Idag as "time served" on the grounds that the message which prompted that user's block was a reaction to the one by User:Kjaer which prompted the block of that user. The block on Kjaer, as of now, remains in place.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

These seem like a good decisions to me. That page and the talkpage is a nightmare, and so it would be good if uninvolved administrators could keep an eye on it. --Slp1 (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki history merges?

There is a request at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG to merge the history of a Meta page with its. However, after deleting the page here and attempting to move the Meta page, I got an error message telling me the interwiki link was invalid for movement or somesuch. Does this action require a en-wiki and Meta administrator? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Import is disabled on enwiki AFAIK, so no, no one can. You'll need import right activated. Majorly talk 21:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to maintain GFDL compliance you can make a talk page sub-page and add the history text to that sub-page (in other words, who edited what when). But yeah, Majorly is correct: no importing on en-wiki. Protonk (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 17:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethical dilemma

Suppose I initiated an email conversation with an administrator concerning conduct on the part of said admin which I believe to be unethical. Suppose during the exchange of emails, the admin sends a message labeled "in strictest confidence" which contains copies of emails from another admin to this admin, not only confirming the matter in question but showing that it's scope is broader than I suspected. (Of course, the admin and I disagree that the conduct is unethical.) I believe that the admin needs to make full restitution by making a public statement of the facts--expecting that he will argue they do not reveal unethical behavior but giving me the opportunity to argue before the community that they are, and giving the community the chance to make an informed decision. He has neither agreed nor declined to make such a statement, and much time has passed.

Can I file an RFC referencing the private material sent to me by the admin? (I do not need to quote from the emails, but I do need to state what they said.) He volunteered the information, after all. Does he have the right to bind me to not reveal embarrassing or damaging information by prefacing his email with "in confidence" when I did not know what he was sending me until I read it? Or should I respect his request/instruction for confidentiality and simply pass this on to Arbcom, which would otherwise not be the appropriate venue for this matter? Thanks. Anklet (a very small sockpuppet) (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Email the ArbCom, with or without copies of the correspondence you refer to, and see if they will accept a private case. You might wish to discuss this course of action, by email, with the admin concerned first. Disclaimer; I have long maintained a position that confidentiality of communications is superseded by the interests of the project, so don't take only my opinion into account before deciding. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What LHvU said. Past experience indicates that it will be handled sensitively and you should receive sound advice. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

On an unrelated note: bravo on the username. Very nicely done. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just for the record. 78.34.159.138 (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have asked Smashville to reconsider the block terms, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • So changed. Soft-blocked now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt we'll see him again - I think this is a throwaway account to post this without linking to his real account, and without taking the chance that the admin in question will recognize who this is and figure out this user's IP address. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I intended to follow up, but forgot my password. Thanks for lifting the autoblock, by the way. Unfortunately (and I probably should have mentioned this) the admin in question is also a member of Arbcom, and I kind of wanted to give the new arbitrators a chance to settle in before burdening them. However, the advice was still sound. Anklet (rescued from the lint trap) (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I have written of my concern about two edits over here [92] but it is on a archived page. Will I get a reply, or will the pages I have created and the contributors have to suffer more as a result of what is going on over on the Assemblies of Yahweh and its related page/s? In Citer (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived threads rarely, if ever get responses, unless new information is brought forth (on the non-archived page). If you have a content dispute, please consider using one of the dispute resolution methods. Perhaps if you could summarize your grievance in a sentence or two (the archived thread you linked to above is quite long), and specify what admin action you are requesting. Not to be too blunt, but please explain to us, why should we, as admins, care? Again, if this is something that the community can handle and doesn't require administrator action, then see WP:DR. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins should think about positive COIs

I followed a lot of COI discussions and complaints since my own website was blocked because of "spamming". Don't you agree that some website owners add external links on Wiki to their own URLs, just for doing something good for the public? Have a thought about someone who found out that a special antibiotic can help fighting against a special disease or so, and puts related links on Wiki pages. Of course I cannot compare such a fictious case with my own URL prob but blindly following your automatic "spam"-bot results isn't that solution to support good-will (re information purposes) websites and their interested visitors. It shouldn't happen (be possible) that one admin can delete or block a URL just because he has different intentions in contrary to many other experts.

Re my own prob: I wrote to your German admin Ra'ike, asking for her opinion about blacklisting my URL. She didn't answer at all but made conversation with others in the meantime. Does that mean that she might to be a bit shy to discuss my case (although she might be convinced that my URL shouldn't be blocked?) because...

Redberyl (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You say our German admin... the German Wikipedia is totally independent of the English Wikipedia. Just thought I'd point that out if that changes anything... without referencing articles or diffs, it's hard to actually respond. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)We don't generally care if a COI is positive or negative, at Wikipedia we seek to present material from a neutral point of view, so advocating for a positive website or against a negative website is not something we should be doing. I would need a bit more information about your situation though before I could begin to review it. MBisanz ^talk 17:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is straight forward forum shopping - this matter was already raised in the right place and the user was told "thanks but no thanks". I see nothing here that requires admin intervention. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

see also --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if this has been said before, but I think it is important. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. If you are looking for a free place to put a link to your website, try dmoz.org. If you want to help out wikipedia, why not try expanding and improving articles by adding sourced content? In fact, there are literally thousands of different ways you can contribute to make wikipedia articles better. Adding links to offsite content is probably one of the least effective ways to improve wikipedia. External links do have their place, but really they are of marginal use/importance in the grand scheme of things. Why get worked up over some stupid links, when wikipedia is not about where we link to, but it's about the encyclopedia article that we as a community create for free for the good (hopefully) of everyone.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"at Wikipedia we seek to present material from a neutral point of view" - fine, then my website links should be allowed to be shown on Wikipedia. You surely don't know how many international gem lovers (and mineral enthusiasts) said that my site is simply "great" or "valuable" or so.

"German Wiki is independent"... Why then were all worldwide Wikis advised to block my URL??? Tell me please.

"Forum Shopping" - I don't understand that expression although it sounds not positive. Have you ever visited my site realgems.org? It is strictly neutral, and supported by 100 gem experts. Thanks, Cameron Scott, for showing the long list of my link additions. Does that speak against the independence or neutrality of my website? Surely not, because it just shows my input on Wikipedia because Wikipedia should serve the public, and URLs not being hold as hostage just because the owner (me) has done a mistake when he added too many links. It's pure and brutal punishment. Otherwise Wiki would have agreed that I accept my own links being deleted but links of external persons (worldwide public) could be shown furtheron.

Redberyl (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

User indefblocked for being an advert/spam only account, a probable sockpuppet, and certainly only here to disrupt and prove a point. Tan | 39 18:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD Backlog

Resolved

 – Backlog has now been sorted. John Sloan (view / chat) 19:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion could do with some sysop attention. A slight backlog has developed. Cheers! :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 17:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX making inflammatory comments

While John took the time to open a discussion at WQA in regards to this matter, I am growing concerned that ThuranX might be of the inexact opinion that suggesting a fellow editor "Drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk" is anywhere near acceptable behavior. This was part of an article discussion wherein the JNW (talk · contribs) acted with exceptional reserve in the face of behavior that would have sent anyone else packing. ThuranX' behavior there, and elsewhere with increasing frequency seems to be be growing problematic of late. While this advisory is of one situation occurring in one article discussion, ThruanX seems to be unwilling/unable to render his opinions and dictums in a socially acceptable way. JNW has been here almost as long as ThuranX, and yet he has nary a single block, whereas ThuranX has been blocked repeatedly for precisely the same behavior he is displaying yet again. I think some sort of intervention might be called for.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have pretty much given up interacting with the user, as he has been unremittingly unpleasant for the two-plus years I have been here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow... that entire exchange is stinging, including the thread at ThuranX's usertalk page as well as Egon Schiele. All I see is John being reasonably decent (though the suggestion to "find another hobby" might have been better left unsaid), while ThuranX was harsh from the git-go. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What barbarism! I suggest we tar and feather ThuranX, and remove one of his awards every time he stops by here and tries to defend himself.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is so exciting! So when are we going to take action against ThuranX for behavior unbecoming of a Wikipedian? I want to be an integral part of this case. If he has been acting like this for going on three years, doesn't that mean he will continue like this for many years to come? Should we just let him do it, or shall we enforce policy to the fullest extent possible?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ping me when it gets really exciting!Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I really think ThuranX needs to have that spot of WP:TEA I was recommending earlier. I can completely understand how frustration can boil over in their edits, but ThuranX has been touchier then a lion with a bad tooth being poked with a sharp stick lately. Perhaps a voluntary wikibreak and de-stressification (yes, I know that's not a word.) will help moderate his actions towards other editors who are trying to interact with him in good faith. And Manhattan Samurai, I hope you brought a mop and bucket to clean up your sarcasm. It's the polite thing to do. SirFozzie (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that I posted this in the wrong noticeboard, whereas AN/I might be more apropos. While Sir Fozzie's advice seems rather on the mark, he himself has had little success in calming him down. Maybe a larger venue can offer similar instructions. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I guess I am a little confused as to the differences between what would be reported here from reporting at AN/I. Is this a better venue to address ongoing issues, whereas AN/I is the venue for specific incidents? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's just drop it and let ThuranX get away with this one. There's got to be racists and anti-semites out there who need to be blocked or something.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your input; I am however, unconvinced of its curative properties in regards to this problem. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, ManhattanSamurai, you've made whatever WP:POINT you were trying to make. Let it go. SirFozzie (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, if we can't figure out what point he's trying to make, he has not succeeded in making it. — CharlotteWebb 21:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed in greater length at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ThuranX:_.22drop_dead_and_keep_the_fuck_away_from_me.2C_you_smug_jerk.22. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Did we become run by majority vote?

Resolved

There's no admin action possible here, since admins alone wouldn't be deciding consensus on this. And theres no arbitrary "numbers" for this sort of thing anyway, like other votes we have such as RFA and the RFAR elections. Consensus is what it is and what we decide it is collectively. If it's a vote, it's a vote, but admin buttons can't do anything about it. rootology (C)(T) 20:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

---

And if so, when? WP:Consensus is still marked as policy.

The section that brings this up is Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions/Trial#Question_regarding_consensus. The proposal concerned was devised relatively rapidly, and immediately put out for polling (and is therefore being called unamendable). At the moment, it has not much over 60% approval, slowly declining. Some of the opposes, like myself, would accept a different proposal for trials; most reject the whole idea.

Barberio (talk · contribs) (see the section linked) declares this sufficient to implement the proposal, and dares those who disagree to take him to arbitration. This seems a more sensible place; does anybody here believe that Wikipedia policy can be transformed (even on a test basis) by a 60% majority? Should we rewrite WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY? Or would it be simpler to explain to Barberio that he's wrong? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a technical (and fundamental) matter that would affect Wikipedia vastly, even in a trial basis, and to pass such a thing you need an approval rating of at least 66% (I think it's actually 75%). Sceptre ^(talk) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (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.

"Stereotypes of X people"

We have quite a few of these articles listed at Template:Ethnic stereotypes. Most of them are frankly pretty crap, with maybe one or two less stinking exceptions. They've been AFDed, moved around, merged, redirected, and generally been denounced as unsatisfactory pretty much ever since their conception. The problem is that few sources actually exist that deal with "stereotypes of X" as a group: most sources deal with individual stereotypes. The result is a big pile of WP:SYNTH.

What I propose is this. We turn them all into list/disambig pages, linking to pages such as White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, Jewish princess, Jewish mother, magical negro, American-Born Confused Desi, etc, all of which I believe are viable as RS exist that discuss the use of these terms and their cultural importance. Apologies if this is not technically the right forum but it's hard to think of any other for getting consensus before making a major change like this. Moreschi (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This really, really belongs at WP:VPR; administrators have no jurisdiction over content conventions. Skomorokh 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Motion in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

By successful motion of the Arbitration Committee, all sanctions against Everyking in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 are lifted, excluding Remedy X (Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner). This is effective February 22, 2009, at which point the case page will be updated by a Clerk to reflect the lifting of the remedies in question by the motion.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this include lifting the fourth restriction (introduced in the "Modified by open motion" section February 22, 2008), or may he still only appeal the "don't interact with Snowy" restriction once per year? — CharlotteWebb 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it includes that. It isn't listed as a formal remedy sanctioning him, and is merely a procedural restriction. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright vio needs speedily deleting

Resolved

 – With thanks to User:Secret for deleting the offending page! John Sloan (view / chat) 22:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I tagged this page for deletion a while ago, but it has yet to be handled. I'm bringing this here because I think it needs to be dealt with ASAP. It is a blatent recreation of a page that was blanked by User:Dougweller as a possible copyright infringement on January 3. Furthermore, the user who recreated the page is one of many User:H5andh5 sock puppets that is now indefblocked. Thank you John Sloan (view / chat) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

6 socks so far, but your 'this page' was a red link, which page were you meaning to link to? dougweller (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Secret has deleted it [93]. I'll tag this as resolved. John Sloan (view / chat) 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Motion in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

The Arbitration Committee has altered the above-linked case by successful open motion. The header of the finding which previously read "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (Finding of Fact 3.2) has been changed to "Sources used by Fyslee".

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

need assistance

Resolved

 – Look at the contribs and edit summaries. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm being threatend by a huggle "person" who thinks that because he doesn't know jack about a show and I've written about an odd episode that I must be a vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.211.37 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin eyes on ANI thread requested

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:CadenS thread has had a lot of input from non-admins and request is for admins to offer some insight. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 06:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why you're advertising an ANI thread here; most admins look at both anyway... Stifle (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely not because he wants a different answer to the one he's getting over there? Oh, how cynical of me. For shame. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the leap of bad faith there. I posted a request here as it was requested, as I stated, neutrally, that input from admins was sought. I don't lurk here often to know who looks at what, apologies if this wasn't needed. If you're an admin and willing to take a few moments to read the discussion some input would be welcome. -- Banjeboi 19:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who only reads one of the two main admin noticeboards, but what do I know? Guy (Help!) 22:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's no good reason for the bad faith comment. Most of us aren't admins, so we aren't often aware of what you guys read and watch. In addition, AN/I is a subpage to AN, so it may seem reasonable for someone to post a note to the "main page" to gain wider visibility. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 04:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I almost never look at ANI, but I usually browse AN. Limited time, and limited patience with teh dramaz.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Long term Citation Spamming and SEO

Seems LuckyLove8 (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA account using wikipedia for the purpose of promoting a website (gamblershandbook.net )

• gamblershandbook.net: 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
• LuckyLove8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  

• • first edit 08:10, 19 January 2008
  • second edit 08:30, 19 January 2008
  • third edit 02:09, 20 January 2008
  • 4th edit 05:15, 21 January 2008
  • 5th edit 05:28, 21 January 2008
  • added two 10:49, 31 January 2008
  • 06:07, 3 February 2008
  • 12:30, 4 June 2008
  • 04:55, 9 June 2008
  • adds three 14:07, 16 June 2008
  • 05:46, 17 June 2008
  • 12:36, 17 June 2008
  • 13:39, 23 June 2008
  • 05:48, 22 December 2008

What action is appropriate here, given the obvious nature of this accounts intention? --Hu12 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Talk to him first (I didn't check the talk page to see past discussions in the history). Let him know that the website is probably not an RS and that the impression of SPAM is a bad one. If he changes his tack, then no problem exists (it appears that editorial considerations are keeping the text off the page, since the content of most of the edits seems marginal). If he doesn't, or it appears that promoting the site is the primary or sole goal, indef the account as a spammer. But that's only after a full and complete conversation about policies and practices germane to the issue with the account. Don't want to BITE someone who might just be enthusiastic about a particular "source". Protonk (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• This won't help his SEO much, given the paucity of links and Wikipedia's NOFOLLOW on all external links. They have not been spamming at a high rate. There is a chance this user will respond to clues, per Protonk. Jehochman ^Talk 05:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I've left a note on the users talk, and removed some of the SEO additions. My concerns are neutrality. Wether these should be re-included should be up to neutral and independent Wikipedia editors. I agree with you both, the links do appear to have a RS issue (along with the other policy issues). cheers --Hu12 (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

I think that removing the links (so long as you aren't doing it repeatedly) is acceptable. It's the next step (blocking) that requires some more thought in this case. Protonk (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC on voting as a component of consensus

There is an ongoing Request for Comment at WT:Requested moves#Moving or renaming articles based on poll results. The aim of the RfC is to determine whether and to what extent a majority of editors can be seen to represent a consensus, in the context of page/article moves. Note that this is a policy and not a content issue/dispute. All considered opinions on the nature of consensus are welcome.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pokity poke.

WP:ITN is five hours overdue :/ Sceptre ^(talk) 02:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to update it with :\ --Stephen 04:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting use of jpg from wiki page.

I am writing a patient information leaflet on pearly penile papules. This leaflet will be given out to patients attending our sexual health clinic. I would like permission to use the figure Hirsuties papillaris coronae glandis.jpg in the leaflet. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.190.75 (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That image has been released into the public domain and can be used for whatever purpose you like, free of charge and without attribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Pevernagie damages Wikipedia

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 by young and inexperienced User:Pevernagie. I hope that administrators can do something with this. 83.31.97.235 (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pevernagie has done nothing wrong. Troll IP. Closing. Feel free to open back up. But, I see nothing wrong with what Pevernagie has done. This IP has been warned by at least 3 users at the article Treaty of Lisbon Rgoodermote  17:20, 6 January 2009 (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.

