Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive219

Radiopathy's violation of indefinite 1RR restriction

See [1] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Remedy 3 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Piotrus topic banned") is replaced with the following:

Piotrus (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics until March 22, 2011 (the date on which the topic ban imposed in the original decision was to expire).

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 17:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Concern about administrative conduct on deletion request

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

Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions on Tea Party movement

• Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alright, I've just placed the 6th full protection for this article. No one is outright violating 3RR, and blocks haven't been successful. I see no other alternative but asking ArbCom to intervene (an unnecessary lengthy and exhausting process) or placing our own probation. As such, I propose general sanctions. As a background, the article has had significant trouble with IP-hopping edit warriors as well. I ask for community input, and administrator to close the discussion. I'm going to propose two different alternatives; other editors can propose other alternatives of course.

Tea Party movement is placed on probation (option 1) :

1. Having new editors and IP editors who make contentious reverts and hop IPs/usernames on the article is disruptive. As such, the article is placed on indefinite semi-protection until such time as the community agrees it is no longer necessary. Editors who are not autoconfirmed may request changes on the talk page via the {{editprotected}} template.
2. No editor may make more than two (2) reverts in a seven (7) day period.

Tea Party movement is placed on probation (option 2) :

1. Having new editors and IP editors who make contentious reverts and hop IPs/usernames on the article is disruptive. As such, any new editor with few to no edits elsewhere or IP editor is limited to one revert per week. Administrators are encouraged to use semi-protection should sockpuppetry become an issue.
2. No longstanding editor may make more than two (2) reverts in a seven (7) day period, excluding new/IP editors (explained above).

While the above exception for new/IP editors may be contentious, please understand that the role of drive-by edit warriors with little to no knowledge of Wiki procedures is causing a lot of headaches (not to mention the sockpuppetry and goading- e.g., this type of edit summary which an editor from the 99.0.0.0/8 range has been using).

Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about the IP's as much as the problem we're having right now with one editor who keeps reverting against consensus. He's been uncivil to editors, with a very confrontational tone, he's taken up over a week of our time on this without providing any legitimate reliable sources to back up his claims. This morning we agreed to go to the Mediation Cabal, and he's being disruptive over there. Now the TPM page is locked because he won't stop reverting. Seems to me the sanctions might best start with him.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, Magog, what do you mean about the sock puppets? How do you know that?Malke 2010 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any username sockpuppetry, but I have noticed quite a bit of IPs jumping in and out, including at least the one on the 99/8 range I mentioned above who is clearly editing as such to avoid scrutiny. Also, while Dylan Flaherty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has certainly been a problem, I also see other edit warring on the page, e.g., Digiphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? Show me one instance of me edit warring on the page?Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

[2] & [3]. It wasn't particularly malicious, granted, and I wasn't trying to lay blame on you (sorry if it came across that way): I was just showing that the reverting was going on with everyone, from what I could see, and it wasn't just a Dylan Flaherty issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't malicious at all and the discussion (we actually both immediately went to talk) showed that information was not correct as the previous consensus showed. Most of my activity on the page is on the talk page by a significant ratio. I don't care what actions are taken on the page as long as I am not lumped in with those edit warring. There is tons of edit warring so feel free to get arbitration on it or lock it down as far as I am concerned.Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that was just flatly incorrect. Apologies. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Magog, while I don't oppose the current protection (and wouldn't even if it had locked "grassroots" into the lead), semi-protection would deal with the IP's, and the "grassroots" issue that is behind the current page churn is currently under mediation. Putting aside Malke's despicable attempt to throw me under the bus, I think there's a light at the end of this tunnel. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. To clarify, what Malke is describing is that the proposal to remove the grassroots-lead bit diff is as-of-today in mediation. It was BRD to remove-diff days ago, with attempts to maintain it until a consensus otherwise like 1, 2, 3. -Digiphi (Talk) 08:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If one looks at what is going on over there I think that this is overkill. I think that the scope of the current edit warring is two editors over one word. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. There are other edits to made that don't involve the grassroots issue. This page has been relatively stable compared to other high traffic articles. The usual IP vandalism is there, but even right before the lockup, the page wasn't even semi-protected. I think Magog has a good idea whose time has not quite come yet. If you look at the talk page history, consensus usually gets reached there. Occasionally having an admin weigh in is nice. But nobody seems to want to hang out there consistently. I could see this two week lock if this were the Murder of Meredith Kercher which had terrible problems, but even that page which had two admins sitting on it didn't get ArbCom sanctions. I suggest letting the editors work this out. Problems come and go over there. I suggested mediation cabal for a problem we're having. We should let that process go forward and free up the page for everybody else.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the semi (not following the article), but I think that non-standard revert restrictions like 1/week and 2/week are a bad idea. It's too easy to violate them accidentally, and, with a lot of intervening edits, it's often hard to figure out if something is a revert or a new edit, both for the editor and for potential enforcement. If you sanction editors for accidental behavior, you will (justifiably) piss them off. If you don't, then every edit warrior will try to wikilaywer hir way out of a violation. If 3RR is not enough, go to 1RR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I had addressed the lock elsewhere, and didn't repeat it here, but it appears to be a topic here as well. Here were my thoughts:

"Hello Magog the Ogre. I noticed that you put a 2 week lock on the Tea Party Movement Article. You indicated this was for an edit war....the edit war the is pretty narrow....two people over one word, with several more (myself included) engaged in a general discussion on it, and now requesting and getting mediation. I don't know what could be called the "current" or "changed" version, but as it turned out you locked it a few minutes after the contested item was changed away from what it has been for the last couple weeks. But my main point is that this is a huge article badly in need of work and updating....it was receiving about 15-20 edits a day unrelated to this dispute. It seems a shame to shut all of that work down for two weeks over such a narrow dispute. What do you think about shortening or reducing the lock?" North8000 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem at this point is that there has been edit warring on other subjects in the past, and I still don't have assurance from Dylan Flaherty that he wouldn't remove the term until mediation comes to a close. While I understand your frustration, guys, it looks like this is larger than just the one issue. Although I am at the point of putting it on long term semi-protection instead, seeing the lack of resistance here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

Alright, I have a new proposal, based on the feedback I've received:

Tea Party movement is placed on informal probation:

1. The article is semi-protected indefinitely to avoid edit warring by drive by editors, to be removed by an administrator only on a trial basis or when it becomes clear that disruptive edit warring by IPs is no longer an issue.
2. No longstanding editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism only. More leniency will be given to editors who act in the spirit of WP:BRD or who remove uncontroversially untrue statements. The three revert-rule still applies to the article at large.
3. The above clause is not a license to revert exactly one time per day, every day. Editors who push a slow-moving revert war to the same item will be subject to blocking by an uninvolved administrator, after a warning.
4. A message of the sanctions will be placed on the edit notice page so no newcoming editor can miss it. Nevertheless, editors are encouraged to gently warn newcomers to the article of the sanctions should s/he place a revert. Unwarned long-time editors who slightly err in the 1RR clause without warning may be granted leniency,
5. Violations can be reported at WP:ANI or at the talk page of a knowledgeable uninvolved administrator.

To clarify a few points above:

• It's not expected this article will be on probation or semi-protected forever. But it certainly could be a long time; hopefully only months, perhaps a year or more, depending on how things evolve.
• The "same content" clause in (2) is to avoid blocking over common sense reverting two separate parts of the text or over good faith applications of WP:BRD. It is my belief that if an editor can only change one part of the text, it will vastly cut down on the edit warring.
• If there are common sense reverts (e.g., Cptnono's above, where a demonstrably false statement was added), editors are encouraged to ask on the talk page unless they are absolutely sure the added information is wrong, lest they find themselves blocked.

Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a bit more flexible than the previous proposal. My only concern is that, for the duration of the mediation on "grassroots", we avoid edit-warring over it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to personally enforce a block if an editor removes or adds it according to consensus after the protection is removed - I don't think that's fair to other editors, and it would be an improper endiorsement of the m:the wrong version whereas I'm more interested in general consensus. I will enforce a block if I see the same editor adding or removing the above several times. Yes, I have protected the page, but I did so decidedly neutrally as to the content itself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

While I have my preferences about which version should be there, I'm not demanding that it be chosen as the "right version". The fact is that we are currently in dispute over what the consensus is, and this has led to edit wars in the past. If removing protection starts these up again, you'll be forced to slap protection back on it, or worse, and we'll be back where we started.

What I'm suggesting that that, whatever version is selected, we enforce a 0RR policy on it until mediation ends. Nobody will touch it if it's electrocuted. :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you be amenable to readding the grassroots clause and enforcing a 0RR policy on this clause only until there is consensus (i.e., it will remain up... removal by a new editor could be undone without repercussion)? I realize this may cause existing editors to be more lax in their negotiations, but it does seem that there are more editors who think it should be added right now than think it should be removed. Additionally, this will allow quicker unprotection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Or, better yet, I readd the text, unprotect the article, and you agree not to remove it during the article's probation; then we don't have to worry about making a separate provision for it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course I would object to anyone adding "grassroots", because it violates WP:NPOV and is not supported by our WP:RS's. The problem is that requiring only me to leave it alone, besides being rather obviously unfair, would only cause trouble.

For one thing, if you look at the mediation page, I think you'll find that it's not safe to say that there are more editors in favor of inclusion. And, with my hands tied, there would now be an open niche to fill by those who pop up out of the woodwork to remove the offending term. Semi-protection will stop casual IP's, but more determined ones will simply register. This will lead to retaliation, and more warring.

If the article is unprotected, then no matter whether the contested term is included or not, there has to be a global ban on either removing or restoring it. Without this, mediation would become something of a face, as the state of article would be a fait accompli. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid, if we agree to the above conditions, then we will have to leave the grassroots section alone as part of the general sanctions, and it would be subject to the same as the rest. If any one editor reverts it multiple times, no matter the situation, this editor will receive a warning and eventually be blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's simply a recipe for a tag-team edit war. I'd rather just leave it protected until mediation ends. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of upping the ante, I'm giving consideration to restoring the article to a predispute version during protection (which is acceptable for an administrator per WP:PP), thus readding the text. I'm afraid you wouldn't still like the article protected this situation, which shows poorly upon your objectivity in drawing up a process to compromise. Just as I just said to Malke on the talk page of TPM, this may say that you are part of the problem, not the solution. I may have to give an outright 0RR sanction against editors who are part of the problem instead of the solution. Do other non-involved editors have no opinion on this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Magog, you are certainly within your rights as an administrator to do this. Having said that, I cannot pretend to think it is a good idea. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Magog I'm for the proposal at the top this "New Proposal" section and I'll put my name to the tweaks you've suggested between it and this comment. I like this page being a contract that we can point too for as long as it goes on. And Dylan he's giving us a way out, and also a way to save face, kind of. We should take it. I'll bet the others will post that they like the proposal too. -Digiphi (Talk) 02:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Magog. Two things. 1) My mentors are not fans of me commenting on AN threads, which is why I used the TPM talk page since you'd posted there as well. 2) Your comment to me on the TPM talk page about editors being the problem was not about me being a problem. I was not negotiating to get me a better deal on grassroots. I was seeking clarity about editing different sections because I did not understand what you'd said about it vis-a-vis your 1RR thing. It was not about the word grassroots. So it isn't "As I've just said to Malke. . ." My question was different. Entirely different. A very general question and different. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the version until settled, I think it's more important to bring the mediation subject to a conclusion. And who knows which version has dibs on being called the original version. But it should be noted that, with respect to the disputed portion, the version that has been there a couple of weeks and during the mediation was removed minutes before the block.

Your plan sounds like a good one to me. North8000 (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Malke I'm going say this because you and I are obviously in the same camp in this thing and it's become clear we get along pretty well. 1.)Maybe just let it go about the little thing on the now-archived page, because we're really close to getting the page unprotected. In the big picture we're going to get richer just by playing ball than suing for the tiny maybe libel. 2.) Let's not pussyfoot around this. There's obviously a chance Magog might come around to seeing our shared position about BRD in the course of un-protecting, and that would be a pretty nice bonus. Or he may not and it might get stuck up there, and that's just the way it goes. Things aren't always perfect but they don't have to be shitty. Know what I mean? Let's get this thing un-protectedd -Digiphi (Talk) 03:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good proposal, etc. Hey there Digiphi, I knew you were here, your cat called me. I just wanted to clarify what can and cannot be done on the page so we all don't fall into the sinkhole. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So are we good now?Malke 2010 (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, if that was a question for me. -Digiphi (Talk) 08:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer waiting just a bit to get some more community input. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the expectation that the edit war will continue and mediation will be undermined, I recommend against unprotecting at this time, at least without global sanctions against modifying the disputed term. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we're talking about what happens before conclusion of the mediation; after that I think we're assuming sticking with the result for a long time. The passage in question got locked minutes after you switched it to your preferred state. Would your thought be the same regardless of which version is there during the mediation process? North8000 (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I do understand that, but my point remains: so long as it's locked down, it's in limbo, but once it's tag-team edit-warred over, the mediation effort will become a joke. In general, when it comes to inclusion of disputed material, we should default against it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(added later) Going from memory, the "grassroots" version had been in for about 2 weeks before the block, and then was removed minutes before the block. Not sure what this should or shouldn't mean. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Magog, I understand you'd like more input but you could just unlock the page with semi-protection, add back the text with the caveat that it remain until the mediation is settled since it's got consensus, and then stay with the page and if an edit war develops send the offenders to the gallows.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Or the gallows. -Digiphi (Talk) 17:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Magog, after/if you settle the question of what version is in there during the mediation process, I'll be we could get all of the involved editors to leave it until the completion of the mediation process. After that, I think it would be very very hard to argue for or put in anything contrary to the result of the mediation.North8000 (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Does no one uninvolved in this dispute have any opinion on this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think your proposed solutions are too lax and will result in gaming and tag-team edit-warring, as they are on article with similar editing restrictions. I propose that the article be put under a revert restriction that would basically codify BRD.

Any editor is allowed to blodly insert or edit material in the article. If the material is contested, any editor is allowed to revert that material once and discussion of the revert must take place on the talk page. No other edits related to the original edit are allowed until the discussion is complete. Violation of the revert restriction will be enforced by blocks starting at 24 hours and of increasing duration for repeat offences. Reverts of blatent vandalism and BLP violations are exempt from this restriction.

Use of semi would be consistent with policy. Also noting that claims of vandalism and BLP vios are not the same as actual vandalism and BLP vios. I'm not sure if this has been tried before, but I think in this case it would stop the reverts and force discussion to the talk page. -Atmoz (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, we did go to the talk page and discuss and the consensus was to include it. So BRD was followed. Grassroots was put in with reliable sources, reverted, discussion opened up, consensus shown, edit returned.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really like it. Be prepared for the usual bickering over uncontroversial, but I think you were expecting that. 3RR/article but 1RR/content is a common sense rule that is probably not too complex for the KISS principle. It will be worth checking the displayed edit notice to make sure that IP editors trying to contribute through the semi-protection are prominently directed to the talkpage (it will still be in the general notice, but it might get visually swamped). I think that at the talk page of a knowledgeable uninvolved administrator should be removed, though; it sounds good in abstract, but invites over-involvement and adminshopping. An alternative might be to encourage that simple violations be reported in a new section at the talkpage, while more involved issues are kicked up to AN/I using {{sanction appeal}} or similar. It might also be worth adding some language to the effect that Editor A makes an edit → Editor B reverts → Editor C rereverts → Editor D rerereverts → Editor E rererereverts → ... is an edit war and will be treated as such. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My concern with a 1RR limit for "content" is that the term is not currently defined, and not easily defined in a way to discourage wikilawyering. if I understand the point, you want a tighter leash on a segment more narrow than the whole article. It would be better to use a metric that is more objection, such as section or subsection. Doesn't accomplish exactly what you want to accomplish, but it should eliminate definitional wrangling.--SPhilbrickT 19:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to address that on the editnotice clarification page [4]. Feel free to propose another change with the {{editprotected}} template if you think this is insufficient. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect to any version of "new proposal" please. Came from the mediation page, with slight COI as an editor for WorldNetDaily, and also as being involved with Dylan Flaherty in a different mediation. Magog, I think there is a clear consensus on this page that unprotection should lift asap, and I think the stalling is due to a single party. This being the case, I believe that warring per se will not continue among the established editors due to the single party's knowledge of the excessive force against him, and the ongoing mediation. I believe that any potential warring by new or SPAs will be curbed by the present proposal, especially if you include that 1RR per week for SPAs rule that you mentioned above. If my beliefs are wrong, well, that's an outcome of AGF. (I would also disagree with 2over0, the edit war doesn't start until rationales disappear or same-editor repetition begins.) This should not be a paralysis of analysis issue, and I would be disappointed to find that any party continued to tie up important articles with such stall tactics. JJB 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• <sombervoice>It is done</sombervoice>. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nominations are now open for the 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections

Nominations are now open for candidates to run in the 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections.