Edit count tool

I apologize that this is not the right place to put this section, but I wasn't sure of the best spot. Soxred (X!)'s edit count tool has been down for a few days, while the other tool seems to be working fine. Should they be switched and replaced again? Again, sorry for posting this in the wrong spot. ayematthew @ 16:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The toolserver is having issues at the moment; not sure where you're thinking we'd switch them at, but it's a temporary setback. Also of note, wannabekate isn't perfect either; with the recent Image: to File: switch, the File: and File talk: namespaces no longer show up on the reports. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I meant on the User templates. ayematthew @ 18:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, I thought soxred told me that tool uses the API. — CharlotteWebb 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

iirc the api was too slow so he moved it over to the database. --Chris 23:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I got bored and made one which does use the API:

importScript("User:CharlotteWebb/editcount.js");

Seems reasonably fast and it won't be subject to outages. Let me know how well it works. — CharlotteWebb 12:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that the TS databases apparently won't be replicated until the sysadmins get the new servers, in a month or so. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

SingNet ranges blocked

I have anon-blocked two ranges on SingNet (220.255.7.0/24 and 220.255.4.0/24) for 3 months for their persistent vandalism coming from anonymous users. I am aware that these ranges are extremely dynamic yet still act as proxies for the computers' true locations, but the damage arising from these ranges have been constant. I've allowed account creation. These ranges apparently produce a lot of collateral damage when account creation is blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that as a lighter measure, MediaWiki:Autoblock whitelist could be used to disable autoblock on these ranges. I am not a fan of blocking an entire ISP for long periods of time to be honest. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

ATurnerIII blocked for legal threats

As a FYI, I have indefinitely blocked ATurnerIII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for making legal threats after an AfD on an article he wrote did not have the result he wanted. Mr. Turner's various threats of litigation are as follows: [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], and [99]. Keeping WP:DOLT in mind -especially since dealing with litigious editors is not my forte- any other admin with more expertise in this area should feel free to adjust the block as they see fit without contacting me first. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good block. We don't need twats like that. I'd regard indef as a minimum --Rodhullandemu 01:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We can add two more threats to the collection. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Threats continuing on talk page after block; reblocked with talk page editing disabled. --barneca (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Antitrust" lol. Protonk (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiming in to say "good call". I doubt you're going to find anyone who objects to this block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

Dude had more froth going than my latte. Impressive, really, especially with the whole antitrust thing thrown in. Good block. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New user tries to add racist pro-nazi content

Resolved

 – user was shown the door. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/KrcKrcKvrc

I believe this is a rather serious offense. Zazaban (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be an immediate infinite block. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering he was not warned about proper conduct on Wikipedia, I would consider that a bit much... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Well, if you think that such courtesy should be shewn to the author of "Aryans, whites and other uebermench have mistreated subhumans, apes and other creatures through centuries. PETA has often violently protested treatment of chimpanzees, while Jews have exaggerated "holocaust". Nowadays, even Niggers have a say. Gypsies and Moslems are viewed less symphatetically, and no PETA protests have been staged for these beasts. Its a shame, for Muslims like to eat swarms of crickets, preserving the desert with its oil for the use by the superior creatures, like George W Bush, Nikolas Sarkozy, Tony Blair and Adolf Hitler" then I really have nothing to say to you. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get in a twist about this. Protonk (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. I'd have blocked for longer, but if any similar edits are made once that block expires, then an indef block. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to say what Tim said. Warning for that kind of thing makes no sense; if they don't already know it's not appropriate, I don't want them editing here. --barneca (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A brand new user with a name that's "KKK" making racist edits to Übermensch, and no other contributions? Why is this here? Why are we talking about warnings and week blocks? Someone indef block, and forget it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale just extended it to "indef" - given that he also made an edit to Allah which is pretty much just vandalism (of the silly sort) I think she made the right call. This user has only three edits and they are all trash. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Request undeletion

Resolved

 – Request referred to deletion review Tim Vickers (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I request undeletion of User talk:Encyclopediaofalabama. I did ask the deleting admin why he deleted it, but although he was still active, he did not make any response. DuncanHill (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll restore it if you want, but why do you need it? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record of how Wikipedians responded to a new user, particularly with reference to the apparent antipathy of some admins to contributions from information professionals. DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review. seicer | talk | contribs 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have three months available in which to work out the instructions for DRV. DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking into it, I'd recommend keeping this deleted, since the editor concerned is editing under a different account. Unless they personally ask for undeletion, I'd opt for maintaining their privacy. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure they are? As I recall, when they followed the suggested course of starting a new account, it was promptly blocked (wrongfully in my opinion) for sockpuppetry. DuncanHill (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

He created a bunch of accounts (typos)...it threw up some alarms...the typo accounts were blocked...his main account 22star (talk · contribs) has never been blocked. --Smashville^talk 20:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Encyclopediaofalabama. One of the accounts wasn't blocked. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Side note: Reading the SSP, he was left one account unblocked on the promise on October 8th he stop adding the links to his website...then turned around and went back to doing the same thing on the 15th to some 200-250 articles, after which he has not edited again. Not sure if those should be reviewed or not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Forget it, it was stupid of me to expect admins to restore a page which includes criticism of heavy-handed admins. DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see anything on there that is critical of anyone, just a bunch of welcome messages and a request to change the user name...but again...we already told you DRV is the place. The only thing on the page a welcome notices, templates and a random rant by you about Wikipedia telling him not to bother creating another name. Quit stirring up drama. We already told you to go to DRV. It's not really anyone else's problem if you would rather stir up drama than actually follow the process. --Smashville^talk 20:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you finished changing your mind yet about what was on the page? DuncanHill (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I struck through it because I didn't see that the page contained a rant by you. When we view deleted pages, they look a lot like the edit page feature. Is there any reason for your response to be so uncivil? Again, quit stirring up drama. If it's so important to you, why don't you take it to DRV, as you have been told to do now 3 times? --Smashville^talk 20:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

When someone has already indicated that they do not understand the DRV instructions, it is not generally helpful to parrot "We told you to go to DRV" at them. When they then get an edit conflict on a reasoned reply, only to find that the edit conflict was caused by someone changing the substance of the post being replied to, they do sometimes get a bit shirty. "Quit stirring up drama" is a wonderful way to encourage someone to calm down! Anyway, like I said before, forget it, I really cannot be bothered anymore. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You know you can check the history and see what I changed instead of accusing me of whatever you are accusing me of...other than the first time when I found that you had a rant on the page you were trying to get undeleted, I have not changed the substance of anything. And you never said you didn't know how to do DRV, you said that you didn't have time to figure it out. And you are stirring up drama - you are making bad faith accusations...accusing me of changing the substance of my posts because I *gasp* made a typo! And added a part reminding you to go to DRV. And decided to use a clearer term and told you again to take it to DRV. And you accuse us of not undeleting it because it is critical of admins...no, we are not undeleting it because there is no reason to. There is nothing of substance on that page. --Smashville^talk 20:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• You changed the substance of your post when you changed your mind about what was on the deleted page. That was the edit conflict which led to me abandoning a much more reasonable reply, and replacing it with "Have you finished changing your mind yet about what was on the page?". Saying that I don't have three months to work out the instructions should convey pretty clearly that I do not understand them - and was phrased that way in what was intended as a light-hearted piece of self-criticism. DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DRV#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review. Please contact me on my talkpage if you have problems following these instructions, and I will do my best to talk you through them. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Tim, but I really cannot be bothered. Kind of you to try to help though, and appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK then, no problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Something that occurred to me in reading the userpage - the user was blocked for a promotional username, and the talk page automatically added to Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, or CAT:TEMP and deleted a month later. However, after the username was already blocked as promotional, it was also found to be a sockpuppet. Sockpuppet userpages do not fall within CAT:TEMP as they are required for tracking purposes. In summary then - shouldn't this userpage actually be restored, not for the reasons advanced by User:DuncanHill but because for the reasons outlined at CAT:TEMP abbout sockpuppet pages? Euryalus (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of sockpuppet userpages being deleted, so I'm not sure if that instruction in the temp category reflects common practice. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't sockpuppetry, let's not brand their old userpage with an undeserved scarlet letter. I've undeleted the talk page for a while in case Duncan (or any other non-admin) wants to verify Smashville's fairly accurate description of the contents (it was only deleted a few hours ago, so I'm not exposing any dark secrets), then I'll redelete. If someone wants it undeleted permanently, DRV is the place to go. --barneca (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no DRV has yet been opened, I'll add a comment here. If DuncanHill's interest in this page is to review the conduct of admins I think it's fine to keep it restored. There is *no* privacy issue, only possible embarrassment to an institution called Encyclopedia of Alabama, and conceivably to the admins, if they did anything wrong. The only regular user (still able to edit) whose reputation might take a hit has not edited since 15 October, he used a pseudonym, and his last contributions were rather spammy (adding links to Encyclopedia of Alabama to multiple articles). People are responsible for their own behavior on Wikipedia, and neither the admins who participated nor the surviving user account should object to having their conduct scrutinized. It turns out that there *was* abuse of multiple accounts, though not to the point the guy would be prevented from editing in the future, if he agreed to comply with WP:SPAM. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ed makes a good point, but I've still re-deleted for a couple of reasons.

• There really isn't anything to see there; perhaps it demonstrates the clunky way we handle username problems, but lots of pages do that; there was certainly no admin abuse.
• No need to treat this page differently than other Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. If we want to change the way we handle those pages (and I'm personally torn between the opposing arguments on this) then it should be discussed in a more appropriate forum than an obscure {{resolved}} thread at WP:AN.

I'm not sure offhand what forum would be best for such a discussion; WP:DRV is one possibility, WP:VPP is another. --barneca (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is nothing very solemn or serious about a page being included in CAT:TEMP. The {{indefblockeduser}} template *automatically* puts the page in cat:temp unless you invoke it as {{subst:indefblockeduser|historical}}. ('Historical' = generally means 'the blocker thinks this is of possible sockpuppet interest'). Alternatively, apply your blocks using a different template. I do not think that restoring one of these pages should be taken any more seriously than restoring a PROD on request, unless there is defamation, copyvio, etc. etc. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Attention required

User:Lalit Jagannath has made several edits to India-related articles and most of these edits have been massive - removing large chunks of well-sourced content and replacing them often a biased, narrow-minded content. The user's talkpage is flooded with requests to discuss any outstanding issues he has before making such edits and yet he fails to seek consensus. It would be great if Wikipedia's Administrators would also advice this user. Thanks --67.180.5.41 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, a look at his edits to Culture of India (he removed lead images and replaced them with those that represent a fraction of India's culture) and Economy of India (removed all images related to India's business schools, manufacturing industry and IT-service industry) raise questions about the motive behind his edits. --67.180.5.41 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted his edits done to Culture of India and Economy of India articles. If I have done anything wrong, please let me know but my opinion about his edits is shared by many as evident on Talk:Economy of India. --67.180.5.41 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute (unless violating 3RR/vandalism/something similar) and you are free to follow the procedures of Changing-Reverting-Discussing. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:sinneed

Resolved

 – A simple misunderstanding, followed by an apology. Euryalus (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Please get a French speaker (I have not spoken French heavily in 26 years, I can't help) who has better English to help you understand" these are words from User:sinneed on my talk page after i had made a typo, i find this very rude and uncalled for Jeremie Belpois (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing rude with finding someone who can communicate with you if there is a language barrier. //roux   04:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

you didnt see my point, he was saying that only because i made a typo, therefore mocking me. im not even french Jeremie Belpois (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I wish you had answered me when I asked why you felt I was incivil. I would have explained. I make many typographical errors, and would have made no such assumption. You seem to not be able to understand 2 key points: you have broken a page (it now has errors on it), and you have restored a page that was deleted by AfD. I do appologize for not explaining why I thought you spoke French. You use a French name, and we are discussing a French cartoon. Nothing else. I do understand how the remark could have seemed offensive, and I apoligize apologize even for the seeming. As I once spoke French, I attributed the problem to the one I was familiar with.sinneed (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing rude here at all. If he thinks there is a language barrier, you have a French surname and have heavily edited several French articles, then a logical assumption would be that your primary language was French. Perhaps a simple correction of his assumption would have been a more constructive response. Kuru ^talk 04:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Search bar for AN

How's this, maybe for the header? Try it out.

~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent; I would get it up on all the admin pages asap. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice, this would come handy. --Tone 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work! Now I can see who's been spreading rumors about me. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It will make it easier to find archived threads if you know the name. Now we just need to put it in the header here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's making my job of updating links to archived threads much easier. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

threshold afd

Resolved

 – Already at DRV. Protonk (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The Threshold (online game) afd was less than 4 days, I have requested it be reviewed, but I was told by an editor [100] that I could bring it up here as well. I have found some previous discussion about the 5 day rule on this board, but nothing of real consequance. The deletion review is here [101], where you can find links to the deletion pages and whatever else you require. It is absolutely clear that the matter was in no way settled at the time of closure. I would like to know if the 5 days is a policy we intend to hold to, or considered optional. Thank you for your input. --Theblog (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep it at DRV for now. You know my feelings on how the AfD arguers were canvassed, but personally I would have liked to see it run the full 5 days because we knew it would be a controversial one...however, since I know nothing of the subject and the AfD is a nightmare to go through, I won't comment on it...My issue was with the canvassing/sockpuppetry...I have no knowledge/vested interest in the actual article staying or going. I recognize you actually are doing this request in good faith, but it could be seen by some as forum shopping. --Smashville^talk 06:48, 7 January 2009 (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.

Malfunctioning bot

Could someone block User:91.198.174.201. It says its registered to Toolserver, and certainly acts like a bot. It also has been spamming my talk page with the same DYK credit. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• It was blocked for an hour and I extended that to three months (softblocked only). No reason for a bot to be running from an IP, even one registered to the toolserver. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me to be a case of a bot somehow getting logged out and continuing to edit under an IP. Not so much a case of someone deliberately running an IP-Bot, as a harmless mistake. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC).

This is the Toolserver, according to the list of sensitive IP addresses. Is there any reason for any anon edits from the Toolserver? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See here. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 10:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can regular editors decline blocks?

For clarification - can and should non-admin contributors decline blocks? --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to defend myself here: the case was clear cut, and I was helping to keep the backlog down as much as possible. Non-admins are encouraged to close AFDs and decline CSDs where it's obvious no admin action is needed; why not extend this to blocks and protections, if it isn't already (in very limited cases, mind)? What's the harm? Sceptre ^(talk) 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, Afds and Csds are on highly watched pages. Unblock requests are not. Don't do this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Blunt answer - people will only complain if you get it wrong. Long winded answer - I don't mind, to be honest, although there's two camps, some editors believe you need to have the trust of the community to deal with blocks, so you need to have passed RfA, whilst other editors would argue turning down a block is something any editor can do as long as it's done properly. The reaction you'll get will depend on what you do, whether it's right or wrong, and the persons philosophy. Nick (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet a bit of clue suggests that non-Admins can't and shouldn't do this. Suppose a non-Admin decides that unblocking is appropriate? We're no further forward. --Rodhullandemu 02:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, things like ability to view deleted contributions can be an important factor in unblock requests - if the user reviewing the unblock can't see the 3 attack pages a user has created and then goes onto agree unblocking is in order, they're not really helping either, but if it's a straightforward unblock request that will only ever be declined, say something like a prolific sockpuppet or something, there's not much a non admin can do wrong if they're doing things properly. Nick (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I declined it. If there was any reason why the unblock would be granted for that request, I would've not declined it. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not power, but responsibility. Whereas all editors are accountable in some way, Admins are given the trust of the community to be able to take these decisions, and that trust is based on their perceived experience, ability and, er, trustworthiness. I'd say that whereas many non-admin editors *could* exercise that discretion equally properly, the community has not given it to them. One reason is that whereas de-sysopping is a very real sanction for inappropriate use of discretion, which concentrates the mind, there is no effective sanction for other editors and thus a rogue editor (as opposed to a rouge admin) could refuse unblock requests, thereby taking them out of the category and preventing their review by admins. I don't think that's what is intended by WP:BLOCK. Worse if they purport to grant them, because the blocked editor then wonders why they can't edit. I take the view that unblocking is not an asymmetric function of an admin, and therefore should not be delegated. WP:SNOW Afd closes are quite different, because a discretion doesn't really arise. --Rodhullandemu 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins are only really responsible for making sure that the wiki doesn't asplode if they use one of their buttons. (seriously, we have a lot of really dumb admins atm, this was never different). Everything else is determined by consensus. So sure, 2 or more regular editors can discuss an unblock request, and it be upon the head of the admin if they then go against the consensus! (up to and including losing the bit). An admin does not delegate their responsibilities to the community, the community delegates certain responsibilities to the admin. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're worried about rogue users, well, they can already do that kind of thing right? Even if nothing else, the probably the template needs to be hardened against that particular abuse? Would you be able to think of a way to do so? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there now (or ever) a significant backlog in this category? If an unblock request that's going to be denied anyway sits in the queue for a while longer, no harm will come to Wikipedia. If an unblock request that should be granted sits for too long, there's nothing that a non-admin can do (directly) anyway. Feel free to add a short comment or recommendation (if you must) to requests that should be denied, but you probably shouldn't close them yourself. Frankly, the really clear-cut closes cases don't take very long to examine, and while your intentions are good, I suspect that you're probably not saving anyone very much time.

If there's an unblock request that you think should be granted, then drop a note on AN/I. Those are the requests that are worthwhile to answer quickly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely so! --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I can make a coherent argument too ;-)

Gainsaying is not helpful. If you are interested in making a cogent argument on the subject, I'm welcome to it, though what is in place immediately below doesn't really cut the mustard. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's always seemed obvious to me that non-admins shouldn't be responding to unblock requests; as I recently warned Ncmvocalist, non-administrators do not have the technical capability nor expressed community trust to block and unblock users. While I have no issues with non-admins leaving comments for blocked users on their talk pages to offer advice or something else, the backlog of requests is never so long that non-admins need to be attempting to take care of them. GlassCobra 04:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, regular editors can help decide to place or decline blocks and unblocks, provided their judgment is sound. I've never had any trouble doing so.

It is extremely important for normal editors to be able do as many tasks as is possible and safe, to avoid a situation where we creating an elite that effectively rules over the wiki. We want the community to be in charge and stay in charge. There's no reason to disenfranchise ourselves.

I also really like Nick's answer. "No one will complain as long as you get it right". Heh, wikipedia in a nutshell! ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"AFAIK, regular editors can help decide to place or decline blocks and unblocks, provided their judgment is sound." This premise is not true, or I can find no evidence of it at WP:BLOCK. Also, since block reviews are a stickier sort of matter--the review of the block may result in a situation where an administrative decision will be reversed or revised against the will of the original administrator--more care must be taken than with simply recommending blocking. Since that skirts WP:WHEEL, the utmost care must be taken by administrators in reviewing and discussing block reviews. Specific, detailed coverage of this exists in Wikipedia:BLOCK#Block_reviews. The function of the block review is to get the process right and to proceed gingerly. Simply getting the "outcome right" is shotgunning and relying on getting that outcome "right" to justify the act itself fundamentally misses the point. Further, {{Unblock}} notes: "Administrator use only: If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following as notification.", templates are not policy, but common practice and a lack of positive identification of administrator status in signatures would lead a rational person to believe that a non-administrator should not use that template. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nail, head; head, nail. --Rodhullandemu 04:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I thought it was fine, turns out it's not. No harm done, really. And we've got clarification on the matter :) Sceptre ^(talk) 04:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Protonk: Why would the judgement of an administrator be any better than that of anyone else in this case?

This is not a disingenuous question: You see, you can't argue that "the community said so at RFA" because rfa is judged mostly on numbers of edits to paticular pages, which says absolutely nothing about admin ability to actually judge an unblock request.

If you happen to accept the current RFA criteria as sufficient to become an admin, you can't then turn around and claim that admins are more capable of judging this kind of thing than any other person.

But this leaves the question as to what grounds there are to actually have this template only be used by admins.

My own take on this is that admins are trusted to not use their buttons to abuse the wiki. I agree that the current admin criteria at RFA don't exactly test for this either (and in fact, I have complained about this). Nevertheless, new admins do get the buttons put into their hands, and they are expected to not break the wiki. So de facto, this is true.

I would then at least put forward that anything that *can* be done safely by a none-admin should be doable by a none-admin. This has actually been how wikipedia has worked for as long as we have had admins.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC) One reason for having my admin bit set to "off" is that it is a lot easier to catch these situations as they occur. If I'm forced to make a choice between telling people off, or having my bit set back to "on" to retain a particular functionality; I'll try telling people off first :-P

You are turning this into an existential question where the matter at hand neither requires it nor is our discussion sufficient to resolve it. We cannot tell whether or not your decision making capacity is "greater" than mine simply by looking at the admin bit. You could list a host of reasons why you aren't an admin or why RfA is a bad proxy for "decision making ability". None of that is in question. We live in a micro-society. As such, we have to dole out responsibility within the community to certain individuals. Some process must exist to do that and some distinction must exist between those who have that responsibility and those who don't. Most of the things on wiki are lightweight and look nothing like processes to determine "responsibility" in the outside world. Often, the process is (by design) self-selection. In most cases that works well. Sometimes there is a formal selection process, sometimes there is an informal selection process. Where RfA fits in that taxonomy of processes is not important to the fact that some process exists and some distinction exists. I note above that you say that "Admins are only really responsible for making sure that the wiki doesn't asplode if they use one of their buttons." At the risk of being tautological, I would have to disagree. We can't just have admins responsible for that or otherwise we wouldn't need administrators--there would be no one to block, ban, or otherwise restrict in a world where admins are only responsible for policing themselves. Since we aren't in that world, we have to deal with the fact that some responsibilities get parsed out and some (see Rodhullandemu) are less devolvable than others. As such it is not useful to diverge from speaking of responsibility to speaking of pure decision-making capacity. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

First up: you ask what we still need admins for, and the answer is really that we hardly need the separate flag at all anymore. Adminship has been thoroughly nerfed. Originally admins got particular buttons that could actually damage the wiki (deletion was permanent, you could run arbitrary mysql SELECTs, including queries that could run forever, etc.) So we really don't need admins for many tasks anymore. What we do still have admins for is for the split-second decisions: block a vandal before they make a bigger mess, or to speedy delete the pages the vandal just created.

Practically anything else can be done at a more leisurely tempo by the community. So also an unblock review. If we review the process you linked to yourself, you'll see that most of the steps involve discussions and gaining consensus. This can de facto be done by any user: discussing and gaining consensus are things any user can do, after all.

You are only supposed to edit the template as the final step in the process. If you have followed the process correctly, then you already know that what you are going to say in the template has consensus of the involved admins, and of the community. If not, you have made a mistake (it doesn't matter here whether you are an admin or a normal user either).

The only thing that a normal user can -not- do is that they cannot hit an unblock button if it turns out that unblocking is necessary. If they have been discussing with the admin in question, they can ask the admin to do the unblock. (once again, if this is being done by an admin, it would still be wise for the admin to get a second opinion from another admin who might then push the unblock button themselves, so once again, the difference between an admin and a regular user is minimal)

So checking the process itself, there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to require that the template be edited by an admin. Any conscientious user can do so safely.

Is there anything I've missed? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC) This is essentially part of my argument why the admin flag is redundant for sufficiently experienced wikipedians. I think I already demonstrated that the basic argument is correct a long time ago. I'm getting bit tired of demonstrating though. So I'll admit that sometimes I'm terribly tempted to just ask for the flag back and tell people "see? I'm an admin, look at my shiny flag, now stfu", but that would set a terribly bad example. I do not think admins should be able to do that at all.

I'm a strong supporter of devolving administrator rights. I believe that almost every part of the "bit" that can be technically moved to specialist usergroups and controlled through a less...colorful process than RfA should be. However, we have not devolved the right and responsibility to block/unblock so we should not act as though we have simply because we feel we are better judges of who is responsible than RfA. And frankly, discussing the unblock (a perfectly reasonable thing to do) is a far cry from declining/accepting it and removing the trancluded template. It doesn't even bear on the subject to say that any non-admin can discuss blocks--we aren't talking about that. The responsibility of declining/accepting unblock requests or 'dealing' with them substantively rests with administrators--not because of some special gift in the person between the keyboard and the chair but because the community has already determined that will be the case. Protonk (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone has really discussed it much until now. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC) (Best note I've found so far: Template_talk:Unblock#Notice_to_Admins_and_why_Admins_only.3F. No one replied)

(Undent)TL;DR, but, there is no written policy anywhere that non sysop persons can or cannot deny unblock requests. Its worth noting two things. First, that sysops are the only ones who can accept unblock requests - you need the tool to lift the block so there is a certain amount of parity expected that sysops are the ones doing the unblock requests - if for no other reason than it may (unintentionally) confuse the blocked user. Second, pretty much everything on Wikipedia relies on an editor's ability to "get the message." when they're acting outside of what a relevant portion of the community wishes.--Tznkai (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your position. I'm looking at this from the pov that (I hope that) the unblock review is being done by at least some small group of people, rather than by an admin all by themselves (that's what typically happened/happens when I did/do unblocks, with/without admin buttons). In that case it doesn't really matter which member of the group really does the typing in the unblock review template. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In theory yes - in practice many unblock reviews are done by a single (user acting as an) administrator --Tznkai (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

*Nod* and that might not always be a great idea.

Naturally, it would be foolish to tell people off for following the best practice, while allowing a common-but-not-so-good-practice to flourish. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to accept on faith that claim. You would have to provide some compelling evidence to say that a single user accepting or declining an unblock is inferior to a group of users doing the same thing. In some cases I can see how that would be the case, however in others I can see how the result would be worse. So what is your evidence that group discussion of unblocks represents best practice? Protonk (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As you probably *don't* know (because someone has been editing the page that documented the fact... grrrr), in November 2005, I stated an interesting experiment. I quietly asked User:Angela to remove my admin bit, but I didn't actually stop doing any of my normal duties. It took roughly 6 months for the first person to notice I was adminning without actually having the technical admin bit ;-). By handing in my bit, I was forced to go to other admins to double-check my positions whenever I wanted to take a hard-security action. And the interesting thing is that in 2006, AFAICR I really did get into rather less trouble and wikidrama than in 2005.

I think it takes roughly a year of experience as an administrator before you can do without the bit. Some people with good mediation skills have been a tad quicker about it, while other people never become skilled enough. In your case, I think you'd have to wait 'till october of this year, correct? Otherwise I'd have challenged you to simply try it out and see. ;-)

I agree that looking at my own experience is just one data-point. Previously, Wikipedia:Former Administrators listed other people who decided to do the same thing; but someone has evidently removed that documentation from the page, possibly because it wasn't clear enough, for some reason.

One reason I'm making a bit of noise here is due to the fact that I'd like to continue to actually take all/most appropriate admin actions without resorting to asking the bit back. That would not be cool, because it could mean mean that the admin bit has taken on a non-technical role as a badge, and that the wikipedia community has taken a step towards the hierarchical governance model (a model which is fine for armies for instance, but it is not particularly suitable for wikis).

I agree that it's just a small thing, but over time, a lot of small things have slowly been adding up to much bigger things. This is evidenced by the fact that a lot of people here seem to push for admins having more than a purely technical role. (To wit: by arguing that (a) certain template(s) should now be restricted to admin use only. -Note that at the time of the creation of the admin role, said template definitely did not exist, so this is clearly a fairly new thing)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC) There are many reasons why one can act as an admin without an admin bit. The better you get at meatball:SoftSecurity, the more effective you can become at it, to the point where the admin bit can actually become a hindrance.

Shorter version: An alternate argument for those who TL;DR, and/or "must follow policy": it takes at least 2 people to discuss an unblock request in the case of wanting to unblock, because it is policy: The original blocking admin, and whoever it is who is doing the review. Further, (as also argued at WP:BRD for edits), it's generally wise to let someone reverse their own actions, rather than doing it for them, as that reduces the chances for conflict. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm hardly one to put the "role" of admins on a pedestal, but this like closing an AFD as "Delete" is one of those things that only admins with tools should be doing. The wiki-way, besides being a talking point, obviously does not and was never intended to go to "all things", or else every IP user would have the tools. rootology (C)(T) 06:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I am often critical of our admin concept here in Wikipedia, I admit that there are some functions that need to be the perogative of admins. Making an unblock decision is one of them. Non-admins should stay away from unblock requests except to help advise the deciding admin on the decision to make. Cla68 (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there an additional problem here with desyopped ex-admins? Hasn't the community (in that case) explicitly noted that they do not trust that class of editor to be involved in broom work? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get it, why are there all these drama why are there all these technical fuss over something so insignificant. This user is obviously trolling around with the unblock requests. Are we trying to create some-sort of burocracy for how things are done here? If we are saying that only admins can decline that sort of unblock request, we might as well say "you can't revert vandalism unless your an administrator" as well, because he might as well placed an unblock reason like this, {{unblock|FUCK YOU ALL WIKI AMDINS FOR BLOCKING ME}} and are we saying that the only person who can respond to that is an admin? Y. Ichiro (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I must not see it. Where is the drama? A general question was asked and people are debating it (as we are wont to do). No one is getting butthurt over it, no one is slinging invective. This is a reasonable discussion of where people feel comfortable with admin/non-admin rights. If you want drama see the thread below. Protonk (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I should reword that then. :) But it's all these techinical fuss that makes us so buerocratic. We need no admin to say that unblock is invalid, anybody with common sense can see that. Yet why is an administrator needed to respond to this. I think it's all these little things probably making Wikipedia administrators more of a position of power than just being a janitor. I thought adminship was no big deal. Y. Ichiro (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • That's fair. I think that the literal issue isn't a big deal, but that the abstract one is. We can both think of examples where a declined unblock would be obvious--a vandal making a facetious unblock request or a vulgar one, or an obvious sock posting an unblock request that names the puppeteer. But we can also realize two things, one practical and one founded more in principle: First, there is rarely a backlog of any significance in the unblock category and an administrator can most easily deal with the abuse of the unblock request (roll it back and modify the block or protect the page). Second, we void the premise of unblocks as a 'review' of administrator action if we leave the declining of an unblock up to the judgment of any editor who feels that the issue is clear-cut. To whit, we have editors who misuse the speedy keep criteria frequently, confusing (deliberately or otherwise) a 'keep' vote with a call that the nomination be cut short procedurally. Those editors see a clear cut case where most of us see nuance. To say "we leave the decision of whether or not the unblock request is remotely reasonable" to any editor is (in some cases) tantamount to just leaving an unblock up to that editor. We then only rely on a third party having the blocked user's talk page watchlisted as an oversight mechanism--that works rather poorly, especially for IP editors.
    • As for the janitor vs. NBD, those two thoughts are not in opposition, nor is it universally accepted that admins are best thought of as janitors (I prefer plumbers). Blocks and unblocks are pretty contentious areas, so that technical 'power' feels a lot like interpersonal 'power' and shares a lot of its characteristics. I think the claim that the tools are agnostic vis a vis those power relationships is not always true (for good or ill). As such we can't proceed from that premise and argue that only technical capacity should drive distinctions, IMO. Protonk (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • {{unblock|FUCK YOU ALL WIKI AMDINS FOR BLOCKING ME}} should be handled only by admins, as we might decide that the abuse history in the user's talk page warrants readjusting the block or protecting the talk page. Besides, generally speaking, there's no real upside to having non-admins do this, as there's a) no way a non-admin can unblock someone, b) a user might [somewhat validly] make a fuss about having someone who has been judged to not have the community's confidence (or at least not judged to have it) reviewing his unblock. That's the same reason non-admins shouldn't close controversial XfD's: It just causes less headaches all around. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And I am equally opposed to not letting non-admins close controversial XFDs. There are non-admins in medcom and IIRC also OTRS these days, and I trust each and every one of those people more than I trust J. Random Admin. ;-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

re:Protonk: You argue that a normal user might decline an unblock by themselves, and that this would go unchecked. But... an admin should not decline an unblock unchecked either, because then it's "admin acting unilaterally", which is actually considered a much bigger deal than when a normal user does it (we call the latter "user being WP:BOLD", go figure ;-) ).

In the case of blocks/unblocks, people should always sanity-check their actions with at least one other admin (preferably the blocking admin) and/or with other (experienced) users. Two heads always know more than one. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think there's probably a case to be made for NAD (non-admin declines) based on NAC; when it is mindbogglingly blatantly obvious that an unblock will not be issued, there's a reasonable argument that any sufficiently clueful user could decline the unblock along the lines of 'no admin action needed'. Stuff like CU-verified socks, blatant incivility in the unblock request, etc. I've seen a bunch of unblock requests that, had the community indicated that everyone could decline requests, I would have declined on sight for the aforementioned reasons. That being said, though, the points above regarding lack of community visibility are not only compelling, they are much, much stronger than any arguments in favour of NAD. When a non-admin closes an XfD, hundreds of eyes see it, and any problems come to light more or less immediately. When an unblock is declined, only talkpage stalkers see it. For new users especially, that may well be a grand total of zero eyes. This is an obvious concern, especially given that blocked new users tend to be upset anyway; having an unblock declined capriciously (in their view) could mean the difference between a new user who learns their lesson, and a new version of He Who Shall Not Be Named.

If it were possible to have unblock requests transcluded via bot to a page that all admins watch (as opposed to the cat they're in now), with a note (via bot) when the unblock is declined and by whom, I think we could probably support at least a trial of non-admin declines. 1600 people would see when unblocks are declined, and if there's a trend of bad decisions then the experiment could be stopped and policy updated/clarified to reflect the practice. If, on the other hand, unblocks are declined reasonably, perhaps it's not a bad idea. But again, as with NAC, only in blatantly obvious cases where no admin action is required; CU-verified socks and incivility in the unblock request. Given the enormous headaches in setting up that sort of situation, the simple issue of visibility of actions is enough to state categorically that non-admins shouldn't decline unblocks, quite apart from issues of trust, usage of the tools, etc. // roux   10:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC) After ec, Titoxd makes an excellent additional point.

I've made (non-admin) comments on unblock requests, but I wouldn't actually handle one. Just my $0.02. shoy (reactions) 20:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I was of the opinion that non-admins should be able to do anything that doesn't actually require admin tools. As an admin, I still feel that way. If you see an unblock request that registers as a "speedy decline", then, sure, go ahead and decline it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

With the always-present caveat that, if you are found to be declining blocks that shouldn't be, then we will block you. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Policyfied

OK, I'm late to the discussion, but I agree with the rough consensus expressed above and conforming to current practice – i.e., non-admins should not decline unblock requests (including patently inadequate ones) because they don't have the tools (including unblocking and viewing deleted pages) to deal with unblock situations, and because unnecessary drama is avoided by not giving the blocked user a chance to complain that his request was declined by someone who could not have granted it in any case.

I've taken the liberty to boldly policify this in WP:BP as: "Only administrators may decline unblock requests, even disruptive ones, but other users may also contribute to the review process, such as by leaving comments on the blocked user's talk page." Maybe WT:BP would be a better place to continue this?  Sandstein  08:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's a move in the wrong direction, because it assigns a non-technical role to an administrator (which is defined as a technical role, determined by an entry in a mysql table (to wit: user-rights)).