To become an arbitrator is to take on an important and demanding role, and there is perennial need for new volunteers to step forward. This year, an unprecedented 11 arbitrators are expected to be chosen. Nomination is open to any editor in good standing over the age of 18, who is of legal age in their place of residence, and who has made at least 1,000 mainspace edits before the opening of the nomination period; candidates are not required to be administrators or to have any other special permissions. Experienced and committed editors are urged to seriously consider standing. Thoughts and advice from past and present members of the Arbitration Committee are available at the following pages:

• October 2010 Signpost interview: "So what is being an arbitrator actually like?"
• Arbitrator Risker's "Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates"

Nominations will be accepted from today, 14 November 2010 through 23 November 2010, with voting scheduled to begin on 26 November. To submit your candidacy, proceed to the candidates page and follow the instructions given. For the coordinators, Skomorokh 00:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Image vandalism on Islam-related articles

This is a heads-up to administrators that Commons has experienced significant vandalism to Islam-related images in recent hours. This vandalism has an effect on our articles because Commons images are widely used in our Islam-related articles (as well as similar articles in other projects), and there may be complaints about vandalism here although there is nothing we can do directly to correct it. Wikimedia Commons administrators have been put on alert to assist in addressing any issues, and they can be reached through that project and/or via IRC. Risker (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking talk page creations

Hi. I'm apparently unauthorized from creating talk pages for the following articles: Talk:State Administrative and Judicial Institutions Employees Union, Talk:Economic-Administrative and Technical Institutions Employees Union and Talk:Judicial and Administrative Institutions Employees Union of Yugoslavia (three articles I have created myself). I get the message "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." Not sure what blacklisted item I've come into contact with, perhaps this is an error in the blacklists? --Soman (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Soman, I don't know what the problem was, but anyway, I've created them. I didn't get an error message or anything. PhilKnight (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Well from the message, it sounds like it's on either our blacklist or the one on meta. As an admin, you wouldn't get an error message because admins and account creators can override the blacklist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It's almost certainly a blacklist pattern matching "Admin" and some other string. I logged out to see the problem, but by the time I had you'd created the pages. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I suppose I got the message as I'm not an admin. --Soman (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, although that's unrelated to the (believed) "Admin" in the blacklist pattern, which is (I suspect) there because it happens to match a favourite vandalism target. (I was going to look up which pattern it was matching.) You'd get the same behaviour for any title blacklisted pages because you are not an administrator. Uncle G (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
        • It's probably the pattern (Talk:).*[AΑÂĄĂÃÀĀΆẠẬẢẤẦẨẮẰẴẲẪẶḀǞǠȀᾼᾺᾈἉᾉἌᾌἊᾊἎᾎἍᾍἋᾋἏᾏÁÂÄÆÅǺ٩4aáàâäãǎāăảąæåάαᾳᾴὰᾲᾶᾷἀᾀἁᾁἄᾄἂᾂἆᾆἅᾅἃᾃἇᾇаӑӓӕạậ]+dm[ÌÍÎÏĨļǏĪĬİḷŀΙЇɨ!łľıĮįīi]+n.*, added quite recently. Forbids creating any talk-namespace page containing "admin". I don't know if User:MuZemike discussed this anywhere before adding it or what the motivation might have been for doing so, I don't see anything obviously related in his contribs or deletions for that day. I've invited him to comment. Anomie⚔ 16:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak to MuZemike's motivations, but I can tell you that, while anonymous users cannot create articles, they can create talk pages (this allows, among other things, anonymous users to submit content at WP:AFC). This may have been a preventative measure against vandalism. TNXMan 17:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This has caused a couple of other problems as well (I dealt with one at AN the other day). I think the would be more suited to the abuse filter than the black list, if we do want it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I added the entry due to a recent deluge of vandalism such as Talk:Admins being fucked in the ass being created. Looks like I had a lack of hindsight on good faith contributions. However, we do need some way to keep tabs on what is created somehow. All I know is that most can easily dodge the edit filter, which is my concern. –MuZemike 19:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#Belen Echandia

Resolved

 – Collapsed it. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

...is degenerating into a squabble. The actual matter at issue is being dealt with at an AfD, and the AN/I thread is not going anywhere. It might help prevent bloodshed if someone uninvolved would close the thread. JohnCD (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Within a dream

Resolved

 – User blocked by Vianello

I have had issues with this user since he started editing. As you can see on his talk page i have warned him countless times about adding unsourced edits and poor edits in general. Editing wikipedia you must have a basic understanding of logic and reasoning skills. Withinadream with all the warnings continues to add whatever he pleases and will not listen. As you can see on We R Who We R it takes him 5 edits to add something incorrectly. He has been blocked before for additions of unsourced edits and when i warn him he says "block me see if i care" or similar wordings, so, he should be blocked, 99% of his edits are not constructive and i have to go back and clean up after him and im tired of doing so. He is constantly messing up articles ive written which are in compliance and are GA's and its getting ridicules, something needs to be done. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Current concerns are on;

• We R Who We R and
• Cannibal (EP).

- (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and now the jerk is going around vandalizing my sandboxes. Please see history at User:L-l-CLK-l-l/Sandbox8. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see that he's indeed vandalized a sandbox of yours, and that he has been notified and warned and responded unproductively. Can you please specific diffs and explanations for your issues with his content contributions? Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I further note that you appear to have violated 3RR yourself on We R Who We R today. Please observe Wikipedia's editing and dispute resolution policies. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies i didnt even notice, wasnt paying attention. Sorry - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking edit history im at 3RR, havnt violated :P - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes i can, check his edit history, every single edit is poor. I will show the ones from today alone.

• [5] Which took 5 edits and messed up the boxes, used a fan site (Keshadaily) as a reference.
• [6] Took 3 edits and added incorrectly again and another fan site.
• [7] Unsourced
• [8] Vandalizing the page now.

Check his user page is now calling me an asshole and there are 3 editors reverting his edits as we speak cause hes trashing crap left and right. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The user has just now gone on to much more overtly vandalize We R Who We R. I have blocked them for 31 hours for disruptive editing, their second block for such. - Vianello (Talk) 23:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Wikibreak Enforcer

I'm pretty sure this is the correct place to request this. Hey, this is Silver seren. I put myself under an enforced wikibreak at the beginning of November because of my participation in NaNoWriMo. However, i've withdrawn from the competition, so I would like to have the script removed from my monobook. I did put this forth to Moonriddengirl here, but it seems that she's offline. Could some other admin remove the script for me? 165.91.173.45 (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't you just temporarily disable javascript? StrPby (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Graham87 01:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Silverseren^C 01:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit

Edit protected redirect Please edit Mark Felt to add Category:Unprintworthy redirects and possibly add {{DEFAULTSORT:Felt, Mark}}. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fundraiser launch tomorrow

Hello AN,

Just a reminder that the 2010 fundraiser will kick off tomorrow morning. Please be on the lookout for any issues; you can report them in #wikimedia-fundraising in IRC, or to me via the user email function. Example: someone blocks the fundraising banners from the main page, that'd be a big deal, but minor issues are important too. The more successful we are, the faster the banners go away, so lets help make this a success. Please also consider joining the Wikipedia Contribution Team if you'd like to assist through article contributions and other non-financial ways. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 18:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

this is an odd thread. Does 'tomorrow' mean the 16th November? - I'm pretty sure the fundraiser is scheduled to start 15th Nov, but either ways, the timestamp shenanigans are kinda counter-productive here, making the important information almost impossible to discern! doh! Privatemusings (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The fundraiser officially launches on the 15th. However, starting tomorrow (Friday, the 12th) we'll be going to 100% on the banners for final load testing. So, even though the launch is actually Monday, most users will be seeing it as if it were tomorrow. As a result, we really want the weekend to find and address any issues. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 23:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification :-) - it was the fact that you appear to have made the op four days into the future which confuddles me :-) (good luck and fingers crossed for a smooth launch too....) Privatemusings (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, duh. Yes, I signed it in the future to make it last longer. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I can sign things in the future? I will be able to avoid WP:CRYSTAL that way! :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the fundraiser is going great so far! Today we broke an all-time one-day record for fundraising [9], $465,969 and the day's not quite over yet! Congrats Swatjester & the fundraising team! --Aude (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! We don't even technically launch until tomorrow so we are extra excited. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 21:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ctrl+Alt+Del

Can someone please move Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) to Ctrl+Alt+Del? This was deemed an uncontroversial pagemove, but I can't do it myself since the article's move-protected. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. — Edokter • Talk • 21:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist site-notice

It seems to me that this site notice is rather.. specific, for something as broad as Wikipedia. Isn't there some amount of discussion required for such a banner?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The WMF can advertise whatever it wants on the servers it owns. It appears to have a fundraising drive every year.   — Jeff G.  ツ 04:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I thought my complaint was clear; that isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about the site notice on the watchlist.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo needs a castle you churls. That kind of advertising is what keeps the speaking fees rolling in. Don't you get it? Man has got to eat. Bali ultimate (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am not talking about the fundraiser, but the notice on the watchlist that advertises a specific event in San Diego.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean the one specific to you as I have one specifc to my approximate geographic(give or take 60 miles) locationHeiro 05:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, he must have updated to the new skin. I don't see any of that stuff. How horrible.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, no, I have not upgraded. Second, if all you're going to do is sit here and mock me, please find something more productive to do.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I'm mocking the fellow who's using a "foundation" as the marketting wing of his personal speaking empire. As for the skin -- i apologize. I don't see any of that stuff unless i go looking for it. I was born lucky.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we should take a step back from the insults and mocking, and be civil and you know, build an encyclopedia. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The San Diego and other notices seems to be localised. Note also that the fund-raiser banner may be turned off within your user preferences. I'm not seeing it now anyway so I suppose there's some intelligence in that feature too. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's WP:GEONOTICE. T. Canens (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct; it is a geonotice for WP:USPP. Please consider volunteering. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Page history fixes needed

Resolved

 – Histories moved to proper locations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Last year Mister Mystery (talk · contribs) (who has not edited for over 6 months) decided to perform some cut and paste moves that affect Stone Cold Sober (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Stone Cold Sober (Paloma Faith song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Stone Cold Sober (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• Move of content of "Stone Cold Sober" to "Stone Cold Sober (album)"
• Blanking of "Stone Cold Sober (Paloma Faith song)"
• Overwriting "Stone Cold Sober" with content of "Stone Cold Sober (Paloma Faith song)"

The history of all three of these pages need to be merged/split/etc. in some fashion, ASAP, to restore the GFDL attributions. Something may also have to be done with Stone Cold Sober (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, hopefully correctly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, no. Stone Cold Sober (album) now hosts what was once Stone Cold Sober (the song, a.k.a. Stone Cold Sober (Paloma Faith song)). While Stone Cold Sober also hosts the same song. I don't know where the album is now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the album is in the history of Stone Cold Sober (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The refs from June 23 to July 20, 2009, and August 6, 2009, onward in that page are what was once at Stone Cold Sober (Paloma Faith song). Now Stone Cold Sober (album) hosts all from Stone Cold Sober that was turned into the Paloma Faith song after the initial cut paste move.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed, I think. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

All of the history of the album is on one page. But the history of the song is on two now, between these revisions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock message templates

Since this will concern admins the most, I could use some input on my overhaul of {{unblock}} and related message templates. Please head over to the talk page and give your opinion on the redesigned templates displayed on the test cases page. — Edokter • Talk • 20:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've had some great feedback and made a lot of improvements. Please have a look. If there are no objections, they can go live soon. — Edokter • Talk • 15:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

backlog at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

We keep getting backlogged at WP:SFD, and we currently have 1 discussion over 1 month overdue on closing and several others which can be closed. As an active participent in WikiProject Stub sorting, I frequently nominate pages here, or comment on the nominations, which means that I can't close a lot of them. Help would be appreciated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Review by uninvolved admin needed

Could someone please take a look at "Proposal to amend ban on SRQ..." on AN/I and decide whether any action is warranted? The thread just scrolled off with no action taken and had to be restored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Feedback request

After LouisPhilippeCharles had an {{unblock}} request declined, he used his talk page as a sandbox for Ferdinando de' Medici, Grand Prince of Tuscany, removing the unblock request in the process. After I reverted him, he started up again with the edit summary of "please dont be rude, the request box is saved on this page just as a hidden message so i have breached nothing!!!!", and continued several more edits. Today, I reverted him, left him a warning not to use his talk page like that, and RevDeled all his revisions. I would like to know if other users think my actions there are correct. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have my problems with this user, but I doubt that revision deletion was correct – because speedy G5 was hardly a valid deletion rationale. He clearly didn't create his own talk page (in January!) in violation of his current one-week ban. What is more, I don't think blocked editors should normally be restricted from doing valuable content work on their talk pages. But I can't verify that that is what happened or whether he was just preparing page versions for future page moves. Hans Adler 14:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not me. Declined unblock requests are only to be kept around to prevent blocked users shopping around between different admins. As long as there's no further appeals while the previous message is absent, there's no particular reason to enforce its presence. As for the revdeletion, assuming there's no vandalism in it that I'm missing, I don't think there's any basis to delete the revisions. I'd have been persuaded if you'd deleted the revisions under RD1 as a blatant copyvio instead.

I think the real test for revdeletion is whether, in the good old days, you would have deleted the entire talk page and restored it without those revisions. In this case I'd be very surprised if anyone would have done that. We reserve that treatment for trolls of the lowest order. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he should stopped from writing legit, non-copyvio articles on his talk page (we often ask trolls to do that to show that they intend to return, but he is not a real troll), and the RevDel doesn't seem completely appropriate. If he doesn't stop being disruptive, you can revoke his talk page ability, but RevDel'ing the content seems like overkill and not covered by the RD criteria. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not correct, as noted by others: it's just not RevDel material. In addition, whilst removing declined unblock requests is unhelpful, it is permitted. A far more helpful response would have been moving the draft material to a user subpage - if there's no particular problem with the material itself. In combination with that, you could restore the unblock decline, saying that he could remove it if he really wished, but it would be preferable to keep it until the block expires. Rd232 ^talk 17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've not looked at the larger issue, but this caught my eye: according to WP:BLANKING, they may not be removed during an active block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh. How long has that been there? Still, in combination with restoring the unblock decline and explaining it may not be removed, I'd have moved the draft to a subpage. Rd232 ^talk 18:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. As far back as I remember. :) (Given my memory, this doesn't mean a lot. :/) I think a subpage would have been a good solution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not been permitted to remove declined unblock requests for as long as I've been active. It's one of the few exceptions imposed by WP:OWNTALK. The revisions clearly didn't meet the revdel requirements though, I don't see why they were deleted; even reverting them seems a bit counterproductive if it's a constructive draft; the unblock template could simply have been restored and the draft left in place. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem with a subpage is that the user now can't edit the draft at all. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Mm, yes, they can only edit their talk page when blocked, not user subpages... But they can save changes into an offline document while blocked, and paste into the subpage for preview/testing. Rd232 ^talk 10:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The RevDel was probably wrong, and should be self-reverted. I see no problem with him using his talk page as a sandbox, so long as his talk page remains available for comments. No harm, no foul.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Od, would you mind confirming why you thought Rev Delete was appropriate? I don't think the action was correct, but in this case I do think it's an honest mistake, and I've become quite interested in what people think is in the RevDelete policy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There is also another question here about blanking content. I placed a block on this user of one week with an explanation of why it had been imposed on the users talk page. Before applying for an unblock the user blanked the section, replacing it with an inaccurate summary. Is there a procedure for dealing with this sort of action, as it is time consuming to force a reviewing administrator to hunt through the talk page history to find the relevant information when reviewing a unblock request. -- PBS (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin needed to look at this (second time I ask)

This is now the second time I ask for this here.

There has been a very long discussion here: [10], someone is needed to go through this entire discussion and see if there is consensus. Its important that you look at the arguments. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Following such a deliciously sweet and tempting request, I hovered my cursor over the link... I am not surprised you did not give a clue as to what the discussion (it is Israel/Palestine, folks!), and the exhortation to look at the "arguments" gives an indication which way you think a reviewing sysop should decide. I have found that in such areas the only way to get agreement between the differing parties is in condemning the poor admin who fails to please either side with their conclusion (regardless on how well the sysop actually performed the task.) Next time, why not be honest and request "Fool with flags and thick skin wanted"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if some parts will "condemn" the admin. Consensus is based on arguments, so this is the only thing that matters in the discussion, not saying "no" and bringing no intelligent argument to the conversation, this is why someone is needed to read through everything. This is one of the few occasions where editors have discussed a problem instead of edit warring within the Arab-Israeli conflict, are admins gonna turn there back on these participants? If admins wont even take a look at it then this will send a message to these editors that dialogue doesn't help. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If by this coming weekend no admin has fancied sticking their head over the parapet, drop me a note on my talkpage; I will look over it and decide if I am inclined to do a full review and pass a judgement - after all, I have done a bit on Eastern European, Climate Change, Northern Ireland, t/The Beatles, so I may as well try for an Isreal/Palestinian patch... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Above comment is +1, insightful. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is now the second time I ask for this here. Oh, I'm so sorry. If you send me your home address, I'll send you a $500 credit-note as compensation. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 16:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  Above comment is -1, not funny and not helpful. Rd232 ^talk 17:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  Whereas the whinging tone of, "How come I have to ask a bunch of volunteers more than once to carry out an enormous and thankless task?" was both funny and helpful? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 18:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  Are you in need of some wet fish? Because applying it may be both funny and helpful. Rd232 ^talk 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's an incredibly long and convoluted (but, given the topic, surprisingly polite) discussion about how to address the legal status of Israeli settlements in the articles about them. Several proposals have been discussed in depth. After a brief scrollthrough I'm not sure that any consensus can be found in it, though, but perhaps it's obscured by the sheer length of the discussion. If not, my recommendation for the closing admin would be to extract the most-discussed proposals and set up a more structured and community-advertised discussion about them, such as an RfC. I have a feeling that there may well be a consensus solution coming out of a structured discussion, as the proposals that were put forward seem to vary mostly in phrasing details.  Sandstein  22:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Chinese characters in article titles

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Chinese characters in article titles. –xenotalk 19:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There's an increasing number of articles which use Chinese characters as titles. In fact there's a whole category of them here. It seems to me this is a breach of policy at WP:UE and the guideline at WP:NC-CHINA, and they should all be transliterated into Pinyin. andy (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC) What harm do they do? They're disambiguation pages! Physchim62 (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC) I agree with Physchim. If they were actually articles, that would be one thing, but disambiguation pages are definitely useful in that format. It is highly possible that Chinese users with alternate keyboards will enter in words like that (Don't ask me why they wouldn't just go to Chinese Wikipedia, but it's still possible), so it is necessary to direct them to the proper pages with the terms, especially since these terms seem to have multiple articles related to them, hence the disambiguation pages in the first place. SilverserenC 16:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Not to mention people who are copypasting without necessarily knowing all the pronunciations. And then there's the fact that Chinese characters are also used in Japanese and Korean... Physchim62 (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Doesn't that open the door to a whole slew of dab pages in other languages? Why should Chinese be different? What about languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet, or Arabic or Hebrew -- should we allow dabs in which the title is written right to left? It seems to me that this is en.wiki and that all article titles, dab or otherwise, should be readable by English-speakers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Just for the record here; Chinese and Japanese characters don't match up 100%. There are some Japanese kanji that Chinese people can't read, and vice versa. As for Korean hanja, that's basically classical Chinese writing; most Koreans don't know more than basic hanja, and most Chinese and Japanese people don't read a huge amount of classical writing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC) truism. I know for a fact that Japanese simplifies characters such as 廣 and 龍 differently, and it incorporates a few simplified Chinese characters, e.g. 国、区、学 into its writing. Hence why the "東北大學" debate below was pointless. If we keep strict to native naming standards, then it should have simply re-directed to the mainland Chinese university. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 04:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC) There was at least one AFD that was easily findable Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/東北大學 that failed to find consensus. According to some of the comments there (and forgive me if I misspeak, I'm not that familiar in this area), different cultures may use the Chinese characters for things but pronounce them differently which causes the English language transliteration to be different. Personally, I can see the benefit of them as dab pages. Syrthiss (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC) I hate to be anal but the policy doesn't have exceptions for dab pages. And why should the English wikipedia provide dab pages for non-English languages? On the same basis the Chinese wikipedia should be full of English dab pages... andy (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Since there is apparently a extraEnglish (which I thought I was just coining, but apparently exists according to my spell checker) reasoning for them then perhaps we should modify the policy to not be so xenophobic (in a good faith way, to be sure) or IAR and just leave them and bollocks to the policy. If we're going to modify the policy, it needs to take place in a venue that isn't AN (to be anal as well). Syrthiss (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC) I agree there should be no exceptions - unless we want to say that dab pages can be in any language and any characters. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Ironically enough, the close to that AfD doesn't say what it's supposed to say..."没有公众舆论" means "no public opinion", not "no consensus"... T. Canens (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC) This sounds like a job for an RfC! I can see both sides of this issue, & can live with either decision as long as it's clear everyone with an opinion was given a chance to speak. However, it's nothing that either Superman or an Admin can do anything about (except offer an opinion about), so can this issue be taken there? Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Where is the correct venue for such an RfC? one asks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Article titles seems a suitable location. Physchim62 (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC) One can't simply create Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Chinese characters in article titles? If so, then many changes on Wikipedia have not been an improvement. :-( llywrch (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC) @Llywrch: Perhaps you can, I've just never done anything like a general RfC before, and I thought the venue should be one which would attract people interested in the subject. I've no idea if the RfC area is high-volume or not, or whether, like some other areas, most of the traffic is from "regulars". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC) BMK, no matter where the RfC is created, just make sure it's announced at the Village Pump & has a link at Template:Centralized discussion‎. IMHO, those steps ought to get everyone's attention. -- llywrch (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC) It should be something like Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Non-roman characters in disambiguation page titles as no one is arguing that article titles should contain them. And it should also be announced to all related WikiProjects, too. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC) That is a much better suggestion. What would count as related Wikiprojects though? The disambiguation one, obviously, but what else? SilverserenC 07:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Any of the CJKV projects (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese), any projects about topics which generally use Cyrillic, Arabic, any of the southeast Asian projects, etc. Pretty much any which don't use Roman characters as their first mode of communication. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Agreed. A dab page is an article but it's arguable that a redirect is. So there are two separate issues here. andy (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC) again, a DAB page is not an article per se. And considering that a re-direct is an article is irrational. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 13:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Moreover it should be Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Non-roman characters in article titles, in which case an awful lot of policies and guidelines are thrown into doubt, perhaps even the idea that en.wikipedia.org is... err... English? (And of course that Russian WP is Russian, Thai WP is Thai and so on). My reason for raising this issue in the first place was to get a view on whether Chinese titles should be transliterated or if I'd missed some finer point of policy, not whether the working language of this encyclopaedia should remain English! andy (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't use that sort of title, Andy, since what we're proposing here is the use of disambiguation pages with non-roman characters in order to direct readers to pages with roman characters. The title you've proposed is misleading and will obviously get people to oppose it. SilverserenC 05:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Keep all. I know we're not officially voting yet, but I may not catch when we do so I want to make my opinion heard. From what I can see, most of these articles are about characters or character sequences, and as such, cannot really be transliterated. For example, 京 is pronounced "jing" in Mandarin Chinese, "ging" in Cantonese, "kinh" in old Vietnamese, "kyō" or "miyako" in Japanese, and "gyeong" in Korean. There are probably even more pronunciations if you look at different Chinese dialects. If we insisted on Romanizing every article title, this would have to either be split into many pages, or we'd pick one of them and treat the others as variant spellings. —Soap— 00:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Darn Chinese characters; you read them and then half an hour later you want to read something... HalfShadow 04:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I don't see any reason not to have Chinese characters in titles of redirects and dab pages, which is the only place I see them now anyway. Does anyone have any examples of articles with Chinese characters in the title? (Also, this would be more appropriate at WT:NC, WP:VP, or WP:RFC, as it's not an administrator issue). rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Some of articles on the 100 Family Surnames may have Chinese within their titles for disambiguation. I don't know readily know which, so... --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 05:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Don't we have WP:UE for a reason?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC) who are you replying to? your indentation makes this ambiguous. and very interesting SN, BTW. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 05:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I'm commenting on the thread in general. WP:UE is a policy, after all, and having hànzì/hanja/hán tự/kanji and other non-Roman symbols really are not necessary in titles on the English Wikipedia unless it's a redirect solely concerning that character (such as redirects for a (kana), etc.). Having 東北大學 does not help the English language project. Also my username is irrelevant to this discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC) oh really? 東北大學 is a re-direct. you somehow contradicted yourself. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 13:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC) (od) I'm not keen to see this. If we allow the chinese characters thing to stand, then everyone will get into the act. And there are a lot of languages and scripts. Also, we'd have to consider whether to allow only transliterations of the original article or allow transliterations of every redirect page that points to the article. This is going to result in thousands of redirects for every article (I can already see someone writing a bot for this) and that seems both pointless as well as excessive. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC) An additional point to consider is that this will become a boon for POV warriors. Since most people here can't read chinese, burmese, or maltese characters, it will be much easier to introduce a fringe or nonsense view as a redirect and hope that no one notices. Enough of these show up in English and we can do without the additional problem of detecting these in other scripts. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC) od? what is that? "If we allow the Chinese characters thing to stand..." the fact that these debates are being brought up reduces the ambiguity, allowing what you consider to be "everyone getting into the act". and I interpret the sentence "...allow only transliterations..." to be self-defeating. We should obviously only allow transliterations of the original article title (and legitimate variations) in the native language(s). Contrary to what you believe, there aren't thousands of varieties of Chinese. the re-directs help those learners of the language in question to copy-and-paste in the search field and read more about the subject at hand. They are not pointless. There already are thousands of them, and to mass delete them would infuriate countless users. give me a foreign-language POV example. As far as I know, re-directs such as 台独分子 don't exist. I understand the concern, but the absence of an example as major as the one I gave (even on the Chinese wiki) indicates something. It shouldn't take long for you to realise this implication... --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 17:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC) What I meant was that there are many languages (not varieties of Chinese). Obviously, if we allow chinese characters in redirects, then we will also allow Hindi, Albanian, or Maltese. A page like India has 32 redirects into it already. 100 languages X 32 redirects = 3200 redirect pages. A bit much, IMO. About the POV guys. Take something like 1984 Sikh Genocide, a title that is way fringe. Creating a Gurmukhi redirect with that title would be hard to counter (few editors here can read Gurmukhi). There are many such alternative titles that don't even exist as redirects on the english wikipedia that will get a new life in other scripts. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC) no. just no. we shouldn't allow re-directs from languages that are not native to the article in question. ok? issue resolved? the re-direct POV concern is legitimate but at most means trouble. It should not result in a ban on non-POV, appropriate re-directs. That would be collateral damage. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 19:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC) (od means he outdented. Syrthiss (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)) @Syrthiss: Thanks! --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 17:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

IRC question

Am I the only one experiencing IRC trouble right now? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's good. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Or functioning, in any case. ;-) - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Changes in Checkuser/Oversight permissions

This will serve to inform the community of personnel changes in the Checkuser and Oversight teams.

Mackensen (talk · contribs) is stepping down as a checkuser. Mackensen is a former member of the Arbitration Committee and retained his advanced permissions after the end of his term. He served as one of the founding members of the Audit Subcommittee and helped to establish its parameters and processes, serving on the subcommittee until mid-November 2009. He stepped down as an oversighter earlier this year, and is now stepping down as a checkuser, as his focus on Wikipedia has increasingly returned to content development and improvement. As a former arbitrator, Mackensen will remain a member of the Functionaries-en-L mailing list. We thank Mackensen for his longtime participation in all of these functionary roles, and for his continued commitment to all aspects of the project.

Vassyana (talk · contribs) is a former arbitrator who stepped down in January of 2010, but retained Checkuser permissions. Luna Santin (talk · contribs) is one of the first community-elected checkusers and oversighters. Neither Vassyana nor Luna Santin have been active on Wikipedia in their functionary roles for more than six months, and attempts to contact them via email have been unsuccessful. Because of this, the Arbitration Committee is withdrawing checkuser and oversight permissions, as applicable. Requests for reinstatement may be made to the Arbitration Committee. We thank both Vassyana and Luna Santin for their longterm commitment to Wikipedia in the various roles that they have assumed over their several years of volunteering, and hope that they are both enjoying success in whatever new endeavours they are participating in.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Cross-posted to AN by NW (Talk) 21:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Backlog at requested moves

We are currently backed up 45 days at Wikipedia:RM. Any admins want to jump in? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Or non-admins, for that matter. (Remember, {{db-move}} is your friend.) Jafeluv (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Turqoise127

After having his favorite article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresimir Chris Kunej (3rd nomination) (endorsed at DRV), Turqoise127 proceeded to tag for notability or nominate for deletion articles created by User:Smartse, [11] [12] [13] who has disagreed strongly with Turqoise in that fabled AfD.

Turqoise127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s talk page is full of complaints for incivility and he has received a recent block for it. Smartse is not the only "opponent" to suffer the wrath of Turqoise127. Drmies, another editor who has disagreed with him received this nastygram. Looking at his recent edit history, I question whether Turqoise127 editor has anything left to contribute to Wikipedia, beside personal feuds. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. That was not my favorite article, I just worked hard on it is all. During the AfD you speak of, editor SmartSE "looked through the contributions" of a "keep" voting editor (PamelaBMX) and had a picture she contributed deleted. I am simply immitating (learning from) the actions of an experienced editor, and in looking through SmartSE's contributions I seem to be finding quite a few articles that I feel are lacking on notability. It seems that for some of these articles (like DJ Skitz) there are other editors who feel the same, and for other contributions (like Herman Phaff) I may be mistaking and the community may decide "keep". Alas, such is the nature of the project, no? Anyhow, if I am to be repremanded here, I do hope the same is applied to editor SmartSE who I learned this from, so that there is no appearance of double standards or favoritizm.

In addition, I feel it is important to note that my talk page "being full of incivility complaints" only pertain to notes on the AfD in question; so does the block. I do not have a history of uncivil behavior. RespectfullyTurqoise127 19:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the picture I nominated for deletion was File:Lonelydeat.jpg - a blatant copyvio. SmartSE (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support community banBlock of at least one week. While it is perfectly appropriate to review problematic editors' contribution histories for problems, Turqoise127's actions cannot be viewed as neutral cleanup actions for the benefit of the project. Rather, they are, by and large, not based in policy and guideline, which is clear from the overwhelming community disagreement with his assessments. Moreover, Turqoise127 has made a series of uncivil remarks in AfD discussions and talk pages, engaged in canvassing, bludgeoned the process wherever he has gotten involved, and—ironically and falsely—accused numerous other editors of engaging in this sort of behavior. Especially since the deletion of Kresimir Chris Kunej, this editor has shown no interest in improving the project, and abundant interest in disrupting it. ^Bongo_matic 20:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Amended supported outcome. If after a block the editor decides to contribute to the project (including legitimate deletion nominations—something I view as a positive contribution), it would be a good outcome. The fact that there is no hint of the possibility of this potentiality right now, in the wake of a sting, doesn't mean it isn't possible in the future. ^Bongo_matic 00:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Community ban - I see lots of evidence of disruptive behavior and little evidence of productivity or desire to stop being disruptive. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The DJ Skitz article and the time of the AfD was quite problematic, and I think that if it had been impossible to improve it, it would certainly have been deleted. (It has now been improved by SmartSE to the extent that the result will be quite different--all the delete comments there were made before the improvements). However, the Hibberd tagging was ill-considered, and the Phaff nomination absurd. It is quite acceptable to look at an editor's contributions if there is reason to suspect there's a persistent problem: I do so frequently in response to what I may see at deletion processes. But to then challenge the good as well as the bad is an unacceptable response, and does indicate harassment. True, this is only 3 articles, not a long-running pattern. But the worst part of this is clarified by your own statement above, that you clearly did this based on personal antagonism, rather than in good faith. This is behaviour that if continued, would be worthy of a community ban. But a community ban at this point would be excessive--the only previous admin action has been a 24 hour block. The normal response to continued activity like what is being discussed would be rapidly increasing blocks, and I think that anything further of the sort will be met by one. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, there are other articles too. I just fixed this one a short time ago. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

• AfD for Phaff closed as speedy keep, and blocked one week for self-admitted harassment; it's bad enough by itself, doing it right after a previous block is entirely unacceptable. Community ban at this moment seems to be overkill. T. Canens (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed.  Sandstein  21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• My history with Turqoise is well-known to enough editors here. Around the time of the first AfD I tried communicating with them in a more positive manner (more positive than in the charged atmosphere of AfD), since I would like to see us have contributions from people who obviously have expertise in linguistics, for instance. However, since then things have gone downhill. I am not going to provide a list of diffs with personal insults, pointy notability tags, and such, though Turqoise has followed me, Bongo, and even ChildofMidnight around, tagging articles in a disruptive and pointy manner. I have little respect for their combative rhetoric and ad hominem accusations, and even less for the conspiracy accusations (the Bacon cabal thing) they have flung around a few times, and I think that the one-week block is well justified, and could be longer.

  However, blocks should not be punitive; they should prevent further disruption, and right now, given the most recent of Turqoise's edits, a block is well warranted. The remarks by Canens (feel free to expand and/or clarify; Turqoise will appreciate that and so will we) and especially DGG are a good indication of why this block was executed, and should serve as sufficient warning that future disruptions will not be tolerated--not just by some anti-Kunej cabal, but by the community. In other words, at the risk of repeating myself: it needs to be absolutely clear to Turqoise that this block enforces Wikipedia guidelines and policies on behavior and editing, that it does not simply express the opinion of a select group of editors who shopped around for a friendly admin (for the record, Canens, I think this is the first time I've run into you). Further disruption can lead to an indefinite block.

  I do not support a community ban, because I want Turqoise to edit and write content, and I hope that they will prove their ability to participate in improving the pedia. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• A month Block, but no ban Some very immature behavior but I see nothing warranting a ban. I would need to see socking after a Block, an RFC/U or Arbitration Case before supporting a ban. There a tad over reaction here me thinks The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. No opinion either way here. I did "side" with the individual on trial here briefly. What I don't understand is, from what I have been reading, most participants here seem to be highly educated and intelligent (PhD's. tenures), yet avoid an apparent flaw in this system. The only answer can be, they are well aware but it suits them. I think turqoise has shown us that everyone has an article they like that may be marginal, and we will all defend it dearly. What decides are interpretations of marginal sources and strength in numbers. What was it that made the involved editors try and try again to delete that article with repeated noms so to get desired result? Because I tend to vote and move on, maybe check back once or twice. Despite Drmies' superficial forgiving appeal above, he nominated this article twice, kept coming back, was uncivil (outing editor), etc. Certain others were also very persistent. Had this user reported earlier events here, would outcomes have been different? Is he being punished also for not being so familiar with processes here? I guess I can see this happening to others (myself included) and I do not like it. I guess I expected more from admins, too.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite bizarre to complain about Drmies's multiple nominations when the first one resulted in a deletion—renominating an article one time after it's recreated following a deletion discussion surely isn't objectionable. Drmies didn't nominate it subsequently to the discussion that resulted in a keep. It's also bizarre to complain about "multiple nominations" at all when the article has been nominated three times in total, and the result was delete in two of the discussions. The possibly legitimate circumstances to complain about multiple nominations is when the article is kept repeatedly—that is not the case here. ^Bongo_matic 05:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's part of the conspiracy thinking. When it was kept, it was done rightfully so, by the community; when it was deleted (2 out of 3 times), it was done by a secretive group who either bent the rules of the game or simply broke them. Like I said above, I have no patience for conspiracy theories. WildHorses, I have no need to listen to you talking about "superficial forgiveness"--please keep those value judgments about depth and shallowness to yourself. If anyone has gotten s**t thrown at them by Turqoise, it's me, and I don't care. I didn't start this thread here, and I wouldn't have. I've been angry myself, and hopefully some of the people I've hurt have forgiven me or forgotten. Anyway, Bongo has already pointed out the factual errors in your argument, so your contrasting my 'superficial' attitude with my below the belt actions toward Turqoise turns out to be a hoax. Good day. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Aahh, but you admit on your user page to be part of the goy cabal! ;-) Tijfo098 (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Lonnie Athens

Resolved

 – There isn't an attribution problem, so a histmerge isn't necessary. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Could someone do a history merge for Lonnie Athens and User:Rstacy2010? Rstacy2010 (talk · contribs) did a cut-and-paste move. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no need as Rstacy2010 did all the substantial work on it. Your contribution was putting a space character in! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, all of the edits which would be lost by this copy-and-paste move were made by the user, so there's no attribution problem: everything the user inserted into the article on its creation, they wrote themselves. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

The Speed of light case is supplemented as follows:

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed by motion 8 to 1 at 14:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Possible Skype Spam

Resolved

Can someone take a look at this diff, please. I'm not sure why Skype is plastered all over the page. Is this some kind of spam? — Fly by Night (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe some kind of speech to text editing software? Syrthiss (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

its the skype addon that highlights phone numbers. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See related discussions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, at least it's not spam. Thanks zzuuzz. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

unblock request review please

Resolved

 – blocking admin has lifted the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say the original block was unjustified, but 198.105.8.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for five years in June of last year. The logged reason for the block is "checkuserblock". The admin who made the block appears to be only semi-active. I have asked for their input but it may be a while and I would prefer to resolve this in a timely manner. The ip is apparently a library and the request states that the library now has monitoring tools in place to help prevent abuse. I'm honestly not sure what the right move is here and would appreciate input from other users and admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If it is a checkuserblock, I suggest contacting the CU's who may have their reasons for blocking this facility; let them know what the address holder has done, and see if that suffices for them to agree? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If the blocking admin is not active and doesn't respond to an (e-mail?) query about why they thought this long a block was required, I'd support unblocking the IP per WP:AGF. It can always be reblocked in case of problems.  Sandstein  21:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Statement on checkuser blocks. T. Canens (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

True. So that decision outlines the route to take if the blocking admin does not respond.  Sandstein  21:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think functionaries-l, which includes CUs and Arbcom members (as well as some others) would be a good point of contact. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and pointer everyone. I would actually be one of those others on the functionaries list that you mention, but I don't have CU access. I've emailed ArbCom and asked that WP:BASC take a look at it, and I've emailed the blocking admin to see if they have anything to add. I guess this is kind of out of my hands at this point, I'm wondering if I should still be "holding" the unblock request, but I suppose BASC can deal with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales' user talk page: should we remove this?