I'll continue discussing at WT:BP. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take this up there if anyone tries to oppose the change, since it's a good one. We're not bound by clerical dogma here, or ancient (relative) practices, or adherence to old ideas that modern practice doesn't skew to. Since modern (today) practice is policy, Sandstein's edit was spot on. rootology (C)(T) 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good move sandstein. rootology (C)(T) 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call Sandstein. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

MiltonP Ottawa

MiltonP Ottawa (talk · contribs) is planning to delete the FA article Jack Sparrow after I objected to his mass deletions to Titanic and Transformers where his only statement is that information he admits is interesting is "trivia". I believe his last edit crossed over into the realm into bad faith. This editor has already been warned about general incivility and I cannot assume good faith on his constant "this is trivia" rants on the talk pages of Titanic and TF. I didn't want any more of his nonsense and removed his messages on my talk page, but this is not good editing or discussion. He called me a "pissed off" person who treates Wikipedia as a "fan site"! Alientraveller (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Though a disagreement over what is trivial should be regulated to a talk page, I cannot agree with Milton's actions of prodding Jack Sparrow, a featured article on a fictional character because he deems the article to be "trivial". I have to agree with Alien that it is hard to take this edit on good faith given his previous edits of removing "technical" information (Milton's word for describing production information on a film) as "trivial" (Milton's word again).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from his talk page, Milton is somewhat resilient to constructive criticism. I'm not sure what immediate admin action is needed here, so long as he stops and or tones it down. Also please make sure you let him know that he is being discussed here. Protonk (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I notified the editor of this discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In acts of vandalism, the editor moved Anarchy and moved User:Alientraveller. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I reported him to WP:AIV. They put him on ice for the next 31 hours. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

His personal comments aimed at AlienTraveler don't look promising: [102] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And here we go again

Resolved

 – AGF, people. Everyone should pay more attention to this, but let's keep the banhammers safely holstered ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did I just have to do this? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Protected for 26 hours to err on the safe side. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned by the fact that no one remembered to upload a copy from Commons! Same with File:Kamianets-Podilskyi-1.jpg, which went live a while ago. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cbl62 repeatedly placing unprotected images on the main page

Just two days ago, Cbl62 added File:Rev Dr Alexander Scott.jpg to template:did you know when the image was neither uploaded locally nor protected at the commons [103]. His sole response to my concerns regarding his actions was to remove my comment from his talk page without an edit summary [104]. Today, Cbl62 again placed the unprotected image File:Kamianets-Podilskyi-1.jpg on template:did you know [105], though thankfully, as described above, Fvasconcellos uploaded it locally five minutes later. The edit page for Template:Did you know/Next update explicitly instructs administrators to upload images locally before placing them on the main page. Since repeatedly adding unprotected images to the main page may result in disgusting shock-site images being displayed in Wikipedia's most highly visible location, it may be necessary to more forcefully advise Cbl62 that his behavior is inappropriate, and to warn him that if he continues, his account may be blocked or desysopped. John254 00:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not been actively involved with DYK maintenance for a while now, and was confused about whether there was cascading protection currently. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Any template, image, or other content local to Wikipedia is automatically protected through cascading protection when displayed on the main page. However, the current problem with unprotected images arises because cascading protection does not extend cross-wiki to the Wikimedia Commons. Thus, when an image which is unprotected on the commons and not uploaded locally is placed on the main page, image vandals have the opportunity to replace the image with disgusting shock-site fare by uploading vandalized content at the same filename as the image on the commons. To prevent main-page vandalism, all images displayed on the main page must be uploaded locally or protected on the commons. John254 00:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What became of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Main page protection robot? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot is currently still listed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Bots_in_a_trial_period, though the trial seems to have been completed. John254 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cbl62 is aware of this need, and has apologized for uploading images without protection. I have pointed him in the direction of Category:Protected main page images, which contains detailed instructions, and I hope he'll remember to do it before updating the template in future :) This is only symptomatic of a broader issue, though; recent SA images have gone without protection as well. I haven't checked ITN images recently but some may very well have been on the Main page without local upload. I don't think anyone needs to even consider blocking or desysopping at the moment. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For crying out loud, we aren't going to desysop someone for messing up an image upload. Protonk (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The DYK bot is not functioning currently, and so when the update went more than 2 hours past due, I went ahead and shifted the next queue to the main page. I immediately left a note on the DYK discussion page asking for help making sure someone checked to make sure the image was protected. Fvasconcellos immediately jumped on my request for help and took care of the protection. As I discussed with Fvasconcellos, I will make sure I figure out how to image protect before doing again. See my note to Fvasconcellos here That said, I really don't appreciate John254's snide aggressive tone. Remember, we're all volunteers trying to help. Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bubblesmcfuglyguy userpage claims

On his user page User:Bubblesmcfuglyguy states that "bubblesmcfuglyguy is a Wikipedia user who fixes wrong edits.and makes other accounts to mess up the peoples pages that he hates such as Johnny Rotten,Andy Taylor of Duran Duran,and many more". In checking those pages, no specific shared editor stood out to me, but I'm if a note should be left with bubbles asking if his claim is true and if so to self-identify those other accounts and socking explained to him, or if a checkuser should be done to find them? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the account as a obvious troll and saying that he wants to make socks to vandalize, no need to warn him. Secret ^account 14:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, see [106] and then Special:Contributions/Musicfreakrat -> Kanon Wakeshima and related edits and compare it to "madly in love with Kanon Wakeshima" on User:Bubblesmcfuglyguy. As simple as that. ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 14:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Also have a look at Special:Contributions/Dudeguysomeonepersons and other red links from [107] and compare them to [108].--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 14:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking more, User:Dudeguysomeonepersons and User:Ilovethings2 are likely his too, particularly considering[109] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd file a checkuser; sounds like there's a whole hosiery department involved here. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Done -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As an update, 11 socks found, blocked, and tagged. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Longterm campaign at Rick Reilly

Resolved

 – Indef-blocked by admin

Tanninglamp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has resumed a campaign on the Rick Reilly page that appears to go back to at least 2005.

I'm requesting a community ban or indefinite block. Relevant info may be seen at:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive265#Block_evasion_by_banned_vandal June 2007 ANI archive and

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive45#Rick_Reilly April 2008 BLP noticeboard

This article was recently semi-protected due to "Chronic vandalism and BLP violations that show no sign of ever subsiding" by SarcasticIdealist in December 2008, presumably that is why this account has been re-activated. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tanninglamp was previously blocked 99 hours for sockpuppetry. How did he escape without an indef-block? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation

I have reported Tanninglamp at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

GlobeStar Systems page removal

Can someone please advise what I can do to re-post the article for GlobeStar Systems? This was removed 18:42, 15 December 2008 NawlinWiki (Talk | contribs) deleted "Globestar systems" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globestar_systems. I would be happy to make whatever edits are necessary, but I don't run to run the risk of having it deleted yet again. I need to know why the article is "Blatant Advertising" as it was posted for some time without complaint. Nonetheless, I would like to revise and repost it once I know what would be most appropriate.

I am not sure if the admin NawlinWiki received my inquiry; his talk page does not display what I wrote to him...it appears to be protected and so unfortunately I can't discuss this with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobanna4 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have created you a sandbox here, write what you think is a suitable article there and we can discuss the content and if it is suitable for an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cameron, I realize the previous article posted (and removed) was not neutral enough to meet the criteria for Wikipedia. I hope the article in the sandbox fits those guidelines more closely. Please let me know what else I can do to develop appropriate material.Bobanna4 (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cambios RFC

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to list this here, however as so many users attempted to resolve the dispute and got involved I think I should. I have opened an RFC on Cambios here.--Patton^t/c 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Improper username

I can't remember how do we deal with that: Feel like cock (talk · contribs). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Uw-uhblock should do the trick. seicer | talk | contribs 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems like this are best handled at WP:UAA. Cheers, caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 21:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Need a second opinion on copyright

See User talk:Coren#"Why God Never Received Tenure" and the corresponding item on Coren's userpage. I'd appreciate a second opinion as to who is correct wrt. to this being a copyright violation. Thanks. Giggy (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that on a joke website before, and it predates Coren's version. Therefore, yes, it is a copyvio and should be removed. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 00:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a fine line between proper handling of copyrights and flat out copyright paranoia; in this particular case, we are talking about a point so far beyond the line and moving away so fast it redshifts all the way down to radio frequencies. I'll remove the bit of humor from my user page, but use the opportunity to wag my finger at you and suggest you consult legal counsel that actually knows something about the copyright statutes before you embarrass yourselves when something of importance comes up. — Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to attack my knowledge of copyright. I'm asking you to show how this text is freely licensed. Considering you have a blurb about this in your talk page header (wrt. CorenSearchBot), I'd have hoped you wouldn't consider this an unreasonable request. The tone is not necessary. Giggy (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is quite reasonable fair use. It may be against the policies of WP:USER, but it is not a copyright violation. In a sense both Coren and Giggy are right--we often forget to make a distinction between WP copyright policy and US or international copyright law, but it is essential that we do, and indeed that we are vigorous in making that distinction. Chick Bowen 01:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, last time I checked, the prohibition against fair use on user pages only applied to images; I'm guessing the intent was to prevent galleries most of all (but it's always touchy trying to guess at intent after the fact). — Coren ^(talk) 01:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that an allowance was made for text, but if policy says so, I'd be interested to see that. Giggy (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not an allowance for text; the prohibition specifies explicitly images. — Coren ^(talk) 01:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question of "fair use" because the story is not copyrighted. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's as old as Coren says, it pre-dates automatic copyright, and is in the public domain. --Carnildo (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) That's not something I know, but something I'm guessing based on the style of the humor, and its provenance. — Coren ^(talk) 01:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people making assumptions and declarations of fact (some of which are ludicrous legally speaking, such as "fair use" -- that seems to be a catch phrase for anyone who wants to use anything for any reason) but no proof of anything. We don't just assume something is in public domain because someone is arguing strongly on a talk page that it is. DreamGuy (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is SLOW

Wikipedia is VERY slow to load, what can we do about this please. --82.5.174.194 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment in edit history suggested I ask Jimmy Wales. Will do. 82.5.174.194 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

AIV problem

This might not technically be the right place to post this, but I thought this is one of the pages with the most people on it these days. There is a problem with WP:AIV. I blocked the users in the "Bot Reported" sections. The HelperBot didn't remove them, even though it says it did, so I tried to remove them, and they won't go away. Any ideas? Academic Challenger (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider purging. ^LeaveSleaves 07:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I did that. It still didn't work for a long time, but luckily it's fixed now. Sorry about that. Academic Challenger (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible spammer

User:Betty_Logan has inserted a paragraph including a link to an advertising-supported site on many of the beer articles with the subject "Dietary Information". She has broken WP:3RR here: [[110]] [[111]] [[112]]

I asked her to offer a reason, rather than just reverting, here: [[113]], but she just kept reverting. After reverting three times, she finally put an explanation on the talk page.

Her own talk page has multiple complaints from other editors, which she has removed from the page.

One reason I believe this is spam is that she has placed these links on multiple beer articles, rather than having one article with all the information assembled in one place. She calls these placements "product information", but I don't understand how the type of glue used to put a label on a bottle is "Dietary Information" (unless someone plans on removing the label and licking the bottle) or how this qualifies as "product information."

Whether she is found to be spamming or not, she has certainly broken WP:3RR and has engaged in edit warring on several articles. We don't need this. Mikebe (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have never violated 3RR - Mikebe is a bare faced liar, and this can easily be checked. I have only received one complaint from another editor and we reached a compromise where the information was incorporated into a section. I removed the other dialogue from my talk page as the issue is now resolved, a consensus having been reached. Mikebe repeatedly removed cited dietary information from the Hoegaarden Brewery article regarding the various brewey products offering no explanation. He did not take it to the discussion page or offer his reasons as to why it was irrelevant. Also, I am not the only person to have problems with this editor. If you check out the Beer styles article you will see that he is edit warring on there too. He clearly has no interest in resolving our disagreement and has not addressed any of the points I have raised on the discussion page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Betty_Logan (talk · contribs) has carefully avoided formally violating 3RR, but has reinserted the same out-of-place material into the article seven times since Jan 3, in opposition to three other editors. Looks like edit-warring to me. Looie496 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. 3RR is not an entitlement. I was going to point that out earlier but I'm using Chrome and it is becoming rubbish with Wikipedia, I keep getting cache problems (even though I empty my cache. I'm not too keen on the 'bare faced liar' bit. In fact,I'm not sure how happy I am with the external link. dougweller (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It would though be a good idea to discuss the link on the article's talk page. As I've said, I think it's dubious. dougweller (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect 3RR is the rule so I don't break it. Considering that Mikebe contacted an administrator to "take action" for 3RR violation then I think I'm entitled to take exception to taht, especially when he is already edit warring against the majority opinion on another article. Do I constantly revert his changes on that? No. As for revrting the changes, is it wrong to revert changes that remove your work when the opposing editor doesn't give a full explanation for doing so or make an effort to discuss his concerns. I have been included in two prior conflicts previous to this, and while both instances invariably included a bit of edit-warring to the extent that they always do, both resulted in consensus without resulting to dispute resolution so I'm clearly able to take on board other people's concerns. I have stated my case for why I believe the references are valid on the discussion page. Saying that the material is "out-of-place" is a rather cheap dig I think. If the editor above believes it is irrelevant then he should respond to the reasons I give why he thinks having dietary and product information below the products is irrelevant. If by 'out-of-place' he thinks the section isn't very well integrated into the article then why doesn't he rearrange it in a way he thinks would be better and we can see if the result is more satisfactory all-round? The fact of the matter is I'm the only editor stating my case on the discussion page in attempt to reach an agreement but other editors just by-pass the discussion and revert the article. Clearly information about the products that the brewery produces is not 'spam' so I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to me in such a derogatary way. It is clear that my honest intention is to add to the information value of the article, and I don't honestly see what the problem with in saying that a brewery's beer range is suitable for vegetarians, or that it doesn't use isinglass in the brewing process etc, or listing the ingredients and nutritional information. Do you disagree that someone might be looking up Hoegaarden to find out such information? The strength of interest in vegetarian beers is clearly indicated by the number of 'vegetarian beer' sites that have sprung up on the internet. Betty Logan (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to read WP:3RR - in italics, it says Editors who engage in edit warring may still be blocked from editing even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period. . dougweller (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but surely all editors who continuously revert changes to an article which are at the very least arguably legitimate have engaged in edit-warring. 3RR applies to a particular violater, edit-warring applies to an article and EVERYONE who participates. You can't take action against just one person for edit-warring, because at least two editors have to be involved. I would argue that since I'm the only editor that has presented their argument on the discussion page then edit warring hasn't effectively taken place. Two other editors have repeatedly removed information without stipulating and explaining their reason or attempting to discuss the matter in the appropriate area. I would say that constitutes vandalism because they are making changes within the context of a dispute and making no concerted effort to resolve it and I am entitled to revert that.

For the record I would dearly like the issue to be resolved because I would like to continue with my project but there is no point if the the ultimate decision is to remove my contributions. There seems to be two separate issues: the relevancy of the information and the legitimacy of the references. Now I'm not going to add any more sections to brewing articles until the issue is clarified, but I would dearly prefer it if my work was not completely excised in the meantime until the issue is resolved. As for the Hoegaarden section then surely it would be best to leave the section there so people can see what they're discussing? So basically I am suggesting a freeze on my contributions and similarly the removal of my contributions until it is sorted out. I think that is reasonable. If the decision goes against me I would be prepared to go through the articles and remove all my contributions myself.