I recently found this in Jimbo's talk page history. Just wondering, should we remove it? (If you are to post a reply to me, put it on User:Perseus, Son of Zeus's (my account)'s talk page. Thank you. 173.49.140.141 (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a need to remove it. It's quite funny really; in a slap stick way. The user's been blocked now, and Jimbo would have removed it himself had he thought it necessary. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I asume you mean removing it from the history alltogether? I don't think "I hate you so much" warrants a revision deletion. — Edokter • Talk • 14:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I did redact the (denied) unblock request at the IPs talk page. If it's an open proxy as the IP vandal himself says, it ought to be blocked longer, if not it may be shared and it probably wouldn't be great for someone to make an edit under their IP, get the orange bar and find antisemitic rants and threats of buggery at their talk page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty in Jimbo's talk page history which would have been oversighted if the Foundation was serious about BLP issues. The diff linked to above is nothing when compared to some of the attacks made on editors there. DuncanHill (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8#User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 11#Petra Olli

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8#User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 11#Petra Olli? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Closed. T. Canens (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User with recent history of bad-faith edits and stalking

A while ago, User:Longevitydude stated that it was good advice to take the opposing side for any of my AfDs. It seems that this has been happening recently, and also note some inappropriate edit comments. It's fine that people can have differing opinions at AfD, but this is a clear case of a user intentionally voting the opposite of me, just because of who I am. (I explained to the user when it was suggested he would take this course of action, that I would report it, and here I am.) An example is this AfD, which has only one non-delete vote (the author of the page) and then the LongevityDude comment, who says the AfD is "in bad faith and makes no sense". Based on other votes of that page, clearly the LongevityDude comment is about spite of the nominator (me), not article content. — Timneu22 · talk 17:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That's misrepresentation. I pointed out that your outrageous violation of WP:AGF here: [14] was likely to result in people being poorly inclined towards you in future disputes. This is an accurate statement of human nature, with which LongevityDude quite rightly concurred.

Note btw that I have no interest in the subject, but because of your poor decision to slander everyone who disagreed with you as socks, meatpuppets, etc., I now have an interest in pointing out the backstory here.

You got unnecessarily agitated at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jan_Goossenaerts directly resulting in this situation. It was avoidable.

Now you are upset because this user has voted against you here: [15] and here [16]. The second edit does look rather bad faith, but perhaps you could have tried to engage the user first and come here after trying that angle.

A bit of basic civility in the first place would have meant this never would have happened. Was it really necessary?

Suggested conclusion: Longevitydude and Timneu22 kiss and make up, running to teacher is/was unnecessary.Sumbuddi (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sumbuddi, this is way off the mark: because of your poor decision to slander everyone who disagreed with you as socks, meatpuppets. My accusations were in regard to LongevityDude's behavior at an AfD, and his known WP:CANVASSING to sway the opinion there. (Other editors found the canvassing.) That you would accuse me of making these types of remarks often — or even ever — is incredibly inaccurate. My discussion here is simply about the editor's stalking/bad-faith edits; your comments here are so far are frankly irrelevant. — Timneu22 · talk 21:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You cited my comment, which LongevityDude concurred with, as the basis for making this post. Again, your behaviour at that AFD was out-of-line, which is the direct cause of this current drama. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The direct cause of this drama is a user making bad-faith/stalking edits. — Timneu22 · talk 00:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

He appears to have made two stalkerish edits, but they don't by themselves qualify as drama. The drama starts when you try and involve third parties in this petty squabble. And yes, Longevitydude did make the edits that provoked you into coming here, but he didn't do them randomly, he did them because your edits: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] tend to cause bad feeling. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

But are any of those inaccurate? Overall, I see is someone trying to bring down the heat to light ratio and discuss the issue, of which my views on it can be seen on the AfD page. Are you saying that mitigates Longevitydude's behavior? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that list a joke? Some of those are diffs that aren't even my edit. Trying to build a case out of nothing by showing multiple hyperlinks? — Timneu22 · talk 10:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

'Longevitydude's behavior' amounts to a couple of 'Keep' votes on Timneu22's AfDs. Rather than complaining here, there is a procedure to follow.

Discussing the issue is one thing, but jumping to accuse people of sockpuppeting, using foul language, political abuse, etc., is going to create enemies. I haven't followed Longevitydude too closely, but I understand he has his pet articles, which Timneu22 prefers to see deleted. That's already a situation of potential conflict, but to exarcerbate that with 'Sarah Palin is an idiot' posts, sockpuppeting accusations, abusive language, on an AfD about a 110 year-old just isn't constructive and certainly didn't improve to ratio of light to heat there. I understand Timenu22's motivation to win his arguments, to challenge his opponents, but the rage: [27] isn't consistent with making effective contributions here. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is about bad faith edits by LongevityDude. Your insinuation about "creating enemies" is not relevant. The only reason we're here is because I noticed these edits. Otherwise, LongevityDude had already been forgotten. — Timneu22 · talk 10:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Template crashed on major articles (human, dinosaur, bird, etc.)

The automatic taxobox template has crashed on a number of major articles, Bird, Amphibian, Apatosaurus, leaving these articles with an ugly red-link to the failed template rather than to information.[28] I added the taxobox back to amphibian and the big dinosaur, before I realized that a number of major articles may be missing taxoboxes. I don't know where else to post, but here, because the automatic taxobox discussion is everywhere, and every time I post anything there I get told my input is stupid (not really, but close enough) or I posted on the wrong automatic taxobox discussion page once again.

Can interested parties please temporarily, until the automatic taxobox is fixed, restore taxoboxes to major articles, or do something else, or post this in the appropriate place? I don't know how else to fix it, and it concerns me to have so many such high traffic articles messed up with this red-link and no taxobox.

--Kleopatra (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes

Template argument size: 2048000/2048000 bytes

In short, too many transcluded templates. T. Canens (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you (or I) revert the last few of his edits and undo this quickly, now? I've run through the list and added taxoboxes to, you know insect, human, reptile, bird, but there are many more high level articles, and there were even some featured articles hit by this. --Kleopatra (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of everyone looking at this, this is caused by a series of edits made by Smith609 (talk · contribs) today. What a god-awful mess. There is a reason why you should not be editing high-visibility templates until you are sure what you are doing is not going to break. And this is absolutely unacceptable. You can't just walk away after breaking every single transclusion of the template.

Most recent edits have been reverted; page should now look normal after a reload. T. Canens (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I tried to catch the major major articles as quickly as possible by just adding their most recent taxobox, and Erik caught a few, but I missed some biggies. I just checked Eudicots, one I missed, and it looks normal now. --Kleopatra (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. BTW, the best venue is probably WP:VPT. T. Canens (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that have more watchers? There were so many options of where to post, bots for technical help, community boards, notice boards. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

More technically-minded watchers than AN, I'd imagine. T. Canens (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional individuals wanted for challenging two-year assignment

You are:

Y an effective communicator with a sound grasp of policy;

Y able to see all aspects of a problem and find solutions;

Y courteous, disciplined and open-minded;

Y able to deal calmly with trolls, bigots and editors with issues;

Y able to make up your own mind under stress.

If you can answer "yes" to most of the above, you are probably arbitrator material. Learn more about standing in the upcoming election. But don't delay, nomination close very soon!

Tony (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC), for the election coordinators

• PS: YYou must also be able to prove your real name (with a copy of your passport) to "The Office" in case any litigation as a result of your actions arises.  Giacomo  17:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• The unstated requirement is that one must be an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Unstated because it is not a requirement. Non-admins elected will be given the sysop bit for practical reasons whilst on the committee. Rd232 ^talk 15:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Had this discussion last time (I'll try to dig up a link), for all practical purposes candidates must be admins, but for some strange reason, people are loathe to make this official. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, the discussion I was thinking of was not about Arbs, but about CheckUsers & Oversighters, a different situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

1. eh, nuts to u, this message is clearly disruptive an u should be blocked!
2. problem iz u, obviously.
3. STFU
4. Yeah I whack u with my ban hammer, bitches.
5. BSOD.

Can I haz my arb hat now? No? Well, hopefully others will come forward. Really. Please. Rd232 ^talk 16:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That was entirely random and unnecessary. --Conti|✉ 16:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

See humor and sarcasm for a further explanation. --Jayron32 16:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, guess I'm too stupid to find the funny in that one. :) Seriously though, can't we just for once take things seriously around here, or is that asking for too much? I have the feeling that "Must write condescending, sarcastic comment" is the standard reaction to posts on these noticeboards nowadays. --Conti|✉ 16:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Partly humour, partly livening up a dry but important request. Rd232 ^talk 17:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• The purpose of providing identification is to verify age. All editors are responsible for their actions, regardless of whether or not they are identified. Risker (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted - ID is also required due to access to potentially personally identifying information (CU, etc). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at MfD

Could someone have a look at WP:MFD, particularly old business? There's almost a month-long backlog now. --NYKevin @935, i.e. 21:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Botmaster help wanted

My AWB-fu is weak and I don't have a bot so I'm asking for some help please. Jessica Liao has been disruptive for a very long time, looking at it from outside it seems to me that part (only, but part) of the problem is that she signed up using what is probably her real name. Nihonjoe has renamed User:Jessica Liao to Random account 39949472 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at my request per WP:DENY and WP:NOTEVIL. I now need a quick bot or AWB run to retag the socks and suspected socks to user:Random account 39949472. Any assistance gratefully received. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 12:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao? Rd232 ^talk 13:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done by JgZ. Anything else? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

My only question would be: the old username redirects to the new one, and there are plenty of inbound links to the old one from talk pages etc. I don't know how far we should go with the renaming. (I mean if we were really keen, we could redact the move log entries with RevDel, possibly.) Rd232 ^talk 13:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The main issue here is Streisand effect - betweeb this discussion, and the fact that it's not always a good idea to hide several revisions of a page because of a single account. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Caesarjbsquitti has followed the Standard Offer, and is now requesting to be reinstated.

Relevent links:

• Caesarjbsquitti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ban discussion

I have no opinion on the matter, I am merely forwarding this here as the user has followed the Wikipedia:Standard offer and stayed away for six months; they have also voluntarily stated that, as a condition of their unblock, they will stay away from the problmatic area for an additional six months if they are reinstated. DIscuss away. --Jayron32 05:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock under the SO conditions. Basket of Puppies 06:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not think that staying away from the problematic "area" for 6 months will help. The problems, based on the ban discussion, were far wider. I do not see any understanding of how to work collegially on this project and I do not see any recognition of the behaviours that led to the ban, and I see no real recognition that any additional similar actions will be met with swift action. As EdJohnson said in the original ban discussion, "Pigs will fly and hot places will be covered with ice before this editor will step up and offer to get with the program". I cannot WP:AGF if there's no proof of a change (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I would have to agree with everything that Bwilkins has said. -DJSasso (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• I also oppose at this time. A "standard offer" should never be construed as a blanket offer based purely on waiting time. As long as there are no credible signs that the contributor has genuinely understood what the problems with their editing was, and that they have a clear idea about what they will be doing differently in the future, I see no basis for an unban. Simply avoiding a particular topic area won't work in this case, since the problematic editing seemed to be spread widely across many topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can find little evidence that this individual has ever contributed much of anything to this project except unwanted drama and a colorful collection of examples of bias and prejudice across a startling array of topics. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• oppose - the community banned him. I don't support standard offer. The ban was indefinitely. The community had decided enough was enough.--Crossmr (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm still completely ambivalent about this one user, however indefinite has never meant infinite, under what conditions would you agree to unblocking an indefinitely blocked user, speaking in general terms? --Jayron32 05:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    • If the circumstances of their block somehow allowed for them to possibly demonstrate to us that whatever caused their community ban had be rectified. Community bans are not enacted lightly and if the community has had enough, they've had enough. They haven't had enough just for 6 months, they've had enough of enough to say "That's it, we're done". If the community wanted a 6 month block, they would have agreed on that. Unfortunately with most community indefinite block/bans there is rarely such an opportunity. There are thousands of editors here, and we just don't have the time to keep coming back to ones that waste our time every 6 months. People need to be done with a problem and move on. We don't need editors sitting around going..hmm.. this guy was really disruptive. I guess I always have to keep him on my mind and keep checking on things to make sure he doesn't get let back in one day because someone picked a favorable time/forum to have a discussion. Getting rid of a problem that's exhausted our patience only to have the user suddenly pop back up when you least expect them only to find some discussion went down that you had no idea about because you thought it was over and done with can drive users away from the project.--Crossmr (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Thats a consistant philosophy on this stuff. I tend to disagree, but I respect your position as well. --Jayron32 06:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: "I do not see any understanding of how to work collegially on this project and I do not see any recognition of the behaviours that led to the ban."quoting Bwilkins above Seems most of the opposes here are based on that general train of thought. My question is, if a user is banned from Wikipedia, how does one expect banned users to show they can make positive contributions here if they can't make any in the first place? N419BH 06:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Often, with the Standard Offer, its expected that the user shows positive behavior at another Wikimedia project, such as Wikinews, or perhaps the Simple English Wikipedia. If a user could demonstrate good behavior in that manner (since a block only applies at THIS project), it often goes a long way towards showing that they have rehabilitated. --Jayron32 07:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also prefer to see something a little better than "I have waited 6 months, please reinstate my access". I don't want grovelling, but acknowledgment of the issues, and how they will act differently ... that would help. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Thanks guys. I agree the pledge to simply ignore the problem is not going to get it done here. N419BH 00:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral - "Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community or to the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-l‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org)". This is an appeal to the community. I'd say maybe give him a little WP:ROPE and see what happens, but it doesn't look like that's the way consensus is going. If he hasn't been socking and is still determined to edit here, it says a lot. About what I have no idea ;> Doc talk 07:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose (blocking admin) I note that the user hasn't actually indicated xe's learned, just that xe won't talk about it. There's no promise not to repeat these actions elsewhere. Since the issue has been raised here, a good way for banned users to demonstrate worth is to work on another project for a while. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Indefinately blocked users that still wish to contribute to the project need to be able to show that they are able to do so in a way consistent with policy. There is no way they can do this while blocked. Periodically, they need to be unblocked to show whether they can abide by policy. Otherwise there is no incentive not to sock. User would need to be placed on some sort of probation where they realize that a single slip will result in another long-term block. -Atmoz (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Violation of non-admin closure

The closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System was not unanimous for Keep - and though I do not disagree with the closure, per WP:NAC, it should not have been closed by a non-admin. Requesting an admin close the AFD instead. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Why?--Scott Mac 01:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NAC says an non-admin can close when it is "beyond doubt a clear keep". It says nothing about requiring unanimity. Personally I'd delete the entire page as crap. Providing we have a consensus, who the hell cares who closes what. The only reason non-admins shouldn't close an AFD, is if it requires a deletion - and that's only because they can't technically do it.--Scott Mac 01:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am also glad to note that WP:NAC is only an essay and not a guideline or policy. Which leaves me asking, Cirt what are you on about? The close is good. The closer is allowed to do it under WP:NAC. And WP:NAC is only someone's opinion anyway. So what's this about?--Scott Mac 01:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is all rather moot now, since T. Canens has endorsed the close as an admin. Silverseren^C 01:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

An utterly unnecessary practice, designed to keep non-admins in their place.--Scott Mac 01:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think this should be good enough. Since Cirt's comment in the AfD was in alignment with the close, I doubt that he is looking for a different result. Perhaps, if I may venture a guess, he thinks an "admin close" is somewhat more conclusive than a non-admin close for future nominations? For better or worse, my experience has been that there is some difference in practice ("it's just an NAC!"). Note that I explicitly did not revert the close, and I think that the discussion is NAC-able, but I see no compelling reason not to add an extra sentence if someone wants it. T. Canens (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that is presuming that admins automatically know better on how to sum up consensus in AfD discussions. While that may be true in most cases, it is certainly not true in all cases. There are quite a few users around who aren't admins, but have been around longer and are even more likely to be capable in such matters than a number of admins. Silverseren^C 01:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I do. All endorsements like that serve to do is to underline the false idea that non-admins have less value. A close should stand or fall on its merits and we shouldn't be giving the ridiculous idea that non-admins have less weight - or drawing attention to the "status" of the closer. An endorsement like that simply encourages this WP:NAC nonsense, which is antithetical to Wikipedia. If we deleted essays, that one would be top of my list.--Scott Mac 01:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), for the close endorse. ;) Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am merely commenting on the reality that some people seem to consider NAC a second-class close; I certainly do not agree with it. T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was more responding to Cirt (or in general) than anything. Silverseren^C 01:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As the closer, I did not, And still do not feel I did anything wrong. It was certainly not a delete, this I did not break any rules. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 01:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You certainly did nothing wrong at all. There are no rules here, only a silly essay.--Scott Mac 01:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, coming here complaining about a NAC only serves to underline this stupidity. If people consider NAC closes as second-class, then the solution is not to pander to it with endorsements - which will just underline their misconception - but the solution is to beat them with cluesticks.--Scott Mac 01:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

1. The AFD was closed too early.
2. The AFD was not unanimous for Keep.
3. The AFD was controversial, on a controversial topic.