But I want the decision made in a fair manner. I want the editors who have problem with it to discsuss their concerns rather than just reverting and see if we can come to a compromise. If we can't I can request a third party opinion, but as yet I can't do that because there isn't even a second party opinion to consider! If that doesn't resolve the issue then there is always dispute resolution which I suppose could culminate in a decision that goes against me, but at least it will have been reached through the standard protocol rather than some ignorant editor excising my contributions on the basis they are "not relevant"

Betty Logan (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That Betty is engaging in edit warring is beyond discussion. She is now on her third edit war (third editor) on that article. For her to say "I want the editors who have problem with it to discsuss their concerns rather than just reverting" is, as I have posted above precisely what she does NOT do. As I wrote originally, this seems like a possible spam case. If Betty genuinely felt that this is such a vital issue, why does she not write an article about it rather than placing links to a questionable site on literally dozens of beer articles? Answer: because then the site in question would not get as many visitors. Mikebe (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Separate from Betty's conduct, consider adding the websites to the local blacklist. If they are truly useful (and they don't even look like reliable sources to me), then fine. Otherwise, technical stops can be much more effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, since I know nothing about the website, other than it is advertising supported, I'll leave it to more knowledgeable people than me to take appropriate action. Mikebe (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, back to Betty's conduct: she has now reverted your (Ricky81682) edit [[114]], thought better of it, then deleted part of the article that was there originally [[115]]. Spammer or not, this is really unnecessary disruption. Mikebe (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a series of three edits while I split the article into separate business product articles along the lines of the pesi company/pepsi products articles. They were transitory and not intended to be permanent while I made the adjustments and only took a few minutes. The business information goes on one article, the product information on the second. I brought the section back so I could start form scartch, collect all the information together and then systematiclly remove it once it was transferred to the other article. The fact is the split accommodates product information on the Hoegaarden products article now, and since you refused to discuss the matter I don't think you're really in a position to criticise. It is consistent with the Pepsi articles now, and the new page allows eidtors to contribute information about the beers so what excatly is your problem? I think it is a pretty good solution. I outlined the idea first on the discussion page, and as usual you wouldn't discuss it Mikebe. You acn't complain if you don't offer a counter suggestion. Please explain why following the structure of the pepsi articles is a bad idea. Betty Logan (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Aside edit warring, Betty Logan needs to be refrained from making personal attack. Like one she made above -Mikebe is a bare faced liar.--NAHID 20:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Betty Logan has now created a content fork at Hoegaarden products - not the way to handle this dispute so I've raised an AfD. dougweller (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the Hoegaarden products article and closed the corresponding AfD under CSD G3. This article was obviously created for the sole purpose of adding information previously rejected by the community to the encyclopedia while avoiding 3RR. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I think we can say that this situation is under control now. When Betty Logan created the content fork, she also provided new references and a reworked "Dietary Information" paragraph. She brought this to my attention, so I pulled them from the deleted article and added the information to Talk:Hoegaarden Brewery for discussion, since the main beef with the addition before was that the sources did not meet WP:RS. The new sources look like they may. Aside from that, I must say that I'm very disappointed with everyone involved that this made it to AN without so much as genuine discussion on the article's talk page or the user's talk page. This user is clearly new to Wikipedia and is not familiar with our policies and guidelines or even our way of doing things for that matter. She seems to be very frustrated, but editing in good faith, and I can find very little evidence that anyone has tried to genuinely help her in understanding the way things are done here. I think we should all try to do a better job so avoidable situations like this don't happen in the future. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment, but I saw clearly new and so far as I can see, Betty Logan has not asserted that. The account was created in November but from the editor's first contributions I assume that they had some experience before. I could of course be wrong, the editor might just have read up on Wikipedia quite a bit before creating an account. But it isn't clear that the editor first started editing in November. In any case, things such as the comment 'bare faced liar' may have affected the way she was perceived here. dougweller (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't have called Mikebe a liar but after reporting me to an admin who promptly told him "I can find no evidence of her violating 3RR" he came here and made the same allegation despite an admin already having told him so. I shouldn't have called him a liar but I honestly believe this editor knew I hadn't violated 3RR. I shall retract my accusation and merely accuse him of being disingenuous. As for being new, I have sporadically edited as just an IP number through most of 2008 but because it kept changing it made it impossible to keep track of edits. I wasn't very familiar with the guidelines basically because I was lazy and didn't read them when I should have, so I admit I have brought some of this on myself. But I was prepared to discuss the edits, and tried to and it was difficult getting people to engage. At least the discussion is moving forward now thanks to Ioeth.Betty Logan (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, which is more or less what I thought was the case about your editing history. Please, however, remember that 3RR is not an entitlement, read WP:3RR again. If you keep reverting, even though you don't revert more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, it may, depending upon the context, be seen as edit warring. I've added a long Welcome message to the top of your talk page. And, oops, only after that did I realise that another editor had added another version at the bottom. Still, you can't be welcomed too often. dougweller (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Mikebo isn't entirely innocent himself. He too engaged in editwarring by repeatedly deleting the information without explaining why he considered the info irrelevant or spammy in his edit summary or on the article talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Fritzpoll

This is a notification to all interested parties that I have accepted a nomination to join the Bot Approvals Group - the above link should take you to the discussion. APologies for the delay getting this notice out, but I've been busy over the holidays etc. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Privacy problem: posting of IP address that were previously concealed

I am not sure if this is the correct place to report a privacy problem: i.e. the posting of an IP address that was previously concealed. When an autoblock is lifted, the unblock success notice reveals the IP address. Please can the IP address be removed from the template? Lightmouse (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the IP address is already revealed by the user posting the unblock request. I don't think that they can be unblocked without giving up that part of their privacy. Stifle (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is actually some number like #XXXXXXX, which is not a real IP address. Ruslik (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The block message asks the autoblocked user to provide the IP address and the blockid as part of the unblock request. For an admin to unblock, all they need is the blockid which does not identify the individual IP. Woody (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what the complaint is actually about, is that afterwords the unblocking admin leaves the IP address written on the page. I believe that the solution should include replacing the body of {{unblock-auto}} (the box with the block info and the admin instructions) as I did here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now fixed {{unblock-auto}} per above. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I just have two points of clarification:

• The IP address was formerly revealed as part of the request.
• The IP address was formerly revealed when the request was granted.

What is the situation now? Lightmouse (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Now:

• The IP address is revealed as part of the request.
• In granting a release from an autoblock, the recommended message no longer contains the IP address, although in other blocks the recommended message does. (Note that the admin is free to use a different message in the case of granting an unblock).

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. User:Ruslik0 said it "is not a real IP address" and User:Woody said "For an admin to unblock, all they need is the blockid which does not identify the individual IP". I don't understand what they both mean but can we eliminate the IP address from the request too? Lightmouse (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this is useful to spot multiple unblock requests from the same IP, and to investigate what happened. If an autoblocked user doesn't wish personal informations to be revealed (the fact that they are on the same IP as a blocked user is a personal information), they can sit through the 24 hours block. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So next time I get caught in an autoblock I just have to put up with it for 24 hours? Gee, thanks a lot! DuncanHill (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the response. Od Mishehu said that autoblock message now doesn't reveal the IP but "in other blocks the recommended message does". Can they be changed too? Lightmouse (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets take this in easy steps. Can somebody provide a list of templates that reveal the IP address? Lightmouse (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Track transition curve PDF code drops

Please feel free to move this to a more appropriate place

Track transition curve (Euler curve) has gained a new editor who is doing their working in MS Word format, then providing "code drops" as PDF files and screenshots-of-PDF files. The first code drop[116] pasted eight page-sized JPEG screenshots into the article. Attempts have been made to persuade the editor to contribute in Wiki/TeX-format and to keep draft material in a subpage (User:Ling Kah Jai/Track transition curve) until it is of a suitable quality (and format) to consider for inclusion. The editor has been assisted with large amounts of TeX/Wikifying, some of which has been rendered superfluous by subsequent PDF-drops. The latest drop of is five pages of mathematical working and was at the same time introduced on to the Main article in copy-and-paste text-only format[117].

The article in the past has benefited from very high quality and referenced contributions by Raph Levien (who has written specifically on the history of the curve). At present the core of the article has been swamped by the (probably prematurely added) code-drops. Gentle coaxing and provision of assistance appears to have had less impact than hoped. —Sladen (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question, User:Ling Kah Jai has today begun to translate his work into wikicode, see this set of diffs. It looks like your coaxing has worked. Whether the material should remain in the article, following translation, is a different question not suited to this noticeboard. But it does appear at a non-exhaustive study that the pre-Ling version and current version contain the same referenced material, and the new material has not been primarily used to replace the older (all the references are still there, for example). From the talk page, it sounds like Ling has been having a bit of trouble using the TeX facility in MediaWiki; fair-enough really, as it's a pain in the neck having to endlessly preview things and look up syntax on that well-hidden help page. Splash - tk 13:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, that paste corresponds to[118] (the cut from the draft page), on which attempts had been made to assist with wikifying by myself and User:Michael Hardy—but which had/was/is/and has not been competed by LKJ. I, myself have hit WP:3RR for politely (after discussion) moving the unfinished material back to a drafting page[119][120][121][122] (each time along with suggestions and the provisions of further editing assistance), three of which have been immediately reverted by User:Ling Kah Jai without discussion or comment. I count this is the fourth time that substantially the same material has been pasted back into the article, with very little change/improvement by Ling Kah Jai, other than shortening. Compare [123] (treat as WP:BOLD+WP:BRD) [124] (straight undo 1)[125] (straight undo 2) [126] (copy-and-paste unformatted text from draft subpage over images) [127] (straight undo 3). Note first three have small diffcounts as they insert eight [[Image:]] sequences (the screenshots of PDF pages). —Sladen (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Block review invited

I have just blocked User:Watkinsian for disruptive editing beyond a very clear warning posted on his talk page. This user has been editing against consensus, by insisting that certain companies located at or near Centennial Airport in Colorado are in one city when their published addresses list them in a neighboring city. It's a rather arcane subject to pitch a battle on, admittedly, but nevertheless, a number of users and at least two admins have tried to reason with this editor, and to convince him that he needs to discuss and achieve consensus before continuing his campaign, but to no avail. The reason I'm posting this note here is that one of the articles he has edited, Air Methods happens to be the parent company of my day-job employer, and I want an extra measure of transparency of my actions. If other admins feel I have overstepped my bounds, please don't hesitate to let me know. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks decent to me. Blocks are supposed to preventative...he continues to edit against consensus...you prevented him from editing against consensus...he's also edited a ton of articles that are not related to the parent company. In addition, you are probably employed by said employer because you work in something that is your expertise/interest...it would therefore reason that you would watch articles in that field...--Smashville^talk 05:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the question of in which city the parent company of the one you work for is, is relatively irrelevant when it comes to COI issues. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is relevant here, but do you realize that the place names used in addresses do not always correspond to the municipality that the company is in? This usually happens with unincorporated areas, but it probably happens in some cases with incorporated entities, especially where annexation has happened recently. --NE2 07:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it does. See Shawnee Mission, Kansas for a particularly large example of several smaller municipalities which are treated by the Post Office as a single entity. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at the edits, and I'm confused as to exactly what's being argued over. This edit, for instance, (1) fixes the grammar in the footnote and (2) changes Centennial Airport to Centennial, Colorado. The former seems to be an improvement; the latter, not so much (since it's an aviation company, it makes sense to list the airport). A map of Centennial (PDF) shows that it is much closer to Centennial; Englewood is off in the upper left corner, and is only its address because of a quirk in the USPS addressing system. Aviation Technology Group is located in:

Unincorporated Arapahoe County, Colorado

The Centennial Airport

The area covered by the 80112 ZIP Code, which has historically been known as Englewood, but for which Centennial is an accepted alternate

It is not located in:

Centennial (which borders the airport in places)

Englewood (several miles away, on the other side of Centennial)

It seems that it might be best to say "Centennial Airport", and describe the airport's location once in its article. --NE2 07:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: CheckUser and Oversight appointments

Your opinion is sought on a proposal from ArbCom for handling future CheckUser and Oversight appointments. The proposal in full is here and all comments are welcomed. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

restoration request

Resolved

 – Page was restored per request. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

could an admin please restore this article: Redstone American Grill. It was prodded as being non- notable and the nominator failed to post a prod warning on the WP:Food or WP:Foodservice pages so that we could take a look and see if it was salvageable. I believe that I have found several sources that meet WP:V, WP:RS and WP:PSTS.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Restored. Protonk (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it now a requirement that people posting PRODs notify the relevant Wikiprojects? I've never done that, and I've never heard of anything suggesting we needed to. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)\

No, but I believe others can request undeletions of prods. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes; articles deleted via WP:PROD are generally if not always restored if someone contests the deletion; it's treated the same as if they'd contested the PROD during the 5-day-period. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement, but it would be a nice thing to do. Thanks for the restore. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Complaint against User:Domer48 for disruptive editing, etc.

Resolved

 – Already been to WP:AE, this is just forum shopping

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 wish to make a complaint about User:Domer48 as a disruptive editor , based on varied evidence. Each piece of evidence in its own right may perhaps be within the letter of Wikipedia guidelines but – taken together – I believe they can be construed as a pattern of disruptive editing. The various elements include – edit-warring, breach of NPOV, tag-teaming, bullying.

I admit that I have personally been in edit wars and personal conflict with this editor on many occasions on many articles over many months, and have been sanctioned for this (as has Domer48, although he has removed the notices from his talk page). I have also been the subject of complaints by Domer48, who has also left messages on my talk page, e.g. here, here, here and here, which generally I choose to ignore. I consider these to be a form of harassment. I have not posted such "warnings" on his user page, despite having equally valid reasons so to do. On 24th December he followed me to various pages to make complaints about me here, here and here.

The cumulation of these edit-wars, personal conflict and reporting has, on some occasions, caused me great frustration and I have considered leaving Wikipedia as a result. Up until now, I have not had the patience to attempt to put together a case against this user, which is a dfficult task, given his adeptness at staying within (just about) the letter, if not the spirit, of the law.

• I don’t have the time to provide evidence of all the edit wars which Domer48 has been involved in, but rather I will draw attention to one particular article – Sinn Féin – in respect of which I was banned for edit-warring, yet Domer48 was not. This article is a good example, as I think it encapsulates many of the disruptive characteristics of this editor:
  • POV – as you will see from this editor’s user page and political slogan on his talk page, he has strong political views in support of Irish republicanism. You can see from his edit history that much of his time is spent editing articles which are relevant to Irish republicanism. One of these articles is Sinn Féin, in which his behaviour indicates that he feels he has ownership of the article.
  • A content dispute arose in this article – before my involvement, and including several editors – in which many editors believed that the content of the article was skewed towards a “Provisional” SF (i.e. that part of SF which split in 1970 and which is now known simply as “Sinn Féin”) POV, by including pre-1970 history of SF, thus giving the impression that the current SF party was the sole legitimate inheritor of the pre-1970 history of the party: something which is disputed and which most of the editors believed should be rectified by removing the pre-1970 material to History of Sinn Fein.
  • Domer48 was opposed to the proposed changes.
  • Thus far, there has been failure to make any changes due to the persistent opposition of Domer48. Most other editors have given up attempting to change it, presumably through frustration or boredom.
  • This wider dispute also included a dispute about the actual term “Provisional”, which Domer48 resisted being included in the article. You can see the discussion about this particular dispute, which began on 29 September 2008 – here, and you will note that – true to the spirit of Wikipedia – consensus was achieved on 7 October 2008.
  • However, at 21:21 on 7 December, User:Gailimh reverted the consensus text, which was then restored at 21:32 by User:Valenciano.
  • At 21:47 on the same day, Domer48 – having previously agreed to the consensus text – now reverted it. This appears to demonstrate that Domer48’s commitment to consensus was merely expedient, and that once he detected an allied editor, he preferred instead to edit-war in order to restore the previously-disputed text.
  • There followed an edit-war, including myself, User:Gailimh and User:Big Dunc (a regular ally of Domer48) on 8 and 9 December, when each of my two attempts to restore the consensus text were reverted.
  • At 20:06 on 11 December, I restored the consensus text again, and a one-on-one edit-war resulted with Domer48, who “won” the war after three reverts at 10:37 on 16 December, after which I gave up.
  • During this time – Domer48 refused to engage properly in discussion – he simply accepted and then defended the Gailimh without acknowledging that the previous text was the result of consensus-building – see here.
  • This appears to me to be a case of edit-warring in order to impose a particular POV on the article. I was punished for my part in the edit-war, but Domer48 was not.
  • You will note that Domer48 has most recently been involved in an edit war in relation to the translation of Sinn Féin.

• I see from here that “disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress towards improving an article, or effects that are contrary to the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia” – I also think Domer48’s behaviour on Sinn Féin is caught by this definition.

• Other articles/tag-teaming/other editors/bullying
• I have come across Domer48’s edit wars on other articles, but, not being able to muster the patience, have not become involved in particularly nasty ones at Ulster Special Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment – note that these are articles relevant to the POV noted on his user page, and have also involved User:BigDunc. He engaged – along with erstwhile ally User:BigDunc in a long series of edit wars with User:The Thunderer, which frustrated the latter user so much that he was eventually driven off Wikipedia – see here. The Thunderer had put in a lot of work and made significant contributions to these articles – and is a major loss. You will see from the edit histories that, having driven the Thunderer away, Domer48 has proceeded to set about editing the article freely, with no other editors having the patience to intervene. A mediation case was also closed when the Thunderer left. I don’t have the time to go into the actual content disputes on these article, but you can see from the edit history that, now that the Thunderer has left, Domer48 has been free to edit the article as he pleases, with no opposition from other editors. Personally, I lack the patience even to get involved in either of those articles.
• Behaviour with Big Dunc on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Olympic_Council_of_Ireland#RfC:_Olympic_Council_of_Ireland looks a bit like tag-teaming. Also here.

• User:The Thunderer felt that he was the subject of bullying on these articles.

Some of this editor's behaviour appears to fit in with the descriptions on the Wikipedia guidelines about disruptive editing:

• tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• Does not engage in consensus building (As can be seen from Sinn Féin, once an allied editor appears on the scene, he is quick to ditch previous consensus
• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

Signs that may point to tag-teaming include:

• Working together to circumvent the three revert rule
• Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they own an article.

Mooretwin (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Given that these articles fall under the Troubles ArbCom ruling, this complaint should really be at Arbitration Enforcement. Black Kite 00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This was already brought up at AE, and decided it had no substance. ENOUGH, Mooretwin. SirFozzie (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I'd missed that. Yes, in that case, stop forum shopping please. I've struck my comment and will archive this. Black Kite 00:09, 9 January 2009 (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.

Larry C. Johnson

There's a user editing the article purporting to be the subject of the article. Just a heads up. Lcjohnson (talk · contribs · email) is the user in question. Enigma^msg 23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Crapyourpants

Resolved

 – information was deleted; user blocked Enigma^msg 23:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This idiot tried to out an admin with personal info. Needs speedy deletion ASAP and I've tagged it as such. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This idiot? JPG-GR (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He's undoubtedly referring to the citizens in The Wizard of Id. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:The Rogue Penguin

Resolved

 – Moved to AN/I. Protonk (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

this user is being VERY rude, impatient, and is snapping towards me, and causing edit conflicts constantly on articles attempting to get worked on. example of him being rude: "No. You're not improving these pages. They are actually worse than the old versions. Stop using time as an excuse. You're not going to add anything worthwhile or you would have already"

please do something, this guy clearly needs to chill out Jeremie Belpois (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are having an on-going issue, you might want to take it to WP:ANI, more eyeballs and that is where most of the incidents go. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • January 9, 2009 @ 02:21

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.

Main Page FAIL.

Hi. Sorry about my impatience, but ITN should have been updated two days ago and it hasn't been. The template is red now. Please also see Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop forum shopping. It's not a big deal, and stories are slow at present. --Stephen 08:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Does using an image 700+ times count as "minimal" usage?

That's what a majority of editors at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos are asking us to accept.

The argument in a nutshell; Whether the use of non-free team logos on season, rivalry, and specific game articles in College football is acceptable under policy, guideline, mission and Foundation resolution. Example uses: [128][129][130]. Rationales for use are for identification, not for critical commentary on the logos.

The RfC on this issue has been running for more than two weeks now. Early on, there was some attempt at assessment of where consensus stood. This resulted in no consensus. Now there's a straw poll running. This keeps going in circles with no sign of ending.

But regardless of the RfC, the bottom line here is whether the use of team's logo several hundred times across the project is acceptable minimal use of a fair use image. I demonstrated this number, and its no exaggeration. Prior to the RfC beginning, one of the logos was in use over 100 times, which I made note of.

Proponents of the usage have, using editing, prevented the removal of the images. They claim that there must be consensus to remove the images, yet policy says the burden of proof lies with the people wishing to use the content, not with those wishing to remove the content.

Opponents note the Foundation's stance on minimal use, policy and guideline and further note that major sports do not follow the pattern of using team logos on season articles, etc.

We are at an impasse

1. If we conclude the RfC as saying the usage is allowed, team logos on College sports could be used several hundred times per logo.
2. If we conclude the RfC as saying we must remove the usage, edit warring will erupt. It already has (example).

I'm not looking to start a new debate. I'm not forum shopping. What I am asking for is either support by administrators to place option (2) into effect, or advice on where to go next if option (1) comes out of the RfC. No rational argument can be made that using a logo more than a hundred times counts as minimal use. I don't think ArbCom is the appropriate route. They don't accept such disputes as a rule. Looking back to the dispute over per episode screen shots in episode lists, ArbCom didn't get involved. That use was deprecated essentially by brute force. The same happened with deprecating album covers from discographies.

Help? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of:

1. You calling my actions edit warring. I reverted twice in which YOU are edit warring: Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute. You made the change when consensus does not support your conclusion, ergo, you are "warring". Stop intentionally miscontruing/distorting my contributions to Wikipedia.
2. you asserting that policy requires that images must be removed if there is no consensus to use them. This is not policy and is a distortion of policy be used to further your agenda. Please stop, slow down, and just talk it through on the RFC. Remember there is no deadline. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the potential harm to either the logo owners or to wikipedia itself? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Following from that thought, could we not just start contacting the rightsholders to get permission, via OTRS? // roux   15:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Baseball, as I said I'm not looking to start a new debate. I already know your position, as everyone else on the RfC does. If you want to debate it more, take it to the RfC. This is not the place to debate it, yet again. Roux, obtaining free license rights for team logos (not just permission to use) for every college sport is impossible. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not understanding my question, though. The argument (i.e. the policy) against widespread use of a given fair use image in wikipedia primarily has to do with potential future harm to wikipedia. I want to know where you think the harm would come from in this case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I understand perfectly. Please use the appropriate forum. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• You're the one that raised the question. If you yourself don't know what the problem would be, then why are you raising the question? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please use the appropriate forum. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are looking for the process outlined in closing_of_a_consensus_decision_making_procedure. I suspect the issue isn't as clear as "all or nothing", since it seems this is an interpretation of a policy; even Mike Godwin, the Foundation's lawyer, differs with various interpretations of image policy [131]; so there is quite a broad range of ground, akin to what is described in the_relationship_between_policy_and_consensus. Basically, it seems like you need to find an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion and decide how the community is interpreting whatever section of NFC is related to whatever content is under discussion at the RFC. Any uninvolved admins handy? MBisanz ^talk 15:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about having one uninvolved administrator close such a huge discussion involving dozens of people with such a wide disparity of opinions. The likelihood of that decision being accepted, regardless of what it is, is rather low. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well that is how Arbcom said it should be done. I don't know of any other way to do it that follows past practice. MBisanz ^talk 15:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok so the best tool is a hammer and we're treating it like a nail when it's really a bolt :) Then next question; assuming an uninvolved administrator closes it, and wars erupt...what then? Block everyone that wars? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well first we warn, then we block, but yes, that is what the Arbcom decision says, people who are recalcitrant to the close may be stopped from disrupting it. MBisanz ^talk 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you get too much rebellion, you undercut wikipedia itself. Then you have to consider whether the policy itself is either wrong or is being misinterpreted - especially as "minimal" is a slippery term. 700 might indeed be "minimal", compared with 7,000. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• I am also concerned that if the decision is to allow the usage, the problem scales rapidly to one of using fair use logos across more than 100,000 pages. I'm at a loss as to how this could be a rational close if it closed that way. So if someone wants to appeal that decision by the single administrator, then what should they do? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Point of an RFC is to find a consensus, otherwise each side would appeal endlessly. MBisanz ^talk 15:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Which I would concede probably does not qualify as "minimal". Then it comes back to the question of the reason for the policy. Which poses the greater potential harm to wikipedia: Letting wikipedia's version of the fair use rule slide? Or trying to stop everyone? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am not going to debate harm issues in this forum. If you want to debate that (and it already has), then please use the appropriate forum. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ironically, you are being told the same thing that you're telling me. Thank you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was this posted to the administrators' noticeboard? If all you require is an informed opinion, then please post to one of the half-dozen or so venues more suitable than this one. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Because it's an administrator issue. I asked for administrator support to place option (2) into effect, among other things. Asking across a half-dozen or so other venues that aren't specifically to administrators doesn't help. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you are looking for someone to close an RFC, this is the right place to find them; if you are looking for someone to close it a particular way, that is forum shopping and not helpful. MBisanz ^talk 15:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I said at the beginning I am not forum shopping. I was looking for support from administrators if option (2) were put into effect, and avenues for appeal if option (1) is put into effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Um, no. It's a policy issue and policies are determined by the reasoning and consensus of all users, regardless of the sysop bit. You shouldn't post here unless an issue can only be resolved by the intervention of an admin. If you have no objections, I'd like to move this thread to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC) (e/c)
    • • I do object. This is an administrator issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Why isn't this a Foundation issue? Isn't the worry about possible legal action? dougweller (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
      • The proposed usage is well within the limits of what is generally considered fair use, if perhaps not in line with WP:NFC. If this was a foundation issue, I assure you that WMF council would not require an invite. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
      • (ec)Not really, the Foundation isn't legally responsible for content on Wikipedia under Sec. 230 immunity, and as long as community's have an wmf:EDP (ours is at WP:NFC), the Foundation leaves it to the communities to handle. MBisanz ^talk 16:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree it's not a legal issue for the Foundation, but it is a free content issue as part of the mission that really can only be addressed by members of the Foundation as per what their intent is for WP in regards to free and non-free content. There is no "middle" point for the logos on season pages - either they are or aren't acceptable across the tens of thousands of possible pages, and consensus (not !voting) is clearly split evenly, so there really is no compromise position to speak of. This isn't the type of case ArbCom takes up (though I'm exploring that) since it's content related. Really, this entire issue revolves around how the Foundation wants to see the extent of keeping WP about free content and how much non-free content is allowable to keep that goal going. --MASEM 16:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I should point out that 230 immunity doesn't apply to copyright infringement (guess who got that passed *facepalm*) Sceptre ^(talk) 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone posed the idea of asking the sports authorities or leagues for permission. That would be a reasonable thing to do, as it would probably settle it. They would either say, "Sure, go ahead," or they would say, "Sure, go ahead after you've sent us the following amount of money as a licensing fee." If it's the former, then no problem. If it's the latter, then we would have to fall back on the legal fair use rules - which would provide solid justification for deletions, warnings, and blocks in case of violations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt that all those US universities are going to release their team logos under a free license. CIreland (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Do the individual schools own the logos, or does their conference own them. In any case, assuming a logo is being used in 700 articles, theoretically there should be 700 fair use arguments for it on its page, right? Enforcing that rule might slow them down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia used to host copyrighted images with permission from the copyright holder which did not extend to third parties. Sometime in 2006 those were all quickly deleted by rule of Jimbo. Permissions are no longer a factor in fair use rationales. Also the NFC are not impervious to common sense, each unique usage requires a separate fair use rationale, if anyone insists on 700 duplicate tags then they can be rightfully told to bugger off. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The non-free content criteria specifically require a specific rationale for each use of the image. I find no other way of reading that than that each use has to have a rationale. Stifle (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bugger off. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC) (no offense intended & to clarify: yes, each use, but no, not every instance when and if such instances number into the dozens or more ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

It's only a proposed policy. Therefore I can safely ignore it until it does become policy and then I'll have to follow it to the letter of the law. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That RfC looks like a "no consensus" situation. I don't suppose anyone was actually convinced to change their mind during discussion?--Tznkai (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This thread has gone away from the title question you asked, but for the sake of representing a different side, I would consider your question irrelevant. I have always understand "minimal usage" as operating on a per page basis. In other words, non-free content on each page should be limited to what is necessary and appropriate for the topic at hand. If we have 700 pages closely identified with a single sports team, and each one individually and separately meets the non-free content criteria, then it would be appropriate to use a logo 700 times. So I consider this focus on total uses to be a red herring. For me the question is: do we really have 700 pages that individually meet the criteria (I would guess no), and why should we have 700 pages related to a single sports team anyway? Dragons flight (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The 700-plus has to do with the number of occurrences of the team in various season result pages and such stuff as that. The argument for using the logo in those situations is that it's a quick reference to the team. However, the name of the team is unambiguous, whereas the reader may or may not know anything about the team logo. In effect, the logo is merely a decoration - unlike on the team's own page, where it connects with the team's identity and reasonably fits the wikipedia fair use rules. National flags are used much the same way - as decorations. The only real difference is that the flags are considered "free content" and thus they are allowed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, and as someone totally uninvolved, I don't really see 700 uses as minimal (though I'm not certain as to what that figure refers to). But if people want to get permission to use the logos, they should just do so, as this instantly renders the argument moot - and then the logos with permission can be left in articles, and others can be removed. Ale_Jrb^talk 18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, referring to teams using logos when you could just use the name is ridiculous. What happens if you don't know the logo of some teams? You're stuck really... Why would logos ever be better than names in this regard? Ale_Jrb^talk 18:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And you're not likely to know that many nations' flags, either. Logos on lists of games, and flags on lists of players - both decorations, and the only difference is that the flags are "free content", so they get to stay based on consensus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, my comment on their usefulness wasn't aimed towards the discussion at hand - the concept is just strange. And I know of most countries' flags, so meh. Ale_Jrb^talk 18:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Those objections about them being decorative in certain cases is orthogonal to the total number of uses. That should be addressed, but it needs to be addressed regardless of whether they are used once or 1000 times. Again, the number of times being used strikes me as a red herring. Dragons flight (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly the best way of fixing this is to get permission from the copyright holders. In the absence of that, N uses does indeed require N non-free rationales, and in most cases N-1 of those will be invalid because the image is used on the parent article and further uses are clearly decorative. Black Kite 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely, Black Kite. Very well put. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• There's another issue at play regarding the requirement of one rationale per use; the ability of the content to be machine readable. This is referred to at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. That was a driving reason behind the non-free templates all being renamed to begin with "non-free", for example. In the case of rationales, it's required to allow bots to scan the image description pages to determine if rationales exist (not whether they are good rationales; just exist) for each use. The idea that one rationale can exist to cover many uses is not supported anywhere in policy or guideline. We can go that route (though I doubt we'd get consensus to do so) and simply add a blanket rationale to all fair use images that covers the legal base, and have the text be the same for all fair use images. If that be the case we can eliminate many of the points in WP:NFCC and dramatically reduce the amount of arguments that are always taking place with regards to WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Um. You'd still need to explain *why* that image is *necessary* on that particular article, though. That couldn't be done through blanket text. Black Kite 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• As a historical note, some of the people writing the Foundation Licensing Policy did expect there would be broad justifications covering many uses at once with some substantial degree of blanket behavior. It was our community that decided each use would require a distinct rationale and rejected the idea of cookie-cutter templates (even though in practice many rationales are cut and pasted). Dragons flight (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is worth noting: what Dragons flight is saying is that just the copyright notices for particular types of media were seen as sufficient rationale for many blanket categories of use by the people who wrote the Foundation resolution. People who claim that it is the Foundation that demands an individual explanation for each and every use simply don't know the history (or perhaps don't care to accurately represent it).

Still, at least we have templates like {{logo fur}} providing standard blanket community-approved quality-controlled rationale text for some blanket community-approved usages. Jheald (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• That template has been badly, badly abused all over the project. Characterizing it as a good thing is far from accurate. It was created at time when there was heavy pressure on fair use images to have rationales, and all it did was delay the inevitable because it made it far harder to identify what images are seriously lacking legitimate rationales. That template is a net detraction to the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Requiring people to hand-write a fair-use rationale for each case doesn't do anything to improve rationales because only a small minority of contributors has the ability to write good rationales and those who can distinguish good ones from bad ones are too few and have too many other things to do to patrol them. In practice what we get is just a bunch of copy-pasted sentence fragments with no references to the individual case at hand. We'd have better rationales with generic templates. Of course, one of the main goals of the fair use policy is to make the use of fair-use images difficult and requiring the pretense of an individualized fair-use rationale is an extra hoop to jump through. So it's useful in that sense. Haukur (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the "legal" issue and the "permission" issue

Because an administrator who is heretofore uninvolved with the subject may come directly from here and close the RfC, I want to ensure that this forum is crystal clear on two things:

1. Wikipedia's non-free content policy is derived from the foundation goal of building a free encyclopedia and as such is considerably more restrictive than the most conservative reading of US fair use law. Don't assume that images in violation of our fair use guidelines (or alleged violation) automatically expose the foundation to legal trouble. Further, do not assume that being arbitrarily more conservative on the legal subject is better. You may be a lawyer. I'm not. Neither one of us is the foundation's lawyer. But it is just as detrimental to the encyclopedia to chart a course too cautiously as it is to skirt the boundaries of our non-free content policy. Again, unless your username is User:MGodwin, don't assume that you are doing the foundation any legal favors closing this either way.
2. Permission from the copyright holder (at least permission we are liable to secure) will not eliminate the fair use consideration. Parallel to my point above, the issue here is our goal to be a free encyclopedia, not the legal exposure from hosting 700 transclusions of a logo. Since these logos are trademarked and copyrighted (the latter where possible) and serve to make millions of dollars for their owner, release into the public domain is a vanishingly small possiblity. At best, we will receive permission to display the image only on wikipedia, like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. That permission is a non-binding constraint to the encyclopedia as we assert fair-use anyway. More importantly, that permission does nothing to our fair use policies. They still apply. We limit images to minimal use not due to lack of permission but due to out desire to remain free (and Free).

I don't want to push anyone in a single direction, but I did want to ensure those two points are clear. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Food

Could some one please unlock this so I can make some fixes/changes? I know the admin who locked it, but he is unavailable right now. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it was protected for being difficult to edit. Not really. Anyone with experience in featured portals, like myself, could easily figure out what goes where. I recommend not reprotecting it.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What the hell was this protected for? --NE2 03:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection downgraded by original protecting admin --Stephen 05:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's good, but does it even need to be semiprotected? --NE2 05:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why, and the reason given in the protection log is not provided for in the protection policy. I suppose the intent is to prophylactically prevent damage, but as this is a mere portal rather than a high-use template that doesn't really apply. I'll go an unprotect it all the way now. Splash - tk 13:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Right decisions there. I didn't even notice that the portal got protected. The only ones that merit protection of any kind are the high-traffic ones (which have links directly from main page). Since Food is not there, no need to protect. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Manhattan_Samurai

Resolved

 – This user is already being discussed at ANI. No need to be covering this here.