For all of these reasons, it should not have been closed in the manner in which it was initially done. -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The first of those may be true (but would also be true for an admin) the second two are quite irrelevant. Show me the policy that supports them?--Scott Mac 01:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Show me the policy that says non-admins are encouraged to close controversial AFD discussions that are not unanimous for keep, and close them early, in the manner in which was done here? -- Cirt (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh? You need a policy to let people do things on a Wiki? That's absurd. And since when did "unanimity" become relevant - the silly essay WP:NAC doesn't even ask for it. The quality of the close has NOTHING to do with the status of the closer whatsoever. The close is good or bad, consensual or not. There is no other consideration - certainly not imaginary caste-system rules.--Scott Mac 02:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The close was seven minutes early, the article was certainly not going to be deleted. I try to help out a bit, and this is where I end up, looking stupid, and getting yelled at. To bad. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The close was over 24 hours early. -- Cirt (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It was the beginning of the seventh day. By the end of the seventh day, 95% of articles in AFD are closed anyway. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed on admin boards before. The consensus is certainly not to close AFDs over 24 hours in advance. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, you fatally misunderstand Wikipedia. Please consider WP:BITE in how you treat people. Wikipedia is not a status-bureaucracy, and complaining because the right thing was done by someone you consider to be of the "wrong status" is damaging. It is not much wonder keen people don't want become admins with this type of abuse heaped on them when they try to help out.--Scott Mac 02:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I myself have been criticized in the past for closing AFDs too early. I modified my behavior after receiving such criticism. Hopefully, Tofutwitch11 (talk · contribs) will be able to do so, in the future, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems I will be question whenever I close AFD's. Just being a non-admin makes me vulnerable. Why did you even bring this up in the first plane, you even said "though I do not disagree with the closure".......Could it have waited untill/if I messed up? Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it did not fit into the "appropriate" cases for WP:NAC, and because it was closed over one full day early. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You've made your point nice and clear that it was closed over one day early (although the fact that you see seven minutes as over is mind-boggling, perhaps you are just using it to make it seem like I did something worse that I actually did). But you had no objections to the final conclusion? Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note:If I waited untill the seven days was fully over, the only AFD's left to close would the those in strict debate which I cannot close anyway. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That is what you must do. Per community consensus, AFDs should not be closed early, and especially leeway should not be given for AFDs to be closed over one full day before the seven day discussion period. -- Cirt (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Again with over one full day. I give up. You Win, I loose. I certainly have no clue at all what I am doing and I shouldn't be here. I should have known. Woops! Thanks! Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, it is never helpful for controversial but good faith AfDs to be closed early by an admin or anyone else. All too often it leads to a deletion review, and the same controversy is gone over once again. If then returned to AfD, as often happens, it is then rehashed yet a third time. The more difficult a decision, the more controversial the topic, the more reason to follow the full procedure to the letter, and to the minute. Experience has also shown that it is much better for non-admins to avoid closing such AfDs, for the same reason, that of discouraging further arguments--such as the one here. This was the right close, but that it was done at the wrong time and by a non-admin, makes it the more easy to attack. Fortunately, I do not think it will now be attacked, in large part because of Cirt's excellent improvements in the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't think I just counted Keep and compared it to delete. I looked over the AFD, and because I saw Cert was improving the article, I felt it appropriate to close. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, very much, for your kind words about my improvements to the article page. ;) Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

AFDs run for seven days, not six days

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive200#Premature_AfD_closers
2. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_53#7_days
3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive182#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion

There are multiple more discussion threads about this. Community consensus is that AFDs should not be closed one full day in advance, and should only be closed slightly early if there is overwhelming near-unanimous consensus, without multiple "delete" comments. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You've made your point. I understand, but it is done all the time, for 11 Nov. 2010, many delete discussions were closed already, as well as my keep ones. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Other people do it", is not an excuse - especially not for AFD closure one full day in advance of seven days. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So Cirt did you politely ask the closer on his talk page to revert and wait 24 hours before closing - trying your best not to embarrass a keen non admin? Or did you come here spouting crap about non-admins and non-unanimous, and then change your rationale when you started to lose the argument? Frankly this looks like a case of admins bullying non-admins, either that or rule-mongering (which is wonderful when you were wrong to claim NAC is a rule, or that it required unanimity). Frankly your behaviour here is reprehensible, especially when the close is good and you don't deny it.--Scott Mac 02:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cert, remember, im not an admin. I look up to the Admins, and when I see them closing AFD's early (or as I though on time) I follow. Is that wrong, to look up to Admins? You seem to know....Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment about this, by admin DGG (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have bypassed my question. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question is do not close AFDs earlier than seven days. -- Cirt (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's the issue, why didn't you ask him to revert his closure, rather than asking for an admin to endorse it? You are stretching for a justification for your own inappropriate actions.--Scott Mac 02:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What if an Admin had closed the AFD. Would this have happened? I doubt it, it is just because I am a non-admin that this happened. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be very easy to ameliorate this problem without rancour, if someone would code into the AfD header a notice of the correct time for closing , just as has been very usefully done for PROD. If this too is unsuccessful, I suggest it lies within the province of any admin who has not taken part in the discussion to revert the close. In the situation the usual request and 24 hour delay will generally make the point moot. Better that it be reverted immediately, on the basis that it must simply be a mistake, since it is assumed anyone closing knows and wants to follow the rules. . DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

DGG you may well be right about early-closures. But that's not the fundamental issue here. Review the whole thread, you are being caught in a smokescreen.--Scott Mac 02:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Read the comment by admin DGG (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I did. As I say, he's been distracted by your changing the subject from non-admins to early closures. If early closures were really your issue, then your behaviour is inexplicable.--Scott Mac 02:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Evidently then you have failed to read the entirety of the the comment by admin DGG (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think people have talked enough; I wish they'd stop. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

However we all need to be more careful closing AFD's earlier, there was a point in extending the time to 7 days, which was to allows those that only get on once a week a chance to participate. Perhaps we need a tempalted warning for those that close AFD's early. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, AFDs used to run for about five days, and as far as I can tell, that worked out fine. I supported the expansion to seven days specifically and explicitly so that closing a few hours or even a day "early" from the normal time (NOT: "mandatory minimum number of minutes") wouldn't be a big problem. If people want to complain about an AFD being closed correctly—that is, according to consensus and policies——at day 6, then I want the official time returned to its original five-day length. And if it's closed incorrectly—that is, against consensus—then that's what DRV is for.

In short, if the "shorted" 15% of time is unLIKELY to change the result, then who cares if it was open only 85% of the normal time? IAR exists for a reason, and stopping people from whinging about the exact number of hours at AFD is one of those reasons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• IAR seems to be a shortcut for "I can't be bothered to follow the rules". Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

1. You can't "violate" an essay, as the thread title suggests.
2. These things should be discussed with the editor in question first.
3. Closing a day early is good to avoid if there's any suggestion the outcome might change. There's just enough here to suggest that at 7 days the closure would have been just fine, but at six days, it would have been better to wait. But not enough to make a fuss about it at AN. (Sidebar: the extension from 5 days to 7 was primarily to ensure weekend editors got a look-in, which due to the timing of this AFD, they already have.)
4. Unless anyone actually wants a different outcome (and "merge" is still possible post-AFD), there really nothing to do about this, is there?

Rd232 ^talk 06:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Actually, since I seem to be the only one that re-read the links that Cirt provided, there does not appear to be a clear consensus that seven days must be mean exactly 1 second over 168 hours, and not a second earlier. A sizable number of commenters in all three discussions he links thinks the seven day limit is "not that big of a deal" and closing a few hours early shouldn't be cause to raise a stink. In the first linked discussion: [29] contains a lot of general "all admins are corrupt assholes and we can't trust any of them" sort of bullshit, but weeding through indicates that of the 13 distinct people that commented, 8 appeared to support a strict interpretation, while 5 supported the more fuzzy 7-ish days interpretation. In the second linked discussion: [30], I count 8 distinct people commenting, 4 stricters and 4 fuzzies. In the third linked discussion: [31] predates the 7 day limit; I will avoid counting through this discussion simply because several people who commented in the two later discussions noted specifically that the move from the 5-day limit to the 7-day limit had moved them from the "strict" camp to the "fuzzy" camp (i.e. that they supported the 7-day limit because they merely wanted to see the AFDs run at least 5 days, and weren't stuck on 7 days per se). Neither of the more recent discussions, after the 7 day period was enacted, show a strong support for "seven days means not one second less than seven days" interpretation. I am not saying that this means we should allow early closures, and I am also not saying that we should categorically disallow them. I am just saying that there does not appear to have been a clear consensus in past discussions regarding this, so we cannot use that to claim the superiority of one position over any other. --Jayron32 07:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A deletion discussion needs to run long enough for reasonable effort to be made to enable consensus to arrive on whether the article matches the criteria for deletion. While the process usually involves 7 days, even a much shorter discussion can be quite valid. Process for its own sake must be ruthlessly stamped out wherever it is identified. Tasty monster (=TS ) 07:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the most recent thorough discussion of this was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive217#AfD's generally closed too soon. One comment in that discussion was particularly relevant for those not seeing the problem: If most admins follow the seven-day rule, but a few don't, then those few admins will close the majority of AfDs. This is not desirable. (comment made by Sandstein, bolding by me). If you follow the seven-day rule, you will not only get less complaints of a formal nature, but every hour a few AfD's will be ready to be closed, giving more people (admins and non-admins) the chance to hone their AfD skills, and giving a more diverse perspective of closers. There is not a single good reason to close AfD a few hours or even a day early (except for clear speedy and snow keeps), the extra time for discussion doesn't harm anyone or anything. Fram (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting statistical argument: that's its undesirable to permit early closures because this would lead to more discussions being closed pre-emptively by a select group of early closers. Wake me up if and when that ever looks likely to happen.

You claim that "There is not a single good reason to close AfD a few hours or even a day early" and that's obviously false. One good reason is that Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, another excellent reason is that the basis for decisions is consensus, not clockwatching. If arguments or evidence that should be considered are not, this is exactly why we have a review process that has the power to reverse a deletion closure.

I'd like to focus on the argument that one good reason not to close early is that "you will...get less complaints of a formal nature". Such complaints are misconceived and contrary to policy, so if we got fewer complaints of that nature it would not be a good sign. The presence of such complaints provides an excellent opportunity to educate those who don't know that Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. And any successful attempt to impose bureaucracy for its own sake is harmful. An attempt to impose bureaucracy because this would lead to fewer complaints from people who want to turn Wikipedia into a bureaucracy is comical.

I notice by the way that Deletion review isn't particularly busy these days. If there is a problem with early closing, why on earth is that forum not brimming with reviews of prematurely closed deletions?

Remember: we have a policy that says Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. Bureaucratic arguments are contrary to policy and bureaucratic assumptions aren't appropriate. You need especially strong arguments to support a breach of this fundamental policy. -- (reminder: I am the same person who posted above as Tasty Monster). TS 08:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Closing something early "because we are not a bureaucracy" is not a good reason to close something early, but a total non sequitur. "Why did you close this AfD early?" "Because we are not a bureaucracy". Yeah right. That's either a non-answer or a WP:POINT violation. Your second argument, that we should close based on consensus, not clockwatching, is equally unconvincing. Of course teh close should be based on consensus: how does closing an AfD early help with this in any way? Will you get a better consensus if you close a day or a few hours early? Will you get less bureaucracy if you close a day or a few hours early? You are arguing why it doesn't harm, not why it would actually be good. The latter is what is usually considered "a good reason to do something". What problems are caused by waiting until the full seven days are expired? None. What problems are caused by closing early? Complaints, people unable to practice closing AfD's because other people sweep in early (especially important for non-admins), earlier and earlier closures (if seven days isn't necessary, then what? 6, 5, 4?) Fram (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If you don't accept that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, or do accept it but don't accept it as a reason for not applying rules in a bureaucratic manner, then there's no communication going on. You're talking past me and ignoring Wikipedia's fundamental policy. --TS 09:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I do accept that Wikipedia is not a bureacracy, just like it isn't an anarchy or a steamboat factory. That it is not a bureaucracy means that early closings, or in general overriding minor policies or guidelines, is acceptable if there is a good reason for doing this. It does not mean that ignoring such policies and guidelines, like the 7 days fo an AfD, should be ignored just because you can. "Not a bureaucracy" is a strong argument why reason X may override policy or guideline Y: "Not a bureaucracy" is however not in itself a reason to override policies or guidelines. Fram (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Not a bureaucracy" is exactly sufficient reason to ignore bureaucratic rules. The only way to stop those rules turning Wikipedia into a bureaucracy is to allow cases where somebody has ignored them, unless the effect is clearly detrimental to the encyclopedia. And again I'm asking you and Cirt, since you appear to agree with the notion of following Wikipedia's processes, to follow the established processes such as deletion review, dispute resolution and discussion of policy problems on the talk pages of those policies. You don't get to make an end run around policy by raising a complaint on this page. --TS 10:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is not an isolated incident. The same user NAC Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kye Allums which had 2 comments and was appropriately relisted. There's a specific criteria about this and this is clearly not it. Shadowjams (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Should it have been closed as delete? If not, then there is no problem except for those who think, incorrectly, that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy. --TS 10:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", and yet we have "bureaucrats". Ignore all rules, but follow some essays to the very letter: to the very second. A plea for closing, a trout, a close and a reopen. How many more? It's become sort of..."lamer" now. Can I say this as a non-admin? I know I shouldn't close it. End this poor thread's suffering. Doc talk 11:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
      • For all of you complaining about me closing AFD's early, I'm sorry. Before I started closing I looked over the AFD for a few days, and saw that they began to be closed that the beginning of the seventh day. By the end of the seventh day, there were only about 10-15 AFD's left, none of them eligible for me to close. I saw admins closing AFD's as early as 0:09 in the seventh day, So I thought it was okay. I followed the admins, I guess I should not have, It won't happen again, If I even ever close another AFD for along time, since there have been objections over every closure. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 11:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm sure you were doing what you thought was right. You are right, however, that once you hear objections, it's time to back away for a bit and learn from what the objectsions say. Even admins are not supposed to close AFD's until a full 7 days are over, except in a few specific situations. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can make this as brief as Jayron32, because there's more to say now, alas:

• MediaWiki, the wiki software, has groups called "bureaucrat", "administrator" (a.k.a. "sysop"), and so forth. These are all just arbitrary names chosen by the software developers, years ago. "Bureaucrats" have nothing to do with bureaucracy; "Sysops" are not system operators for any computer system, and indeed have no more access to the computers that run the servers than any other editor; and "administrators" are not part of any sort of administration or government. It's an object lesson in software design that this choice of nomenclature has caused reams of confusion and argument over the years.
• The period 2010-11-11 17:24:35 to 2010-11-17 23:53:16 is six days six hours and approximately 29 minutes.
• Non-administrator closures are one way to learn the ropes of closing AFD discussions.
• We stick to seven days because we don't want the period to progressively erode back to six, then five, then four, … Seven days gives everyone, no matter what walk of life they are in, no matter what days of the week they most often contribute to Wikipedia, and no matter what timezone they are in, a chance to be involved in the discussion.
• Cirt is a regular AFD discussion closer and a major content contributor on the subject area of these articles.
• This whole Werner Erhard vs. … thing is a minefield, and Tofutwitch11 you had the bad luck to step onto it. Here's just some of your background reading, which only includes the noticeboards, and not the user talk pages nor the article talk pages:
  • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System
  • Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User THF and subject Arthur Alan Wolk
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#Behaviour of admin Cirt in content disputes
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#No Legal Threats and User THF
• The point of the IAR policy is that rules are not our primary purpose. There's a tendency in any project involving large numbers of people for it to become bogged down in creating rules and procedures for getting the work done, and to not actually get the work done as a consequence. That's one of the major things that the IAR policy is aimed directly at stopping. However, rules do give structure, and in a system composed of complete strangers from all around the planet collaborating with one another remotely, going around ignoring the structure just for the sake of ignoring it results in loss of collaboration and friction for starters.

  Wikipedia isn't a micronation, nor is it an anarchy. It has no government of its own, but it is governed. It is a project comprised of collaborating volunteers, supported by a charity, that operates according to the laws of the world that it is a part of. The charity has rules of its own and various policies imposed from the top; the volunteers have various fundamental principles that everyone basically has to agree upon, or look for another project to participate in; and on individual projects there are various widely-agreed procedures, practices, conventions, and rules that are there to ensure that the work isn't overwhelmed by chaos.

  Have, again, the charity shop analogy: There's a charity that owns and maintains the buildings. There are volunteers who work in the shop. They don't make the laws of the land that the shop is in, but they do coöperate amongst themselves to set various rules, procedures, and conventions for their work, which they do with consideration for the fact that their volunteer pool is diverse. Some volunteers are empowered by the group with the abilities to throw stuff in the bin, to take it back out again, to show people out of the door onto the street, and to put padlocks on things. And the whole of the planet can see through the big shop window what goes on in the shop.