//roux   16:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello: I have been threatened on my talk page by an administrator who is threatening to indefinitely block my account. Can someone unrelated to this matter address this? I would like to stay out of it. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the thread at WP:ANI, and understand this user has a long history of trolling and disruptive behavior hidden by a series of moved and deleted talk page coontributions. I am not set on blocking him but need some answers. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Another user has taken over my Userspace Talk page

Another user, Tb (talk) has taken over my Userspace Talk page. He keeps placing rude and offensive remarks there and has refused my polite but firm requests to leave. He also keeps reverting me -- on my own Talk page -- and has taken control over it. Since the vast majority of this user's edits are edit warring with others throughout Wikipedia and since he is edit warring in my own Userspace against my frequent requests to stop, I ask that he be banned. Thank you. Ad.minster (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted only to remove my own comments after they became the occasion for personal attacks on me, and when they no longer served any purpose. Since I did so, I have engaged in no further conversation with User:Ad.minster except for [132] which was an attempt to resolve this very discussion directly. I have hardly "taken control" over anything. Any user can examine my own edit history and see that the statement made on that regard is incorrect. Tb (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I counted at least 6 instances of reverting me on my own Talk page in 12 hours, so at least you can block him based on the Wikipedia:3RR rules. And then there are the issues of taking over my pages and hounding me there after he was asked many times to leave, to justify banning. Thank you! Ad.minster (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The WP:3RR rules are explicit that they do not apply to an editor reverting his own edits. I have only reverted my own comments, and left the rest untouched. By contrast, your reversions are not reverts of your own edits, and likely do violate WP:3RR, though I think that's really beside the point here. Tb (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

At a casual glance, I see no justification for banning. How about you just stop squabbling? I see some pretty questionable behavior on your part here. Other people are allowed to leave you messages on your talk page- that's what your talk page is for. Friday (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked to stop squabbling, but he will not. Further, edit warring on my own pages is still against WP. These are not articles, over which I am the moderator. If he realizes that what he said was wrong, there is no need to conceal that. Ad.minster (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC)He seems to be trying to remove his comments and withdraw from the conversation, which you are both edit warring over. This doesn't seem to be productive. I'd suggest you allow him to strike his comments, rather than remove, and both of you consider the matter finished. Dayewalker (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Other people are allowed to leave you messages on your talk page- that's what your talk page is for." A user talk page is for communicating about things to improve the encyclopedia or to leave non-harassing messages. If a message is left and removed by that user, the communication was already made. There's very little reason to put it back except to be harassing. And if a person says such edits are not helping, there's nothing to be gained to putting more of the same kind there, so the other person should respect those wishes. DreamGuy (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy, you may have misunderstood the situation. This is not a case where I left a message, he deleted it, and I keep readding it. It's the opposite. I left a message, he read it, he added a personal attack, and I deleted the original message I had left when it seemed to be pointless to keep it around and the occasion for personal attack. Tb (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

He is removing his comments, but not withdrawing from the conversation. Who controls your Userspace? Ad.minster (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked him to stop reverting and just leave it alone. I hope this will fix the immediate problem. No one editor has absolute control over your user talk page- this is a wiki, so it's a collaborative thing. Friday (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You do, to a limited extent anyway. Admins can put permanent notices on it in certain circumstances, or remove copyright violations or whatever. Certainly this other person doesn't own your talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a certain amount of control over your talk page, as you do over your comments. I've left him a message suggesting he strike the comments, which hopefully will end the discussion. Also, I've informed him of this thread. Dayewalker (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, I am permitted to revert my own changes according to WP:3RR. I may have misunderstood, since this situation seems rather unusual. Another editor suggests that I should strike through my comments, as a compromise, but I believe this is not sufficient. I believe that User:Ad.minster's comments constitute personal attacks. I note that he has now created User talk:Ad.minster/Dealing_with_difficult_people in which he thus identifies me as a "difficult person" by name--already not allowed--and continues the attack. As for whether I have withdrawn from the conversation, I believe I have. I have made only one edit other than to remove my comments, which was here [133]. This was an attempt to discuss it directly, following upon the suggestion I received in response to an admin help request here [134]. A satisfactory resolution for me would be for User:Ad.minster to agree to the removal of my comments from his pages (both User talk:Ad.minster and User talk:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people, and he should feel free to edit or remove his comments however he wants provided he leaves me out of it. Tb (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ad.minster has now put the same comments in User:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people, labelled a "permanent record". ATM, User talk:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people is only partial. Since the purpose of these pages is purely to continue to post the personal attack against me, I object to them. I would normally simply open a RfD on them, but it seems more productive to wait for some resolution of this complaint. Tb (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How about just stop squabbling? No one is attacking you, my friend. Since you started squabbling, I am obligated to maintain a record. Had you dropped it like I and everyone else asked, there would be no need for that. If you had behaved appropriately, you would not be worried about the record of your actions, good sir.

Please stop! Ad.minster (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit logs are a sufficient record if that's what you want. In accord with WP:Assume good faith, I take you at your word that all you want is a record (preserved in the edit log) and the comments removed (which you say was your goal all along). I ask that you now

* delete my comments from your page, which you say you wanted, and could always have done, and

* allow the edit logs to be a fully sufficient "record" of whatever you think needs recording. Tb (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for resolution. I am distressed by this whole matter, and I am particularly distressed that resolution is so slow to occur. I believe it is clear that Ad.minster insists that his pages with attacks against me be left in some way. He seems willing to push the bits around, but always provided it seems that there is some attack left. I would like the whole thing simply removed, and I insist that I believe that WP policy is perfectly clear that I am permitted to revert my own edit, and that he is not permitted to add comments under my name. I would be entirely satisfied by the removal of my edits and the agreement by him to drop the whole thing from his user page. No admin here has seen fit to object to my actions--though I readily confess that there must have been a better way for me to deal, I could not find it, and when I asked, I was simply pointed as WP:DR, and I'm doing that the best I know how, miserably perhaps though it may be. I believe it's transparent that his comments constitute personal attacks, and equally transparent that the comments I left on his page do not. I would like to hear some kind of approach to a resolution. I believe what I think is a fair resolution is clear. It is also perfectly clear that "hey, you two work it out" is not going to happen. I do not appreciate being attacked, or laughed at, or treated as an object of ridicule, and that is what Ad.minster is doing, in my opinion. Tb (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Now he has a "story" which purports to tell the tale of my horrific actions, again with a link to the edit log--still a personal attack. He says "you're not mentioned in it", and then all a user must do is click twice to see my name, and his attacks against me. I would like an administrator to help me understand what I can do to have the attacks removed rather than obfuscated, moved to sub-pages, linked-to-in-edit-log, or otherwise kept. Tb (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Now he is deleting my own comments, not his own!

Please stop. That is a very gracious story. Furthermore you are not named at all. The worst thing you could say is that I called you -- or someone -- my friend. Are you my friend?

Further it is not a personal attack to say here or in a talk page that you are a difficult person.

Several people have asked you to stop squabbling, please stop. Ad.minster (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No you are not my friend. The story contained a link to me. Without the link, I have no objection, but with a link saying, "oh, and this is the original", it is disingenuous to protest that I'm not mentioned. The story, which you find so gracious, labels me as ego-ridden and unable to get over myself. If you were genuinely willing to let the matter drop--that is, dropped without any commentary on your pages, I would be quite content. Failing that, commentary without my name, without pointers to my name, and without my words, is an acceptible compromise to me. Tb (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggested what I thought was an easy way to get past this, neither party went for it. Just for Ad.minster's reference, I think what you've done is questionable in nature and shows very bad faith against this editor. Please don't take my suggestion as endorsing your side of the discussion. This is not an instance of one side being right or wrong, this entire situation is ridiculous. Dayewalker (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! Let's drop it as I have been asking from the beginning. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! Ad.minster (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "you" you're referring to Dayewalker, can you clarify? The story in question labels me as ego-ridden. Tb (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you read my silly story, the ego part of it is in the first person, thus taking the onus on me, not anyone else. At most it labels an anonymous person as "my friend." But since you say you are not a friend, can you drop it now? Ad.minster (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)To clarify, I was speaking to Ad.minster, since his above comments seemed to imply that editors were asking Tb to stop, and by inference denying his own involvement.

Ad.minster, I see no productive reason why you would want to keep a record of this incident, but if you want to keep it without directly referring to Tb (as the page stands now), I see nothing wrong with that. If you insist on keeping his comments after he has repeatedly tried to end the discussion and delete them, this may enter into the area of personal attacks and edit warring, and admin attention may be required.

According to WP:3RR, you're both in your rights as to reverting what has already happened. However, not breaking WP:3RR does not mean that edit warring hasn't taken place. If you both can just say now that this is over and leave things as they are, that would be best. If an admin has to waste time sorting through this one, blocks may be handed out. It's best to handle this between the two of you. As I said, the way the page is now seems fine. Dayewalker (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We're back. :(: I thought we had reached resolution, in which User:Ad.minster would leave his little story up, but remove the references to me, including those via linking. He has apparently decided now that this is not ok, and restored the personal reference to me. I would appreciate advice about how to proceed next. I am not willing to simply ignore the personal attack. Particularly offensive is this: [135], but it is not the only present example. Is it appropriate for me to introduce a WP:RfC now? Is it appropriate for me to introduce a WP:MfD on User:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people now? Tb (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please consider waiting to see his response to my comments on his talk page. I'm hoping a word from an uninvolved person will be able to prevent the need for the hassle of RFC, MFD, etc. I know this is dragging out longer than you would like, but I'd still like to give it a chance. --barneca (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. I've given up any hope of speedy resolution. Perhaps my impatience is part of the original problem. Tb (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Better, but not done: An admin today removed the most offensive part of the personal attack, but I still object to being named in any context which is designed either to attack my behavior or ridicule me, and the pages still do that. Tb (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the entire page at User:Ad.minster/Dealing_with_difficult_people ought to be deleted. Even if technically it might not be suitable for a speedy deletion as an attack page, I don't think it is serving any constructive purpose, and my understanding is that we generally only allow users to make comments on (or store links that record) other users' behaviour when it's being done in preparation for some sort of dispute resolution. That does not seem to be the case here. This just looks like one user wants to create a permanent record of another user's behaviour, and to accompany it with their own commentary. And it most certainly is not what it claims to be, which is an example of how to use humour to defuse tension. In my experience, one has to make oneself the butt of the joke for such a tactic to work. Remarks like Did it ever occur to you that your pointless comments here are rude and offensive? You drip with anger and hate, like a fresh-fried squirrel in pecan batter. are more likely to be counterproductive. And Do I sense a whiff of intolerance? I pray God may the spirit of love soon fill your heart might seem innocuous enough - if you're an evangelical Christian - but if so, how would you feel if someone suggested, e.g. that you'd be less intolerant if you weren't crippled by your dogmatic religion, or that it'd all be okay if you just made a sacrifice to our lord Satan? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've courtesy blanked the page in the interim due to Ad.minster's tendency to edit sporadically. MFD may also be an option. –xeno (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad.minster???

I've never seen Ad.minster before, but I do have problems with his name and wanted to see what the rest of you thought. He is not an administer, but his name implies that he is. He has been established for about 3 months now, but wanted to see if others felt his name is problematic?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is officially approved and edits go back to 2006!! Approval: [136] and Establishment: [137]Ad.minster (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with it, I assumed it was less of a admin thing and more religious, since he seems prone to religious tracts on his talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The fact that it has been discussed previously, does not mean that the name is acceptable. It still implies that you are something you are not, which is IMO problematic. The reason I didn't bring it up at UAA is because you do have a history here.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the name that the RfD board decided in the final resolution. It was Wikipedia's choice for me. Ad.minster (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the link you all are looking for is here [138]. Note sure what the 2006 date is about; that was the old user name "Adminster". Tb (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, my friend(?). And please laugh at me. Ad.minster (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I urge that he select a new name which does not contain the text string "admin" with or without a period in the middle. Regardless of what was decided sometime in the past, the Wikipedia:Username policy says "Your username should not give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have. Thus it should not contain the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight", "developer" or similar terms like "admin", "sysop" or "moderator", or end with "bot", which is used to identify bot accounts." Thus "Ad.min.check.user.sys.op.bot" would also be an inappropriate username. Edison (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He changed to Ad.minster as a result of the previous queries, I really do feel that admins and editors could surely find better ways of wasting their time than picking on people because their name might, to a semi-literate person, cause momentary confusion. DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Page move help

Resolved

Hi, could someone please move English LGBT slang back to LGBT slang. I attempt to but was unable. -- Banjeboi 17:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! -- Banjeboi 18:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User moving pages

A user is moving pages citing capitalization as the reason. I don't have time to do it right now, can someone else get to it? See his contribs. iMatthew // talk // 22:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Perhaps if you post on User Talk:Fram and discuss it? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me; List of Events in Baton Rouge was improperly capitalized, as "events" isn't a proper noun. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fram is an admin as well... Mr.Z-man 22:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Yorkshirian

Not sure where to raise this case to get the best out of it, but here goes:

User:Yorkshirian, a banned user (possibly double-banned by suspicion of being User:Daddy Kindsoul), has requested to be unbanned and unblocked on his user page. I understand that only the Arbitration dept. can make such a call, but I think more input is needed on the talk page eitherway. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  14:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Special delivery: unblock for Mr Yorkshirian, by Porcine Air Express. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What sort of edit summary is "oink flap"? I was expecting a sort of piggy cat flap. :-/ dave souza, talk 23:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice on a user who doesn't follow Wikipedia policies

I've been having some long-standing problems with User:EuroHistoryTeacher relating to WP:V, WP:OR and generally what might be described as his attitude here. The problem is that he edits low traffic articles so there is not enough of a community to keep him in check. His modus operandi seems to be editing articles related to Spanish colonial history, and primarily making maps of the Spanish Empire. As the areas shaded as Spanish end up being on the generous side, I ask him for sources to show it is not original research. However, he feels he is above providing references when I challenge material because he has studied this at university.

He clearly displayed his attitude towards Wikipedia here:

• [139] "h c'mon ! stop the bs, nobody cares about these "Imperial" articles except us history lovers, the rest of the pop. dont ever read this"
• [140] "ok lol pero hay alguien (y tu sabes quien es) que es un "jihadista" en wikipedia lol" (referring to me, using Spanish but not realising that I speak a little; translation: "OK LOL but there is someone (you know who) who is a jihadist in Wikipedia LOL)"

Three examples of unwillingness to follow WP:V:

• [141] "he is always asking me (WHY ME everytime?!) to give him sources as if he wants to make my experience here in wikipedia miserable"
• [142] "i suggest you go to an institution and study Spanish history and politics before trying to shoot other people). Im not going to look a source for you, i already know it, but im sure somebody else can around here, i just dont have the time to satisfy your every doubts"
• [143] An edit today to British Empire, which got FA status a couple of weeks ago: he takes a section from another article and simply pastes it in there, no references, no nothing, even though I have already asked him to provide references using the British Empire article as a properly referenced example [144].

I can provide many more examples, including other users' comments in a Wikiquette alert that I filed [145]. Countless times I have asked him to learn how to provide inline references, and in three months of editing, not once has he done so.

As someone who invests a lot of time and effort in trying to improve Wikipedia (not to mention money, given all the books I have purchased to help with editing articles in the colonial history space), I am seriously at the end of my tether here.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Would this require administrator intervention, except for maybe topic blocks/temporary blocks? Request for Comment/Editor Assistance would be better for this as it is a content dispute more or less with ignoring policies attached, on the other hand, you have every right to remove material not sourced, and he/she might violate 3RR. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:EuroHistoryTeacher seems to be POV pushing in questioning that an article on the German Army in World War II, with the Holocaust and all that, should mention any war crimes [146] and shows bad behavior or vandalism in posting a spurious "New message" notice [147]. He/she might become a useful contributor if the bad behavior were held in check, because he/she seems intelligent and articulate. This also holds the potential for considerable mischief. It is up to the user.My advice is to caution the user then to apply progressive discipline per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to avoid the damage to Wikipedia which can result from unchecked POV pushing and vandalism/mischief. Edison (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Have we seen this before? Protonk (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  Have you seen similar edits in the past? Edison (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  Don't be cute. Has a report similar to this been raised at AN or AN/I in the past? Protonk (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a report about his general behaviour that was raised by myself which can be seen on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive179#EuroHistoryTeacher, though the responses were a bit disappointing as they concentrated on the perceived problem of me issuing him with a strong template as an established user, rather than his behaviour, which, having read through his talk page archives, seemed to be a constant problem that others had experienced. His subsequent responses on his talk page to me, which I think could be described as perhaps "gloating" and being unduly combative (see User talk:EuroHistoryTeacher#December 2008) merely strengthened my sense that a strong warning (such as the one I issued) was justified, and that he would continue his troublesome behaviour rather than cool down, as was advised. I see this report as merely confirming this.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(I didn't realise that others are having an issue. I really do think that the only thing which will get him to change his behaviour is a temporary block. It has honestly been non-stop with him since he joined the project in October or November, and it shows no sign of letting up. (reply to Noian: The content issue is one aspect of the matter, but how can you solve content disputes when the other side is completely unwilling to follow policies?) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

EuroHistoryTeacher had a false banner at the top of his page which duplicated the Wikipedia "New message" notice. I removed it, and he replaced in on the page [148] telling me to "go away."(edited to add: with the added "please.") It seems like vandalism. Is a new removal followed by a block warning appropriate, or does an editor have a right to place on his own user page or talk page a false notice that the viewer has new messages? Edison (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a thread about this roughly a year ago, and ISTR the consensus was that UI spoofing is unhelpful and may become disruptive editing and blockable. link. --Rodhullandemu 19:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is now deprecated per this guideline --Rodhullandemu 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Does "is now deprecated" mean it is allowed on one's talk page, or that it is considered disruptive, and refusal to remove it is ultimately blockable?? Is it in the category of "frowned upon but permissable?" Edison (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He has now, after my apology for the prior removal and a polite request, removed the prank "New messages" banner from his talk page. That resolves the immediate issue. Edison (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So is the upshot that Request for Comment/Editor Assistance is the right way to proceed here? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/213.198.225.221

Seems to be a pattern of anti-czech and generally unhelpful edits- probably worth keeping an eye on. Exxolon (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have warned the user -- specifically for this gem. In the future, if you see objectionable conduct from a new/anon editor, be bold and take it upon yourself to warn the user. That's why we have these. Thanks, caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 21:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional info - questionable edit on Slivovitz has been repeated by User:Camanic. Exxolon (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

protection of indef template

I've protected {{indef}}, which redirects to the protected template {{indefblockeduser}}. I reasoned that it ought to continue to do so, and it is potentially in use on a large number of user pages - and not just nice users. Hoping this ruffles no feathers, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Completely reasonable. — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Especially considering the template itself looks to be fully protected, doing the same for redirects is quite sensible. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Monosodium glutamate, Chinese restaurant syndrome

We need some wider input and help on monosodium glutamate about this dispute: Talk:Monosodium_glutamate#Migraine_Headaches. A group of single purpose accounts (probably sockpuppets of the same user) are continuously re-adding that monosodium glutamate is a migraine trigger when in fact all recent scientific review articles come to the conclusion that it is not. The user is very prolific on the talk page but does not address the raised concerns, reinserts his content without discussion and edit summaries as repeatedly requested, and starts to extend this behaviour to related articles [149]. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I second that emotion. Looie496 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute. I see good faith discussion on the talk page. Unless there's something I'm missing, I don't see any reason for administrator involvement here. Nandesuka (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is something you're missing. Monosodium glutamate was listed on Fringe noticeboard also; I went and was immediately thoroughly insulted. Apparently there is a conspiracy of editors trying to censor Wikipedia, and I am part of that conspiracy. I'm only there to gang up on this editor and prevent The Truth^TM from being put in the article. Adding a sectionheader to split an incredibly long thread I didn't even post in was "Your obvious attempt to highlight your own post with a new section" - mind you, I state again, I didn't even post there! I didn't know about Chinese restaurant syndrome, sigh. No, this editor is on a crusade to get a Fringe view inserted and is busily insulting and edit warring to do so. The "discussion" is anything but constructive. I requested a cite which met certain parameters; he told me to go find it myself. To support his desired edit, mind you. Meh. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

talk:Soggy biscuit

Resolved

 – undeleted--Patton^t/c 20:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is back from DRV to AfD, could someone please undelete the talkpage? Thanks! -- Banjeboi 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of SPA template

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. Closing admins at AfD are well enough able to judge the merit of opinions. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Users brewcrewer [150][151] and Ryan4314 [152] are repeatedly slapping the Single Purpose Account template on my vote even though I don't have an account. With this template, they are claiming that I have made few edits and I have only a single purpose. However, anyone with half a brain knows that IP addresses changes and are resigned, so the history that appears when clicking on my user contributions doesn't show all the edits I have made in the past years. The users are doing this to make my vote not legitimate. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You probably meant "half a brain", not "have". This edit does not support your claim of being a long-time editor. In any case, this might be another incentive to create a username. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because the user you are targeting isn't the ideal wikipedian doesn't mean you have the green light to misuse and abuse Wiki policies without consquences. Yes anyone with half a brain would know an IP address is not a user account and thus doesn't record all their edits. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Time for a Content Committee?