Uncle G (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Uncle G, I was involved with this AfD and also commented in some of the other venues mentioned above. I wonder why you included the following two threads in the Werner Erhard vs.... "minefield"?
  • Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User THF and subject Arthur Alan Wolk
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#No Legal Threats and User THF
• Those threads related to a different AfD altogether. The only connection they have to the AfD that Tofutwitch11 closed is the fact that THF asserted that he was being "harassed" about COI by Cirt regarding comments at that other unrelated AfD because he opposed Cirt in the Werner Erhard vs. ... AfD. Regarding Tofutwitch11, I wouldn't imagine that someone in his position would see this connection as obviously as those involved in the debate might have. If you agree with THF's view that his threads at ANI and COI/N were a result of the Werner Erhard vs. ... AfD then this AN report becomes the last in a series of reports and complaints filed by the article creator about other editors who are working towards outcomes he's not happy with - in the latest case this "undesirable outcome" isn't as obvious though. I note above that Scott Mac pointed out that the original complaint here had nothing to do with a premature closure, but instead focussed only on this being a non-admin closure, with the seeming worry that such a closure would be less authoritative. That worry appears to have ignited all of this. Has anyone considered discussing WP:OWN issues with the article creator? Is all this unnecessary drama desirable for the project? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You've managed to yourself answer your own question about the background reading, there, without need for me to do so. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• I remain convinced that it is necessary to consider additional options to more strictly enforce the seven days rule and thereby to preserve the integrity of the AfD process. An idea I've proposed in the past would be to allow any admin to simply undo and relist an early closure, with no need for DRV. This would still allow the occasional justified WP:SNOW or speedy closure, because no admin would likely undo these if they are really justified.  Sandstein  18:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Renominations

For reference, Shadowjams (talk · contribs) has renominated for deletion all of the following articles after non-administrator closures of prior discussions by Tofutwitch11 (talk · contribs):

• UCL Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences (AfD discussion)
• Ethnoburb (AfD discussion)
• Air Myanmar (AfD discussion)
• James Horley (AfD discussion)
• Mariza Ikonomi (AfD discussion)
• Kye Allums (AfD discussion)

Uncle G (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've speedy closed all of them as WP:POINT nominations. There is no valid reason for re-nomination. WP:NAC is only a worthless essay, while WP:BURO is solid policy. If you want to change policy to preclude non-admin closures, don't do it by pointy AfDs - start a policy debate and get consensus. If you believe the close is actually flawed in substance, then try WP:DRV.--Scott Mac 17:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • As a worthless non-admin, I agree with Scott Mac on this issue. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • That is correct. If somebody disagrees with an AfD outcome for whatever reason, the correct response is to seek deletion review, not file another AfD.  Sandstein  18:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
      • This just really does prove that non-admins are not wanted to close AFD's, or be involved at all, that thier descions are constantly questioned. Would this have happened to an Admin, no. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 19:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Tofuwitch don't be discouraged by this. As you can see most of the admins commenting here (I am not one) are not discouraging you. Quite the opposite, the appear to agree that the actions of Shadowjams were inappropriate and that there is no reason why these closures shouldn't be treated like others are. Just take this as a learning experience. Some people get prickly about rules and processes so its best to follow them strictly. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, it was Shadowjams and Cert, but this should not have been made a big deal, now I look like an Idiot on my talk page, and here. Wasn't there another way to go about this? Now I am bieng questioned about why I closed those AFD's....Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
            • From my understanding Uncle G is correct about admins also being questioned constantly by others about their closes on their talk page, however they are probably not usually brought here for it. I agree that you have a fair gripe there. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
        • On the contrary, questioning of decisions happens to closing administrators regularly. Go and watch User talk:Ron Ritzman or indeed User talk:Cirt for a month. Uncle G (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Tofutwitch... Closing AfDs is not easy. You only have a few months of active editing under your belt, and very little involvement in the administrative areas of the project other than vandalism patrol. Our policy and practices are somewhat subtle. As it says on the NAC essay, if someone challenges your closure, take it to just mean that the issues involved were more subtle than they seemed. Gigs (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I've read WP:NAC. All of my closures have been challenged, and all have been re-closed by Scott Mac. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
        • As a former adminstrator who used to close AFDs on a regular basis, I don't think it's the end of the world if an AFD was closed 2 hours early, it wouldn't make a difference other then some no consensus AFDs. Tofuwitch did right in closing them following the adminstrators. You guys are taking policy too far. Secret ^account 21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Did anyone else notice that the original Kye Allums AfD was listed by Shadowjams on November 4th. He then relisted it earlier today, where it was closed by The Wordsmith as a procedural keep. Shadowjams then relisted it again a mere two hours later, which was nine minutes after The Wordsmith closed the previous one. This seems to be extremely pointy and I see it to be a major issue. Silverseren^C 23:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed. I did all of those nominations in roughly the same time period, before ever looking back here. Frankly I thought that both closures were wildly inappropriate and that relisting them as opposed to reopening them was the less disruptive and pointey option. I'm actually very surprised that my relistings have been met with this response; I understood the first closes as inappropriate closures. I understood, and still think it's correct, that DRV is for procedurally correct closes (uncontroversial non admin closures and proper closures).
  Because I didn't anticipate that this would be such an issue, I'll refrain from taking any more actions on those nominations. Ironically I think Tofutwitch11 and I both find ourselves in the position of having acted in good faith, perhaps too boldly. Shadowjams (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• DRV is of course for any dispute you have with the closure of an AfD, or else my reading comprehension is not what it used to be. Also you ought to be aware of the fact that guidelines here do in fact specifically allow non-admin closures, and I don't mean just that essay you keep referring to. See WP:NACD for instance. I fail to see any basis for your claim that the closures were "wildly inappropriate". Can you articulate a policy basis for this please?Griswaldo (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have anything further to say in this discussion. We have established what I did, and I now know. Thanks for your help, see ya'll round. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 01:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible solution?

My take on early closure: I see a number of good points, but some comments made by Tofutwitch11 hit home. As I see it:

• Some editors would like to participate in the community by closing AfDs (can we all agree this is a good thing)?
• Non-admins are permitted to close AfDs, but only non-controversial ones.
• The current seven day "rule" is treated as a guideline, rather than a hard-and-fast absolute rule

I think this leads to the following situation: a non-admin sees an AfD close to the closure time, reads the support and oppose, concludes that, while it is not unanimous, the consensus is clear, works out in their head or in writing a close statement, then, just before the seven days expires, someone else swoops in and does the close. Rinse, repeat, and the non-admin realizes that the AfD still open after seven days are controversial, so the only way to close an AfD is to jump the gun a bit, just like everyone else.

If I've summarized the problem, I see a relatively straightforward solution: At some time (to be determined) prior to the close time, an editor can "sign up" to do the close.

That's it, other than picking a sign up time, deciding how to signify that one wishes to close it, and a couple minor details.

The person who has volunteered to close it still waits the seven days, but no one else is permitted to do the close. There is no longer any need to jump the gun. (The details- if someone signs up, and then is unavailable at close time, we should specify some window of time, e.g. four hours, such that if the editor signing up doesn't do the close, anyone else can do it.--SPhilbrickT 14:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This might be a good solution, however it might also create even more drama, and I'm thinking precisely about the original concern brought here, which was not a timing issue but simply a "non-admin" issue. Say a non-admin "signs up" to do this, and someone doesn't want a non-admin close because they are worried that it is less authoritative (see the original thread posting by Cirt and responses by Scott Mac above). That editor sees the "sign up" and starts to lobby against the non-admin performing the procedure, either here or at the non-admin's talk page. Or any user not happy with the developing consensus starts to complain about the proposed non-admin closure, saying that they wont accept such a close and demanding an admin close. As much as I wish people would not get so upset over this issue, I think that the best solution may simply be to hold people to a stricter procedure. If an entry snows keep that's one thing, but if it is a normal AfD maybe we ought to ask everyone to keep to 7 days from now on. Patience is a virtue we are often sorely lacking around here. I do not think that Tofutwitch11 was wrong, because he was acting out of the convention he saw practiced by admins, but maybe we ought to seek a stricter convention of waiting for 7 days. That way non-admin's wont get into this pickle, and no one will complain about early closes of any kind.Griswaldo (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• What is it about Non-Admins closing AFD's that people are against? Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 19:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a fan. Seems like classic WP:CREEP. In addition I see a) confusion and argument arising from uncertainty over who can close what and when b) disagreement by AFD commentors/nominators if they see a non-admin "signing up to close" c) problems with people signing up and not coming back to close (or only being able to get back to close many hours after the AFD "ends"). It's a positive suggestion, for sure, but I don't see it as being practical to implement. Really, people need to be chastised if they treat NAC any differently to an AC; I think the best idea would be to discourage the note of "non admin closure" used by many, plus encouraging non-admin closers to stand by their decision and avoid undermining themselves (as I often see) with phrasing such as "NAC: admins feel free to re-nom or re-pen" etc. We should work towards a system where any editor of good standing can close any AFD debate without prejudice - apart from deletes, and only then because of a technical inability to implement the close outcome. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

@Griswaldo - you correctly note the concern about non-admin closures, but I think my solution reduces the problem, as opposed to adding to it. Everyone is in agreement, I believe, that a non-admin closure of a controversial AfD is problematic. A non-admin closure an hour early, or an hour late is still a problem, so enforcing the seven day rule by itself does nothing to solve that problem. Of course, the problem is the non-objective metric of what constitutes a non-controversial AfD. If a non-admin see eight supports and two opposes, but thinks the opposes sound on the fence, they may conclude this is non-controversial. By "signing" up to do the closure, they provide some time for someone else to come along and say, hold on, two opposes is too many to count as non-controversial. Drama ensures if we allow this to turn into a mini-debate. Drama does not ensue if we simply state, a la prod, that any dissent (other than article editor) is compelling. If anyone says, "I don't see this as non-controversial" leave it to an admin. That reduces the drama of an non-admin making the close, and sending it to DR with both a non-admin close and an early close, neither of which speak to the merits of the close.--SPhilbrickT 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't really a problem that isn't covered by Do not bite the newcomers. You don't need an admin bit to close a deletion discussion that doesn't require use of that bit, and any closure you make as a non-admin can be reverted without much fuss so it's not a hassle at all. As somebody above mentioned we should beware of instruction creep, and the instructions suggested above are ridiculous and pointless. In particular, further seeking to restrict the scope of action of Wikipedians is not a solution, it would only cause more problems of the kind we saw here where experienced editors interpreted an essay as if it were policy and ignored our long-established policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Even now I see it being ignored. -TS 15:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we should not be allowing newcomers to non-admin-close AFDs. That being said, non-admin closures are made based on the presumption that the non-admin who closes said AFD is clueful enough to close them. Personally, I support the status quo and current practice (back in the day, about 2 or so years ago, WP:SNOW/WP:SK was decidedly looser in that you could close an AFD as keep at any time with 6 or more valid "keep" !votes without any other type of !vote in there), which if there is a clueful enough uninvolved non-admin out there to close an AFD, and the consensus for non-deletion is clear, then let the non-admin close it; if it may result in a deletion, then an admin should close it. –MuZemike 08:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons for allowing non-admin closures, is that if people intending to be admins have done a few of them, it provides an excellent way to judge their potential skills at an AfD. Examining the answers to hypothetical questions is not useless, but looking at actual work is much more reliable. (Needless to say, doing some non-admin closures and doing them wrong or in controversial circumstances will not held the case for adminship.) DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Uw-3block

There's a discussion at WT:UTM#Merge uw-block templates for edit warring and 3RR on whether to redirect Template:Uw-3block to Template:Uw-ewblock. Posting here because the templates are used by admins but don't have many watchers. Further input would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Range block possible?

As you may know, User:HalfShadow is being bothered by a vandal and a collection of socks Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jameswhatson. I don't know how to calculate a range block. We do know two of his IP addresses, they are 86.14.144.220 and 86.14.128.80. Is there a possibility of a range block here? Thanks ---Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Other IPs used by this vandal in the last two months are 86.14.147.151 and 86.14.149.188 and 86.14.132.79. According to Toolserver the range is 86.14.128.0/19 (up to 8192 users would be blocked). The stats show about eight non-vandal users have edited in that range plus there is one user who logs on from that range that would presumably not be affected. Could some more experienced people give some feedback here and help decide if this range block is worth doing? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I usually don't like rangeblocking British IPs for long periods of time (at most a couple hours). They're for the most part highly dynamic, much larger range than you'd expect and have a high chance of collateral damage. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I guess we can continue to block manually. --Diannaa ^(Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

request for comment on an issue with a school project

Hi all, there is currently an ongoing SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lalora6 A short background is that a large number of newly registered users were making up to around 10 edits each on medical related articles. The vast majority of these edits were unconstructive. Many have now been blocked. It has turned out that the users involved had been asked to make the edits by their course teacher. The reason I am notifying you is there is no consensus on what to do about this situation. The teacher wants his students to be allowed to continue with the assignment, however several users are concerned that this will just lead to further poorly formatted and unconstructive edits. I therefore request interested users to comment at the SPI page. Best regards Jdrewitt (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the whole project appears to have been done in good faith. The awkward edits showing incorrect sourcing and lack of language skills were unacceptable, but well-meant. For diffs of the edits, see all the contribs of all the now-blocked accounts listed in the SPI. --Hordaland (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes sorry, I should have made it clear, the assignment is in good faith, but has required considerable effort by established users to fix the students contributions, ultimately leading to the blocks. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I posted at talk:WikiProject_Medicine a list of new editors adding poor quality content to mental health articles. Over the next few days, the list grew and none responded to comments on their talk pages, reversion edit summaries or article talk pages. On the 10th November, Looie496, blocked all but one and opened an SPI. The editors all seemed to based at Dublin City University, so after a week I rang and spoke to the teacher who had set Wikipedia editing as one of several options for course work.

I have pointed him to a mini how-to-edit-health-related-content tutorial, and have offered to vet their edits before the students post. Whether that's a good solution to this situation will depend in part on my ability to recognise appropriate medical content. I'm confident I can but I wouldn't mind hearing a second opinion from someone who's seen me edit.

I should add, I read most of the students' contributions, and all were good-faith attempts to improve the, encyclopedia, many were constructive, but almost all failed to cite properly - so couldn't be verified - and the expression was unclear in many cases.

Anthony (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would also be a good idea to apply WP:PENDING to a reasonable number of the articles of interest. Could the students agree to edit only a given set of articles for this assignment? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think applying pending changes would be a very good start, bearing in mind the students are usually always new users. Anthony has offered to vet the students edits before they post, I trust that his judgement would be sound but I'm not sure how the students will go about checking with him first. Bearing in mind most of the users seem unaquainted with how wikipedia works and the vast majority completely ignore their talk page messages. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Since we have established that this was done in good faith I'm curious as to why the accounts are all still blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lalora6. The edits were made in good faith but nevertheless were generally poorly formatted and lacked suitable citations, all had to be reverted. When other established users pointed out the students "mistakes" the students completely ignored their talk page messages and continued to edit in an unconstructive manner despite being warned. The investigation has confirmed that the students were instructed to make the edits by their course tutor and hence the accounts remain blocked until a suitable solution as to how to allow this project to continue is agreed. Clearly we would all like the accounts to be unblocked ASAP but personally I think we should implement pending changes and template:invitation to edit beforehand. I have requested from the tutor a list of articles/subjects his students will be editing which will allow us to implement a system to review the students revisions.Jdrewitt (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that the tutor agrees that the blocks were necessary but has requested the accounts be unblocked on monday (tomorrow). Jdrewitt (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, there doesn't seem to be a consensus that tomorrow is ok. I'm happy to unblock, but I'd like a consensus about when. Dougweller (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have compiled a list here of all the articles edited by the blocked users. As a bare minimum I think these articles should be subject to the recent changes protocol. Most of these articles were edited multiple times by multiple users, however there are some unique cases. I have asked the course tutor (via his talk page and in the SPI page) for a complete list of the articles his students will be editing but have not yet received a reply. I also think that for this project to be successful the tutor should really set up a project on Wikipedia:School and university projects. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Addressing your point that you're not sure the students will check with me before inserting their edits, I too can't be sure, but I'm pretty sure if their teacher tells them to take their edits to me, rather than insert them in an article, they'll take them to me. I think it's a high enough likelihood to justify unblocking, without deploying pending changes. 13:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Anthony (talk)

Pending changes will help take the work load off you though. But I agree with unblocking for tomorrow as requested by the teacher and see how it goes.Jdrewitt (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

to clarify, isn't there current consensus not to apply pending changes to any article until the new procedure is developed and approved? (but to leave it on articles where it currently exists?) DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Though I have reviewer rights, I'd prefer not to have pending changes on the pages these students are editing. If they are submitting their edits to me, there will be no need. It is getting late. Unless there are any objections, could an admin please unblock the accounts listed at SPI? Anthony (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller has already unblocked all the accounts listed on the SPI page. Jdrewitt (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Aah. Thank you. I've removed the blocked notices from their user and talk pages. Anthony (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys for all your help around this issue and sorry for the inconvenience this whole episode has caused! Thanks also for unblocking the accounts. I have told students that poor editing will result in being blocked, so I'm reasonably confident that they'll stick to the right way of doing it from here on out.

I have told students that they could try contributing to any articles that have relevance to the course (which is on assessment in psychiatric nursing). So basically we're looking at all articles on mental health problems, suicide, risk assessment and nursing assessment. This has been a steep learning curve for me, so as the course draws to a close I am thinking that a more structured approach will work better next year. I think that giving student's a list of articles might be a better way of coming at it. Gerard Clinton (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

JDrewitt, thanks for the list of articles that you've drawn up that the students have been editing. I'll ask anyone who is planning edits outside of that list to notify me so that I can pass the info onto you. As I was saying, from here on out I think that a defined list of pages to edit makes things run more smoothly all round. Gerard Clinton (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've cut and pasted the above comments from the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lalora6 page as suggested by Anthony. Gerard Clinton (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

UAA

Resolved

 – All done now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Just informing you of a UAA backlog that needs to be cleaned. Thanks. It's... MR BERTY! ^talk/_stalk 07:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I know I touched a couple yesterday, but others have stepped in and done the rest. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN attention

In eight hours I have pulled two articles from ITN: 2010 Colombia floods as being plagiarism and Malagasy constitutional referendum, 2010 for being sourced largely to a publication of the Chinese Communist Party (it was later restored after consensus was that the sourcing was ok (!)). Some more admin attention on ITN would be appreciated in the short-term, it is even more vulnerable than DYK. I think we have to consider ITN in the long-term as well (see User:Mkativerata#Mini-essay on ITN. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're looking for a problem where there isn't one, to be frank. ITN works on consensus and has way more sets of eyes, including admin eyes. No doubt the copyvio is a concern, and the user's contribution history should be searched for others. But on the other point, you're showing your own biases against Xinhua (which is really what the source was, not some Commie Party paper) more than anything, imo. There is no issue here. StrPby (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If I had a "bias" I wouldn't have put it back up. I don't know where wikipedia is going if it accepts tightly state-controlled news outlets as acceptable substantial sources for main page-linked articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Its reliable enough for most purposes, just like we use Foxnews, The Gaurdian, The Daily Mail, all the british papers really. They are reliable enough for what they report and its an absurd reason to pull an article from the ITN The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry resident, are you implying that all British papers are "tightly state-controlled news outlets"? That's news to me. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol not really, merely pointing out bias in a source does not inhibit us utilizing it as a source. if this was about Falun Gong or Tiananmen square massacre I might agree with Mkativerata. I am not fan of communism but 99% of the time chinese news sources are reliable as any. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. The article seems to have been a copyvio from the very beginning. We need to make sure that the ITN admins are checking for this before posting, too. I'm not a big fan of working with the main page (too much work too fast :P) but I'm sure this is not the first time we've had major plagiarism incidents there. I agree that the sources aren't a big deal, though, unless the topic is controversial. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WIth the Columbian Floods article, We have a young editor who misunderstood policy as evidenced Mkativerat's talkpage. We have already had to assist in activating parts of WP:YOUNG#Your safety and security by oversighting a large amount of personal info he shared on his "about me" page . I think this editor needs a mentor to help supervise his contributions and assist in the nuances of Wikipedia policy. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh ... education must suck these days if children don't even understand what plagiarism is. This is also why I get very frustrated with most young editors—it takes especially long for them to get much clue. Ah, well, nothing I can do about it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I've just blocked this one for 48 hours for continued violations... --Mkativerata (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC/U

A Request for Comment has been opened regarding the conduct of User:YellowMonkey with regards to blocking and failure to respond to community concerns. Input from both involved and uninvolved editors and administrators is welcome. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't participate in RFCs much but from what I've seen and even from that RFC I believe I'm supposed to post to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey if I have any comments that aren't endorsements on any of the outside views? However the talk page doesn't exist and I can't create it as a non-admin Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've created the page for you. Feel free to change the header if you wish. Mjroots (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sark

A month ago, I fully protected the Sark article due to an edit war between Man vyi (talk · contribs) and La.coupee (talk · contribs). I did not block either editor as I wanted them to work out the issue between themselves. Although there was some discussion at talk:Sark, no concrete agreement has been made between them.

Should the article remain locked until the issue has been settled, or is it now time to unlock it, with a note in the edit summary that further edit warring will be dealt with by blocking? Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

La.coupee and Man vyi informed. Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Unlock and warn the two disputing editors that since they have not taken the opportunity to resolve their differences in the meantime that any edit warring will incur stiff sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to say the same thing as LessHeard vanU. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've unlocked the article, and posted on the talk page that the edit war must not continue. Mjroots (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone have a pronto look please

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

I am not sure where this should go, but having regard to the urgency of it, think sysops should make the decision here, before Passionless and/or I get banned for reverting. Basically, regarding the Korean shelling incident today, a report has been developing on Portal:Current Events. We have ended up with two versions, mine which I believe is a good rundown on the incident, and it is FULLY referenced. The second version, by User:Passionless is in my opinion does not present the gravity of the situation regarding internationl response/possible consequences.

Ok, my version is :

• • Shelling of Yeonpyeong:
  • The world appealed for calm after North Korea shelled Yeonpyeong island in South Korea at 14:34 local time, killing two marines. North Korea said it was responding to South Korea shelling close to its border during military drills. It is one of the most serious clashes since the end of the Korean War. (The Guardian) (YTN Television) (BBC) (Yonhap) (China Daily)
  • International outrage and condemnation follows the shelling, and US President Obama is reported to be calling South Korea's president today to express solidarity with his country. o(Los Angeles Times) (The Sun) (Taipei Times)

Passionless replaces this with:

• Shelling of Yeonpyeong:
  • North Korea shells Yeonpyeong island,South Korea at 14:34 local time in response to South Korean shelling close to the North Korean border during military drills. The North's shelling kills two marines and prompts a military response by the South in one of the most serious clashes since the end of the Korean War. (YTN Television) (BBC) (Yonhap) (China Daily)
  • Many nations quickly offer their comments on the events. (The Sun)

and his most recent edit summary says the following "'the world outrage' is merely an opinionated headline with no factual backing and obama calling someone is not of International interest, therefore is not to be posted here as stated in the guidelines) ".

I've tried to do my bit to make Wikipedia look like a responsible record of fact, showing the gravity of the incident, but I believe Passionless is out of his depth here. Could a sysop visit a few media outlets and see how the world is treating this incident seriously, and then decide which version should be used in the portal. Naturally, it needs to be resolved as quickly as possible because this portal records events as they happen/evolve. 125.239.205.98 (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• This noticeboard is not for content disputes. Suggest you re-read over the suggested procedures at WP:NPOV and WP:DR. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 22:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:PD-USGov-DOE Laboratory image use

A discussion has shown that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory images aren't PD. There are roughly 90 images incorrectly licensed under {{PD-USGov-DOE}} or similar licenses. In addition, other images from non-free labratories listed at Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE also have quite a few images uploaded under the wrong license. Sandia for example has at least 100. There are about a dozen laboratories listed...their licensing would need to be checked. In all, there may more than a thousand images(though I haven't checked them all). These images should either be deleted, a large OTRS ticket file, the template modified, or quite a few non-free image use rationales created.

Any thoughts as to how this should be handled?Smallman12q (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

First, make a list. Then, go through and find those that fall under the NFCC. Then, contact the labs to see what they think about granting permission. Lastly, do one mass FfD/PUF for the rest. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There are at least 600 images, so I don't intend to make the list myself. Perhaps a willing admin would.Smallman12q (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite know how an admin could do it any quicker, but I'll leave this open to see if someone volunteers. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

IDK if this will work, but maybe someone with Toolserver access could compile a list of all images in the template's category whose file pages also say the words or link to the non-free laboratories listed at Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's more complex than "LLNL not DOE" - some LLNL work was for hire for the DOE and published by the DOE into the public domain, or DOE republished without any clue as to origin lab and copyright (DOE is better now, but in the old days...).

I am going to contact the PAO staff at LLNL and ask them about image licensing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I could write a script that would list all the files containing "Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory" or their website and the other labs. But first, it's probably best if we could get the WMF legal counsel to comment. Unfortunately, the post seems vacant atm.Smallman12q (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Mike Godwin should still be available for comment, I think. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I wrote him some time back about a copyright problem, and although Mike has always been responsive he did not return my letter. (I'm talking weeks.) User:Philippe (WMF) put me in touch with an associate counsel. Of course, it's always possible that my letter to Mike went astray, but I didn't want to bug him about it just in case. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Godwin hasn't edited since October. Perhaps this should be moved to WP:AN/I?Smallman12q (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I recall the Foundation saying he would be with the project for a short time after his departure, but as his userpage email has been changed to a personal address, I suppose he's not with us at all anymore :( /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It did sound like one of those departures under not so good terms. I would not count on help from that avenue.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

-I've left a note at User talk:WMF Legal.Smallman12q (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected image on the Main Page Part IX

"WP:WHACK" redirects here. You may be looking for WP:Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole (WP:WHAC).

Not to be confused with Cod throwing.

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.

To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

for letting File:Leptecophylla juniperina 2.jpg reach the main page unprotected. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we really up to IX already? How long did it take us to get there? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Its probably somewhere between XII and XV I just dont post every time. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the bot that was supposed to be dealing with this? --Chris 06:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the change of procedure that was suppose to deal with this? Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

IP vandalism from Vietnam

I have found two pages that have a bunch of IPs from Vietnam reverting stuff [32] and [33]. Both pages are currently semi protected. Not sure if anything further need doing to prevent further problems? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll find more from the same user(s) at Screw, Vignette (road tax), Template:Command & Conquer series, and various pages about Fallout (video game), as well as a number of other random pages. It's quite likely the origin is an open proxy on the network, but it's a fairly big network to rangeblock. Liberal semi-protection of the main target pages is probably the way to go. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, I've opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lorielpid regarding the above. RashersTierney (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked proxy problem

At User talk:Bowen9314 there is an unblock request relating to an open proxy which has been blocked since July 2007. I don't know much about open proxies, so I wonder if someone who does can deal with this. I was tempted to grant the user IP block exemption, but thought it better to ask for help. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, IP unblocked. Requests like this are often stale and excessively long blocks of dynamic IPs, and in such cases even if you grant IPBE, please list the IP somewhere like here or WP:OP so it can be rechecked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Out of process deletions by User:DragonflySixtyseven

Today, basically by chance, I came across one of the pages deleted by admin User:DragonflySixtyseven with a pretty strange deletion summary. After looking up DS's deletion log for the last few days, it appears, at least on the surface, that this admin is engaged in persistent and systematic violations of the deletion process. My understanding of WP:DEL and is that when a particular page is deleted, the deletion summary needs to either give a link to a relevant XfD discussion or to specify an applicable CSD criterion or an expired prod. As far as I can tell, NONE of the deletions done by DS in the last few days satisfy this requirement. In some cases one could perhaps interpret some of his deletion summaries as implicitly applying a particular CSD criterion (e.g. for User:Davidkaluba the deletion summary is given as overly promotional, which could be read as CSD G11), but a great many of DS's deletions cannot be read even in this way. Here are a few examples from the last couple of days:

• Sidney Vien deleted with the deletion summary given as the usual. What the hey??
• Bradly T. Smith - again the usual
• User:Amanda.hernandez - deleted with the summary for user's own good. Excuse me! Which CSD criterion are you applying here? If not CSD, why was the page deleted without an MfD nomination??
• Talk:Kay One discography - deleted with the summary "not a forum". Again, that is not a valid CSD criterion and there was no AfD listing for the page (in fact the article itself still exists). In cases of soapboxing/discussion forum type posts at talk pages, those posts should be removed (and, in more extreme cases, REVDEL-ed). However, deleting the talk page itself is inappropriate under such circumstances: such a deletion also removes project tags and possibly useful page history of a given talk page.
• Salah Addin - deleted as unverifiable. What the heck??! If some CSD criterion was used here (but it is rather unclear which one it might have been), that criterion should have been specified; otherwise the article should have been AfDed or PRODDed. But a single admin deleting an entry with NO discussion as "unverifiable" is not an acceptable action.
• Zachariah Davis - deleted with the summary shoutout. What the hey??
• User:Nexco - deleted with the summary inappropriate use of userpage. Again, what is the deal here? Where is the MfD? If not, which CSD criterion was used?
• User:Elliott5290/Jesse Pequeno - also deleted with the summary inappropriate use of userpage.
• User:Shubhendu kumar tripathi - deleted with the summary the usual. What the heck??
• Talk:Hanumanapura - delete with summary not a forum.
• Talk:Jadoo TV - delete with the summary ‎ "attempt to communicate". What the hell??
• Talk:Dollywood Express - again deleted as "attempt to communicate".
• Talk:The Boy Who Never - ‎ again attempt to communicate
• Talk:Dual sovereignty doctrine - again ‎ "attempt to communicate"
• California Browngrass Music ‎ - delete with the summary "seems to be a neologism". I don't know what it "seemed" to DS, but if no CSD criterion was applicable, this should have been listed for an AfD, not deleted unilaterally, with no discussion.
• User:Karamegbarya - ‎ the usual
• User:Theamberandizzyshow ‎ - the usual
• James J. Lyons Jr. - deleted as ‎"inappropriate. Start over". What in the world does that mean??

And so on, many more like this. I cannot see the deleted articles/pages, but I think that, at the very least, the deletion summaries are quite inadequate, and, as it appears, quite a few of these pages should not have been deleted (such as various article talk pages) or should not have been deleted without an appropriate XfD discussion. In any event, I think some admin/admins need to take a look at the deletion log and see if some of this stuff needs to be restored. Given the large number of pages involved, I am bringing it here rather than at DRV. Nsk92 (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The deleted revisions of the first two and the second to last and third to last (the "the usual"s) have been oversighted, so there is probably a reason to use a nondescriptive deletion summary. The third one is an apparently 14-year-old writing about themselves (including date of birth, location, etc.) and is proper per WP:CHILD. No comments on the others. T. Canens (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I know in the past I have deleted pages with inappropriate content (generally under WP:CHILD) with a vague edit summary, so as not to draw attention to it. Requests for oversight says "Delete or revert the relevant revision/s first (but only if it will not draw undue attention), which removes the material from public view until oversighted and stops it being perpetuated in future edits. Don't use words like "awaiting oversight". Use a generic description/edit summary." Although I don't want to put words into DF67's mouth, I can imagine a similar motive for at least some of these. I had a look at some of the deleted pages, and haven't seen anything egregious so far. Also, I was wondering if asking the editor about these deletions first might have been enlightening? --Kateshortforbob _talk 14:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. As I understand it, in cases where personal identifiable information is provided inappropriately, the appropriate standard option is REVDEL rather than page deletion. WP:CHILD is an essay, not a policy. While I personally think that it is an extremely bad idea for underage editors to provide personal identifiable information about themselves, I am not aware of actual policies or guidelines prohibiting such practices. In any event, more informative and precise deletion summaries need to be provided as a rule, particularly for dealing with the situations where a given page is re-created. I could understand when an admin occasionally uses oblique and non-standard deletion summaries, but here essentially all deletion summaries (for all deletions, not just the ones I listed above) are of this nature. That is not appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Disclosure of non-public personal information has been an oversight criterion for a very long time (it is actually the first oversight criterion developed); in the case of minors, even if self-disclosed, this has been standard since review of tool use was carried out once suppression tools became available. An admin can revdelete them, preferably with a relatively vague summary, and then notify an oversighter to do the rest. As one of the oversighters DragonflySixtyseven notifies of such pages on a regular basis, I can say that he is correct in such actions about 98% of the time (that is, that the edit/page meets oversight criteria); those that don't will meet revdelete criteria. In the past 18 months, I don't think I've once had to undelete any of his actions in this area, which is a pretty remarkable record given the fact that he is one of the very, very few users who reviews new non-article pages. Risker (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify deletions marked as "attempt to communicate" - this is a valid criteria under A3 which includes "attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title". It probably should be linked by the admin when deleting via the drop down, but this would be the reason behind those on the list. Camw (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I know DF67 does a lot of digging for BLP violations so I'd guess the first two ("the usual") were flagrant BLP vios, especially if they've been oversighted. I haven't got time to check the rest at the moment, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Talk:Kay One discography - consists of a single deleted edit that reads, in its entirety, "Berlins most wanted kollabo album".
• Zachariah Davis - consists of the single word "stud".
• User:Nexco - is an advert from a company.
• User:Elliott5290/Jesse Pequeno - I'm not sure what this is. Seems to be some nonsense and is probably G1-able.
• User:Shubhendu kumar tripathi - Again, oversighted revision.
• Talk:Hanumanapura - consists of a long essay from a single user that has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever.
• Talk:Jadoo TV - "IF SOME ONE KNOW HOW IS THE MANUFACTURER PLEASE LET ME KNOW OR SEND ME THE MAIL WHO IS MANUFACTURER OF THIS JADOO BOX."
• Talk:Dollywood Express - "BOAT Hill2010-Whistle DOLLYWOODEXPRESS#192"
• Talk:The Boy Who Never - "Don't delete this. I found something I needed so it is useful". Oddly enough, as far as I can see that article has never been tagged for deletion.
• Talk:Dual sovereignty doctrine - "Galloway 9th Grade Poli-Sci. You are here because you didn't do your homework last night. Sucks to be you."

IMO all the talk pages listed above are deletable under G6. There is nothing useful in the history (project banners or whatever). That leaves:

• Salah Addin
• California Browngrass Music
• James J. Lyons Jr.

I can see why those were deleted, but yes, these three appear to be out of process. T. Canens (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into these. My main point is that we should not have to engage in mind-reading. If a particular CSD criterion is used (such as G1 or G6), it needs to be specified explicitly by the deleting admin rather than by an oblique the usual or something equally cryptic. This is necessary both in the case where a page deletion is being contested at DRV and if a page is re-created later. Nsk92 (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nsk92, did you ask DragonflySixtyseven about these deletions? I'm not seeing your question on his talk page, unless you did it by e-mail? I'm also slightly concerned that "OMG bad deletion summaries" is a far less important question that "were the deletions reasonable". In my experience, Df67 does a lot of excellent BLP checking. I really don't want us to be more concerned with him ticking the boxes, than with the dreadful BLPs he often removes for us. Is there evidence that, in using the wide admin discretion on BLPs, that he's behaving unreasonable? Again Nsk92 before coming to this "process-driven drama-board" did you do any research or speak to this very approachable admin?--Scott Mac 14:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• • No, I did not speak to DS first, primarily because all of the deletion log summaries appeared to be non-standard rather than just a few. Like I said, using an occasional oblique/non-standard deletion summary is fine, but doing it all the time is not acceptable, whatever the motives are. This is 2010, not 2003, and wild west cowboy approach to the deletion process is not an acceptable option. We do have a well developed deletion process (PROD, AfD, CSD, DRV, etc) for a reason. In particular, it allows for orderly challenges to deletions and lets everybody (not just the admin who deleted the page) understand what happened and why it was deleted. It also makes it easier to spot a bad deletion where an incorrect call was made. It is not too much to ask for the admins to provide (with a few exceptions) clear and precise deletion summaries. In fact, as far as I know, every other admin does provide such precise summaries and I have never seem a deletion log like that of DS. Nsk92 (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:DEL is flawed, although I'm perfectly willing to grant that you have the best of intentions. Process is important, yes, but it is not all-important. I'll give you a brief summary of some of my custom deletion rationales.

1. "Attempt to communicate" = using a talk page as an attempt to communicate with the subject of that talkpage.
2. "For user's own good" = this is material which, I judge, would very soon come back to haunt that user (who has most likely left Wikipedia after 10 minutes of giggling on userspace) and could potentially ruin their life - the sort of material which OTRS would get e-mails about, asking that it please please be taken down from wikimirrors (which of course we can't do). Any user who disagrees with me about my judgment of something as being 'for their own good' is welcome to argue the point with me and restore the material in question. Mostly it's teenagers who're not quite young enough to be covered by WP:CHILD, but who're being quite foolish anyway.
3. "Not a forum" - talkpages are not to be used as forums for general discussion of the subject, otherwise <talk:Popular Movie In Franchise> would be full of people speculating about the next movie, etc. A talkpage which does not pertain to the article itself gets deleted. If there's any useful history, I let the whole thing stay, but a talkpage for Teen Celebrity that says "Teen Celebrity is so attractive", or a talkpage for Popular Band that says "I loved their last album", and nothing else... no. It sets a bad precedent. I could create boilerplate talkpages to replace the wholly inappropriate material, but I'm not obliged to. If you want boilerplate talkpages there, you do it.
4. "Inappropriate. Start over." - this particular one began as an election ad urging that people vote for Mr Lyons. Eventually, the fact that Mr Lyons won was added to the article, at the very end. This is inappropriate. A genuine article can be written about Mr Lyons -- since he won, he meets notability criteria -- but it will have to be done from scratch. The contributor will have to start over.
5. "Shoutout" - 'hey my buddy ALVIN FAKENAME IN MISTER WURLITZER'S ENGLISH CLASS I'M SAYING HI TO YOU!!! HI ALVIN HI HI HI! ISN'T THIS COOL!", or similarl material that exists solely to put someone's name in Wikipedia. Have you really never heard the phrase "give a shout-out to" ?
6. "Seems to be a neologism" - go read Wikipedia:MADEUP. That doesn't quite cover this: Google indicates that the phrase exists separately from Wikipedia. Let's see, there's.... lots of wikimirrors and content scrapers, and... uh... ah, one mention of a performer saying that this is what he calls his music style, and... oh, Henry Rollins mentioned it on the radio, once - when saying that the aforementioned performer "sent me a free copy of his CD".
7. "Inappropriate use of userpage" - these are mostly promotional things for businesses, bands, low-level political candidates. Sometimes it's clubs attempting to use Wikipedia as a free webhost. Go read these guidelines; I'm quite careful about applying them.
8. "Unverifiable" is a less hostile way of saying "blatant hoax".