Well, happy new year y'all, and since I'm here anyway, allow me to bounce an idea off a few heads.

The Ireland ArbCom case recently came to my attention. This strikes me as a dispute that is extremely important to 1% of our userbase, who are more-or-less evenly divided between the two sides, and mostly irrelevant to the remaining 99%. It also strikes me that we have a whole gallery of this kind of disputes, and that they tend to rage on for months and cause serious burnout in involved people.

We need a way for resolving these issues. I believe that an option may be to create a Content Committee, and have suggested as such on the Village Pump. Just notifying the people here to get more attention over there (so kindly respond on the VP rather than here, thank you very much). >Radiant< 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI... The essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-visiting an indefinite block - Betacommand

Resolved

 – Boldly closing this discussion as no consensus to unblock. It seems that it is too soon for the community to revisit this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Re-visiting_an_indefinite_block_-_Betacommand

User: Pé de Chinelo's RfC

Hi

Can a mod/admin please close it off officially, the 30 days passed on 30th december and he has been banned due to continuous EW&vand and hasn't bothered to comment on the RfC.

Cheers, chocobogamer mine 17:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry, didnt realise it was already done *blush* thanks guys, glad it appears to be over chocobogamer mine 00:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A few very old AfD discussions still open

Resolved

 – All done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Something appears to have gone amiss in the relisting of these AfD discussions. What is the correct course of action now?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-frame
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lampathakis
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marius Masalar
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle East campaign (2nd nomination)

Do they get closed outright, or do we need to relist them on a new daily page, to ensure proper process is followed? Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I closed three of them. I defer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lampathakis to another admin to close, as I'm split between delete and no consensus. Btw, relisting again would not be "proper process" for any of these; in fact, "proper process" is against double relisting unless there is insufficient comment. —kurykh 23:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. The reason I questioned the process here, though, was because even though {{relist}} had been added to each of these, none of them actually were relisted on a new daily page. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lampathakis. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-Identified Minor Young Adult

Can someone check User talk:Cutepiku and oversight as necessary. Child giving way too much personal info, IMHO, including name, birthday, height, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If the DOB is accurate, she is 18. At that age, she has the right to post whether she likes, in my opinion, though it is fair to warn her about the potential negative consequences. Dragons flight (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking further, it seems the account has probably been abandoned more than a year ago. If you want to blank it, I wouldn't object. Dragons flight (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I typed roughly the same and got caught in an edit conflict. Themfromspace (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bah, I did my math wrong and put her at 17. As such I deleted the usertalk page. I left the user a message, and will leave her another one giving her the option to have the deleted content restored. She may actually want it deleted after learning of the reason for the deletion. But, like you I agree that at 18 she is old enough to make that choice for herself. Tiptoety ^talk 05:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay...note to self, no doing math after 10 pm. She does still edit occasionally using her IP, and my brain was still thinking 2008 and miscalculating. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I did. I still thought it was 2008. :P Tiptoety ^talk 05:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ten seconds of Googling locates metros.xanga.com and crunchyroll.com/user/cutepiku, the latter of which helpfully converts the dob to an age! —Sladen (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

IP editor claiming spoilers are copyright infringements

We are in need of an administrator to resolve an issue about copyright infringement regarding List of Soul Eater characters. 67.42.98.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has tagged[153] the article a {{Copyvio}} claiming that the spoilers on the article constitute copyright infringement.[154][155] We like to get the issue resolved as quickly as possible. --Farix (Talk) 01:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, someone needs to kill the in-universe style very quickly. Eliminating that and all the unsourced information would probably clear up most of the issues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't make it a copyvio issue though... NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 02:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct. That's a separate point. I guess my hatchet is considered too much. It's too bad because the in-universe notice has been there for a few months with nothing changed. I still think a 95k article with a four paragraph introduction is a mess but it seems I'm in the minority. I'm not going to fight it though. It seems like there is a discussion ongoing at Talk:List of Soul Eater characters, so is this resolved or is there something else needed? I'll leave the content to the editors there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Although this has nothing to do with the original topic, I'll mention it anyway. I'm the one who tagged the article and watch it, but I do not activity participate in its editing. I do believe the four paragraph lead is over-the-top. But I guess Ricky's latest edits to the article will get me axing some of the more unneeded details right away. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 02:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Discriptions of fictional work can run into copyright issues if they are extensive enough but since I know nothing about the subject of the article I'm not really in a position to judge if this is a problem in this case.Geni 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Aitias#Sennen_goroshi.27s_3RR_vioation_at_Lee_Myung-bak_and_gaming

Hello all. I'd appreciate some help/comments here — I'm honestly not quite sure how to act and what action to take. Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 13:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me while I try to work out why exactly this report is here. I was blocked for those edits, I was blocked for one week by Aitias for those specific edits, why would any action need to be taken for something I have already served a one week block for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ASennen_goroshi 17:02, 2 January 2009 Aitias (Talk | contribs) blocked Sennen goroshi (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&diff=261478510&oldid=261247929)

I have blocked you due to extremely persistent edit warring on Lee Myung-bak. Given the previous blocks and the nature of this edit war, 1 week seems to be needed and appropriate to prevent the project from further disruption. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Aitias // discussion 17:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The above 3RR report was made initially on Aitias talk page by user Caspian Blue, directly after I reported him to Aitias for what I considered to be edit warring - I will not comment on the motivation behind the report made by Caspian Blue, as good faith is important, and more importantly I am not a mind-reader.

Unless I am missing something, I am being reported twice for something I have already been blocked for - or have I just gone insane and imagined that I was blocked for a week? have I misread the report and this is another incident? or is the user who reported me to Aitias involved in a touch of not so friendly revenge and gaming?

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And on the subject of gaming, I made a report to the above admin due to my belief that Caspian Blue was edit-warring, Caspian Blue responded by reporting me for something that he was aware that I had already been blocked for - who is gaming? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

request for unblock

Resolved

15:45, 15 October 2006 Gurch (talk · contribs) blocked 刻意 (talk · contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (username) .That's another name of mine. Now, I request for unblock. A lot of non-Latin names(e.g. User:에멜무지로) existing in wikipedia, I unified all the names, but was blocked indefinite here!--Keyi 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC) The name policy did not say non-Latin names were forbiden.(even on October 2006)--Keyi 01:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest the best way to proceed is probably to make a request to be unblocked on the talk page of the blocked account. Given the new potential to unify accounts originating from Wikis that don't use the Latin alphabet, I don't see why the account wouldn't be unblocked here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC).

In 2006, non-Latin names were forbidden. That's no longer the case now (obviously) and Lankiveil is correct - log in from that account and make a request for unblock from its talk page. --B (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry: Ohconfucius

• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone check on Ohconfucius. This user is continually getting into conflict and persists in a narrow application of editing style. The user has been suspended / banned in the past and still is a disruption. Ohconfucius is also embroiled in a delinking snafu as well. Leadingonward (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: this account was created 24 hours ago.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and one that seems to have only one purpose... either way (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything specifically you think needs to be looked at? So far, looking at the edits you've made, I don't see anything that's alarming about Ohconfucius' actions that require admin intervention. either way (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Any user not blind or partial only has to go back in Ohconfucius' archives to discover abuse. Goodmorningworld, did you read about this user's activities? Alerts have failed, other actions have not curbed the problems. Leadingonward (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins may want to consider WP:RFCU, which provides that "disruptive 'throwaway' account[s] used only for a few edits" may be "[b]lock[ed], no checkuser needed." --Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have some information about the identity of this account, but am not fully up to speed yet. I recommend applying an extension of WP:DOLT. Let's check the contributions of Ohconfucious and see if there is any merit to the complaint. Then we can decide where to go. The editor in hiding apparently is concerned about retaliation for filing this complaint. That concern may be valid or not, but we should gather the facts before jumping to conclusions. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Leadingonward, could you provide a few diffs of problematic behavior? I have noted that Ohconfusius was blocked recently for edit warring and exceptional incivility.[156] What else is going on? Jehochman ^Talk 14:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a request for arbitration pending. I recommend anybody who has something to add to this discussion makes a statement at WP:RFAR. It seems that there may be deeper behavioral issues that are preventing the resolution of whatever content disagreements are present. Editors are getting very upset, apparently. Jehochman ^Talk 14:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing recent which is harmful. Pointers to specific problems would be good, and not just "any user not blind or partial" pseudo-allegations. Be specific. At the same time, it is rather disturbing that the complaint is made from a single purpose account. Leadingonward, have you previously edited wikipedia under another name? Tb (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, leadingonward seems to have tried to delete an RfC by ohconfucious, which is, AIUI, not allowed. Tb (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, this is the second SPA attack on me in recent weeks. The last one was from User:Comingattractions just two days ago. I do not believe I have victimised anybody for them to fear 'retaliation' from me. I may be blunt at times, but that's where it ends. Today, the sockpuppet created solely with the intention of harassment and vandalism (as seen here(1) and here(2) is well beyond what could be considered a reasonable breach of policy, and should stop forthwith. What's more, the garbled messages left on my talk page bordered on the incoherent, so I took the first on to be from a troll and deleted it immediately. If these actions continue from this or any other user which I suspect to be the same person, I will request these to be investigated. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• This same editor has now contacted me twice on the telephone, and I have very strongly encouraged them to keep all further discussions on wiki, or via email. I was not able to understand the nature of their complaint, but suggested that I would look at this thread with an open mind. We may be dealing with somebody who is assuming bad faith, perhaps not intentionally, but the effect may be highly disruptive. Registering multiple accounts to continue past disputes is not a good idea. Thoughts? Jehochman ^Talk 17:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you made your telephone number publicly available? There's something a little creepy about him/her digging up your phone number and calling you multiple times. l'aquatique |✡| talk 03:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problems blocking this apparent single purpose account. Not sure where DOLT figures in. Is there some objection to blocking this account? Protonk (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking seems unobjectionable, but likely insufficient; it's very likely a sockpuppet, no? Tb (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know whose sock it is. Ohconfucius is a friend of mine, so I have a conflict of interest; however, I can confidently assure you that he is a hard-working and good-faith Wikipedian. He may have annoyed a few of the users who are loudly complaining about the community's move towards smart linking, but in this he has by no means exceeded what is normal and acceptable in a wiki environment.

On a slightly different issue, Jehochman, please take care to avoid any appearance that you are canvassing people of one opinion to go forth to the ArbCom page and comment, especially in the light of your accompanying comments "It seems that there may be deeper behavioral issues that are preventing the resolution of whatever content disagreements are present. Editors are getting very upset, apparently." You appear to be jumping the gun, making assumptions, and very possibly unwisely pre-empting what is ArbCom's right to come to conclusions about. Please read the WP:ADMIN policy requirements carefully. Tony (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's only an annoying buzzing in my ear right now, and I'll let you know if I want the sockpuppets and the puppetmaster blocked. In the meantime, I'd like to give him plenty of rope. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this same editor contacted me on my user talk page. I don't think there's anything that need be done if this concerns delinking as I'm currently seeking arbitration to resolve those issues. If there are other issues with Ohconfucius though, I am not aware of them. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked. No need for an obvious throwaway account to be floating around stirring up drama. Protonk (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Image of Obama

Resolved

 – Problem was at commons, and the very capable admins there took care of it.

Hey, I have looked and I cannot find the source of the problem. Someome around 12:20 or so (UTC) today, on several of the Obama-related pages, his image was replaced by one of a gorilla. I did not witness this, but there were several complaints about this, all around that time. I have looked at a) each article b) the picture file here that is in question: File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg, c) the version of that picture hosted at commons d) the template the pic was hosted in and I CANNOT seem to find where any of these were edited to make it the gorilla. Could another admin look into this, and see if they can figure out how it happened? It appears to have been changed back, but I just want to know WHAT page to watchlist to see that this doesn't happen again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There's at least one other place to check. --NE2 13:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably more template vandalism. Jtrainor (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read Jayron's comments and go to my link again. --NE2 15:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you NE2. It looks like it was a determined commons user who was creating the problem. If I read it correctly, it looks like the pic at commons is currently indefinately protected, which should have solved the problem. Am I reading that right, NE2? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the vandalism revisions were deleted, which is why you didn't see them. --NE2 19:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Internal mediawiki search - not for user talk?

Hi, can someone check out User talk:Tvoz? He She copied the code I just cribbed from the noticeboard headers here after I put it on Talk:Barack Obama to make everyone's life easier, but it won't work on his her user talk. It works fine on the Obama talk, and obviously here. Is it not set to pick up User talk somehow? I'm stumped. rootology (C)(T) 05:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz is a she.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops! rootology (C)(T) 06:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now. Apparently the prefix parameter can't handle spaces. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. rootology (C)(T) 06:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Zekistan AfD

A quick look at the Zekistan article history reveals that it went through AfD last year and was closed as a 'redirect to bigger article'. My dilemma is that an IP editor has come along recently and turned the redirect back into a stub, thus starting the cycle again. So what do I do? Undo the IPs edits? Let them stand? Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 06:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the redirect, there was nothing in the recreation to suggest a full article was valid or to reassess the previous AFD decision which was clear that a full article was not merited here. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing—bad images

Resolved

 – Indefblocked by seicer.

Slykide17 (talk · contribs) is uploading a ton of images with no information (most are obviously copyrighted) and is ignoring notices placed on his talk page. Can anyone suggest a course of action? I'm getting tired of tagging each image as it is uploaded. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Deleted them all, rolled back the pages, informed the user on his talk page. He's only 11 according to his userpage so we'll give him a chance. Black Kite 14:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Wiped his user page as it contained information that... is generally not advisable to release for a minor. seicer | talk | contribs 14:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have continued, with the upload of File:IrfanAjanovic.jpg and the creation of Irfan ajanovic. - auburnpilot talk 15:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Will you end my blockade, please?

I am Shustov [157]. My Wiki account is deleted by TenOfAllTrades. Please, find below my last talk-communication which, apparently, made him sick:

Looks like Hypocrisy

In my talk page request for unblocking dated (UTC) 23:53, 11 August 2009 and addressed to TenOfAllTrades, I wrote: “While you’ve been hunting spooks of a self-promotion in my articles, on 05:06, 24 July 2009, an evidently promotional link [158] was inserted in the Earthquake engineering, the main article of the cluster, and kept successfully living there until now. At the same time, vandalism by User:Gruznov inflicted a noticeable damage to another article, Earthquake engineering structures, while I was unable to fix it.”

Where you’ve been since that? Haven’t you seen those indisputable violations? Why you, TenOfAllTrades, have not made fixing the articles right away while keeping thinking whether to unblock me or not?

Strictly speaking, I supposed you either did not care of Earthquake engineering or/and just provoked me. Therefore, I decided to help you and undid the bad edits mentioned above.

To my surprise, you dashed out in a matter of minutes and without any hesitation restored the bold commercial [159] in the Earthquake engineering and destroyed three unique images from the Earthquake engineering structures which had nothing to do with my own research. Due to foregoing, I request the following:

1. Please, back up with you last edit.

2. If you really found any spooks of my alleged self-promotion, explain what bothered you there. I may help!

3. Anyway, will you stop your hostile blockade and give me a break, please? Let's act intelligently. 69.227.176.187 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you can restore my Wiki account and, further, hold TenOfAllTrades in leash.

Thanks, 69.108.118.252 (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

David Belle - listed in wiki as the creator of parkour

David Belle is not the creator of parkour - i request that bogus claim be removed . it was created in the 1800's by george hebert long before Belle even existed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.210.188 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

9 January 2011

Okay, I dont get it. Is this where I can discuss abuse of power or not. It sure seems to me that you don't want to hear it. This is the first time back after about three years of being banned by a competitor. Having maintained the page for 6 months, I could not log in, and noticed all the links that led to authority sites changed by the same "administrator" who banned me. I am not expert at this system, usually having to read a lot to say anything but I am not going to talk to this person, the whole reason he got me out of his way is to take over the links and to be recognized as the authority website rather than those who were the original links. I know you wont do anything about this, a robot will probably dump this in the trash, but at least I had a chance to say that your all a bunch of posers. The systems is to big, you can't control it, and I for one won't have anything to do with an organiation that lets that kind of shit go on.

<email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.144.58 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)