Incidentally, I'm probably going to have to revdel the earlier version of this section, specifically because you've drawn attention to a lot of material that has been oversighted. DS (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The process is not all-important but it is quite important, particularly given that this is 2010, not 2003. It may very well be that in each of the above cases there was a perfectly applicable CSD criterion. In that case you should have specified that criterion directly, just like all other admins do. Why aren't you doing that? Specifying a particular CSD criterion (and in fact making it clear that a page was deleted under CSD provisions rather than for some other reason) makes it much more clear to everybody (the page's creator and other users looking at the log) why a given page was deleted and allows for an orderly way of appealing a deletion. It also gives much better guidance to the user(s) who created the page than a cryptic "as usual"; when a specific CSD criterion is specified, the page creator will know precisely what was wrong, without having to guess or ask, and it makes it easier for that user to create a better page, avoiding the problems that the old page had. This is particularly helpful for new users. Nsk92 (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just as a point; there is no requirement in any of the guidelines or policy to include the CSD criteria/link (in fact, I can't see it even advised anywhere). Other admins do it, possibly, because Twinkle fills it in for them (just a guess...) in that format. Nsk92, you could have had this discussion on the users talk page - bringing it here straight off bat when nothing wrong appears to have occurred is disappointing to see. If your advice is for DragonflySixtyseven to link to CSD criteria, sure, why not suggest it to him. But if this is to be required I think you'll have to open a discussion on the admin deletion process page. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I spoke to him about the reason I use the codes in 2007, when he approached me to tell me that he thought I was not being rigorous enough in my speedies. I have a pretty poor memory, but I was so startled by his telling me that "You don't have to use the code-numbers in the Speedy criteria - I suggest you read my deletion log to see some example rationales" that I've never forgotten it. :) Using them just seemed to me like obviously a good idea, and I guess I still think so. Because it stood out in my mind, this note at Dcoetzee's talk page also caught my eye in 2009. User:Dcoetzee asked him to use the codes at that time, but I don't know if there was ever any response. User:DragonflySixtyseven does a lot of good work, I know, but I would really encourage him to consider using the pulldown menu on speedies so that everyone can see that the articles are deleted under valid rationale...including the article creators who can follow the links and read the criteria as Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? advises them to do. It's easy, and there are good reasons for doing it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nsk92, did you raise this question with DragonflySixtyseven before coming here? Your only edits to their talkpage appear to be the AN notice to this discussion, and an unrelated complaint two years ago. On cursory examination, I would endorse each of these deletions at DRV, often for being irretrievably promotional. It seems that DragonflySixtyseven, except in the oversight cases mentioned above, is giving rationales fully in line with the CSD criteria. I do not think that it is required to link the criteria in the deletion summary so long as the reasoning is clear; arguably, providing custom reasons (again excepting vagueness pending oversight) shows greater depth of consideration than simply clicking the drop box. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is very much the norm and is expected for the deleting admin to provide a precise deletion summary (with rare exceptions), with a specific CSD criterion (or at least explaining clearly that a page is being deleted per CSD and not on some other grounds). As far as I know, everybody else does that. Like I said, I have never seen a deletion log like that of DS. Let me repeat the basic reasons for specifying a precise CSD criterion in the deletion summary:

• It lets the page-creator and other users looking at the log know more precisely what happened and why a page was deleted. This helps both with the appeal process at DRV and with creating a better version of the deleted page that avoids the problems that the deleted page had (this is particularly helpful for new users).
• It reduces the likelihood of making a mistake. Speedy deletion is a high precision process and should not be used lightly. For non-CSD cases we have various XfD venues where a discussion rather than a fast judgement by a single admin are necessary. In many cases a page that, in the opinion of a given admin, strongly deserves deletion, does not qualify for CSD. In such cases, the admin, no matter how strong his/her feelings are about the page, should not delete it outright but list it for an appropriate XfD. Giving a specific CSD criterion in the deletion summary forces the deleting admin to think more carefully and precisely about a particular page and helps to make a better decision about whether to delete the page under a CSD rubric or to list it for XfD. Nsk92 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nsk92, you're fighting the windmills here. Prominent ArbCom members have decided that in the name of the greater good, less transparency is better in some administrative areas. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe ArbCom (or its individual "prominent members") has the authority to re-define deletion policy. In any event, while I understand that there are some narrow sets of circumstances (e.g. related to oversight) where an oblique deletion summary is necessary and acceptable, this does not mean that it is acceptable to disregard the standard deletion practices in all cases. It is overwhelmingly the norm and the standard for all admins to specify which CSD criterion they are deleting a particular page under. If everybody else follows this practice, why doesn't DS? In DS' case, the relevant CSD criteria are never specified in deletion summaries and in fact the summaries do not even make it clear if a page was deleted under CSD provisions at all or if it was deleted on some other grounds. That's not acceptable. Nsk92 (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on there, Arbcom has nothing to do with this, and the person who seems to be trying to redefine the deletion policy, making use of ambiguous dropdown "reasons" mandatory, is you. There is not a requirement to use them (please see WP:BURO), they are often less useful than a specific deletion reason, and if your desire is to try to obtain community consensus to require their use, the place to do so is as an RFC on the talk page of the applicable policy, not this noticeboard. No policy has been violated. If people have issues with individual deletions, they know where DRV is, they know where the administrator's talk page is, and that is where they should be addressed. Perhaps of more value than having any of those discussions, though, would be for everyone in this thread to go and spend a couple of hours doing new page patrol (starting from the oldest unpatrolled articles and not skipping the other pages, where BLP violations are frequently identified) so that the burden of making all these decisions would not rest on the tiny number of administrators and editors who invest time in doing the new page patroll that improves the project rather than worrying that the right paperwork has not been done. Risker (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please. I was not the one who brought up ArbCom - I was responding to a somewhat cryptic comment of Tijfo098 who first mentioned ArbCom. And I am not inventing any policy here. It already is the overwhelmingly followed standard to specify the deletion reason as one of CSD/XFD/PROD. As far as I know, basically all other admins involved in deletion follow this practice as a matter of routine. Moreover Wikipedia:Deletion process does not list any other acceptable rubrics for deletion apart from CSD/XfD/PROD. Regarding DRV, one of my basic points is that in order to even bring a particular deletion to DRV one needs to know under which rubric (CSD/XfD/PROD) a particular page was deleted under, as there are different rules for appealing deletions under these different rubrics. For CSD/XfD/PROD there are well-defined standards and conventions for how they work and how to appeal them. If one just starts doing some sort of "general" deletions that are neither CSD nor XfD nor PROD, then we are back to the wild west era of 2002-2003, when IAR was the only rule. But Wikipedia is too big now for a wild west approach to work well. Nsk92 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that any of Salah Addin, California Browngrass Music and James J. Lyons Jr. would have survived AFD, and if the first is a hoax then far enough, but all three of these were deleted without informing the author, in two cases the author still has a redlinked talkpage and the third was redlinked until after they had queried the deletion. California Browngrass Music in particular reads to me as a goodfaith contribution, unreferenced and possible OR but not something to speedy and definitely not to be deleted without informing the author. ϢereSpielChequers 17:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It is a good point about notifications. I did not look into that earlier because I could not view the deleted pages and did not know who the page-creators were, but looking at DS' contrib record, I don't see any CSD notifications - so it appears that DS simply never informs the page's creator while performing a CSDesque deletion. With things like blatant hoaxes, patent nonsense, vandalism etc, I can see that it is OK to forgo notifications, but for G11 (blatant advertisement) and A7 cases notofications are certainly in order. Such pages are often created by good-faith inexperienced users unfamiliar with WP standards. Given a chance, many of these articles may be salvageable. Also, could someone check Ibrahim El Refai? It was deleted with the summary completely unreferenced. I am not sure what that one might have been eligible under - perhaps A7 or G3 (blatant hoax), but the explanation completely unreferenced is inadequate in any case. I don't know if this page was a BLP, but even for BLPs with no references with have a BLP-prod rather than summary deletion on the spot. Nsk92 (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a contested CSD tagged by someone else, a coatrack article about a supposed top secret elite commando battalion, and very likely a hoax. The subject supposedly died 30+ years ago, so not a BLP. In this case, he was the closing admin, and would not be required to make any notifications. Your request for further information about the deletion is entirely appropriate...but it should be addressed to the deleting administrator, not to this noticeboard. Risker (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, for the non-admins in the house: the speedy tag had been removed by User:Phil Bridger. Typically, we don't have closing admins when speedies are challenged by removal of the tag by somebody other than the creator; they are instead taken to AfD (per WP:DP). There are occasions when speedy deletion criteria clearly apply in spite of such tag removals, but the deletion summary isn't clear which criteria applied. We generally don't speedily delete articles as "completely unreferenced", largely because there is no provision for doing so in policy. We can delete clear hoaxes, but I think it's a better idea to say so in deletion summary. It can help avoid giving the sense that administrators have some extra authority to delete content outside of community-derived policy. (Nonadmins can still see the article as it existed here.) I would agree with User:Risker that there should have been conversation with User:DragonflySixtyseven over these matters, but there may well be need to discuss greater clarity in deletion summaries as a general practice at WT:CSD or WT:DP. Paperwork isn't all superfluous. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Risker: thanks for looking into Ibrahim El Refai. Based on what you say, the deletion should have been marked as G3 (blatant hoax) - then at least it would have been clear what happened. However, based on what Moonriddengirl writes above, it sounds like the speedy tag was contested (by Phil Bridger). After that happened, the article should have been sent to AfD, rather than summarily deleted. In fact, DS' deletion summary does not even make it clear if the deletion was done under WP:CSD. Regarding your last point: if it was just one article, I would certainly have simply asked the deleting admin directly. In this case there is a truck-load (looks like hundreds) of articles with inadequate deletion summaries; that's why I brought this matter here. Let me also stress another point: there is no way to appeal at DRV anything other than a deletion under CSD/XfD; plus there is a WP:REFUND for contested prods. And, as I noted above, Wikipedia:Deletion process does not list any other acceptable rubrics for deletion apart from CSD/XfD/PROD. The same is true for WP:DEL: in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Processes it lists CSD, XfD, PROD and copyvios (which procedurally is basically a part of CSD) as acceptable deletion processes and it does not mention any others. So my understanding is that both according to the policy and according to the overwhelmingly accepted convention, every proper deletion must be one of CSD, XfD, PROD. It is not too much to ask that admins clearly specify under which rubric of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Processes they are deleting a particular page. Everybody else (including you) seems to be doing this. Why doesn't DS? Nsk92 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if you think an administrator is habitually doing things wrong, it's still a good idea to begin by discussing it with him. He may see your point and change his approach; he may not. But it's a courtesy that's well worth taking time for, since it help keeps the project running as smoothly as possible without unnecessary uproar. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy to have this conversation move elsewhere. But one of the three examples I gave had been tagged for speedy deletion and the tag declined, the other two had not been tagged. I accept that if an admin is deleting articles tagged by others then they aren't necessarily going to notice if the tagger has failed to notify the author. But if an admin speedy deletes without an article being already tagged then they are the one who should be notifying the author, when as in some of these cases that author is a goodfaith newbie then I'm uncomfortable if the author just has their article disappear. ϢereSpielChequers 19:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just to note, I've opened a discussion at the deletion policy talk page. Please, let's keep that thread specific to the general question. I'm really hoping we can avoid getting distracted by questions of whose deletion summaries are really good and whose could use improvement. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to change my behaviors if I agree that there's something wrong: for instance, a while back I was deleting test pages with the simple rationale 'test'; it was pointed out to me that this can misleadingly imply that it was a test deletion instead of a test page. So now I actually say 'test page'. If you can convince me that I'm doing something wrong, I'll change it. DS (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

DS, let me explain again what I'd like to see you change in your practices. When you delete a page under WP:CSD, mention explicitly in the deletion summary that the deletion is done based on WP:CSD and mention the specific criterion being used. E.g. for a test page, mention G2; for blatant advertising, mention G11; for a hoax/vandalism, mention G3; etc. That way it will be clear to everyone looking at the deletion log exactly what happened. In addition, if a page is deleted under CSD (that is not after an expired prod or a closed XfD), it is customary to notify the page's creator, at least after the fact. In cases of vandalism/patent nonsense such a notification is not really necessary but for most other CSD cases it is more than just a pro forma requirement. Nsk92 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just one comment: Nsk92 is correct that this isn't 2003. Wikipedia is immensely much more popular now that it ever was, and as a result (as with any other major website today such as YouTube or Facebook), you are going to get people from the general public who are not going to have a clue about what Wikipedia is or how it works, or are otherwise, I hate to say it, morons (looks at the bored schoolkids or teenagers who surf and troll on the Internet without any parental supervision whatsoever). Combine that with a completely (for the most part) free-to-edit website and "OMG I can write whatever I want OMG! OMG! OMG! LOLOLOLOLOLLLLOL!", you're going to get a lot of crap in which DS67 deletes on a regular basis, as do I sometimes. Many of them do not know better, and I'd argue that does not need to haunt them for the rest of their days when they move on to (hopefully) bigger and better things. –MuZemike 20:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so most people seem to agree that (a) DS's work as an admin and oversighter is appreciated, (b) most of these deletions are OK but the reason for them should have been made more clear, (c) it would have been better to first ask DS directly before raising this here. But I'm still not clear about which process- or policy-based reason allows the speedy deletion of Salah Addin, California Browngrass Music and James J. Lyons Jr.. DS, if you could comment on that, we might avoid having to drag these through DRV.  Sandstein  22:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Without being glib: WP:IAR? DS is an extremely accomplished deletion admin - as such it seems reasonable to trust him to use IAR in the context of deletion with common sense, and leave the project the better for it. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(off topic) Agreeing with most of your above Sandstein, however exactly why do you think we need to "drag them through DRV"? Your dogmatic approach to WP is starting to get a little depressing, to say the least. My view is that you seem to think that "It wasn't deleted right so we'd better all pile on some more bureaucracy and delete it right". How very odd. Contest it over content not process. Pedro :  Chat  22:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that some good communication here could avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, in case the authors or others want the articles back, and might have avoided this discussion in the first place.  Sandstein  23:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

DS Would you be willing to inform the authors and explain why you have deleted their articles when you delete goodfaith articles such as Salah Addin, California Browngrass Music and James J. Lyons Jr.? ϢereSpielChequers 22:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but a trip through the reference at browngrass, might be enlightening for that at least. But the other two: salah looks like a slightly biased stub, and JJL looks a touch like self-promo. Though I'll admit to not having researched them much more thoroughly than looking at the deleted revisions,

That said, I'm not thrilled with the idea of calling someone before the community, listing a bunch of deletions not understood, only to find out that the majority were proper. Anyway, at this point, with so few that seem worth discussing, wouldn't the admin's talk page be the better venue at this point? - jc37 00:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The guy who wrote the article on Mr Lyons asked what he did wrong several days ago, and I carefully and politely explained to him how he can do a better job. If the other users actually come back to Wikipedia and ask what happened to their articles, then I will be pleased to explain. But I'm quite busy dealing with enormous backlogs that no one else seems to be interested in handling. DS (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, people are going to complain when backlog get dealt with, to the point in which they claim any effort to do so is disruptive; my guess is that attempts to deal with backlogs put many people out of their comfort zones. It's like what was said in The Shawshank Redemption – they "are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. After long enough, you get so you depend on 'em." –MuZemike 07:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion here between discomfort over addressing backlogs with discomfort over the methods used in addressing backlogs. I also put a lot of time into addressing enormous backlogs, but still believe that clarity in communication is helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Given that the admin interface makes it so simple to select a reason from the drop-down menu I must say I'm perplexed as to why an admin would instead opt to chronically write brief, vague descriptions instead. Whether the deletions were done properly or not I do think it is important in the vast majority of cases to provide a clear, policy based reason for a deletion. While pretty much every admin does this once in a while, it should not be the default procedure, and "the usual" is so unhelpful that even leaving it blank would be better. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just a comment on the overall comments. My understanding of summaries is to inform *anyone* who comes across them why whatever is being looked at is not there. Without pointing to any specific example I can say it is more helpful to come across a deleted page/file and have a link to a deletion discussion or a policy that lead to the deletion rather than a non descriptor in an edit summary. (And by that I mean to someone not involved needs to be able to see past the deleting admins inner mind) Admins can actually look behind the scenes - not everyone else can. This goes two ways - If an article, or file, has been previously deleted its deletion history will show up after the fact, viewable by everyone. Prior to that only admins can see it. If "Joe Normal" finds a page that meets A7 and tags it as such it might be confusing at first if an admin deleted it as G4. Think of the reverse as it applies to this topic. "Joe Normal" creates an article and others work on it only to find it deleted with "stupid" as the edit summary - what does that mean? Was the article stupid? Is "Joe Normal" stupid? Is anyone else who worked on the article "stupid"? Only those who are admins could look at the deleted article and say "Oh, it was done as an A1" So in this case, at least in my eyes, it is not that someone is looking into edit summaries "only to find out that the majority were proper", it is that a more clear edit summary should have been given. Also it was mentioned that anyone can remove tags, which is also a secondary issue - if a deletion tag is removed for any reason there should be a clear policy based reason why, more so if it is an admin doing it as part of an "official" action. The biggest difference is that if it is only a tag that is removed anybody can go through and see what the tag was, why it might have been placed, and what the edit summary may have meant if it was too vauge. As I said, once something is deleted only admins can find out what it was that was deleted, why it was tagged, and if the deletion summary actually reflects "‎the usual." Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections: voting now open

Voting is now open in the November-December 2010 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee. Voting will be conducted using the Securepoll extension and will close on Sunday 5 December 2010 at 23:59 (UTC).

In order to be eligible to vote, an account must have had made at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2010 (check your account). Blocked editors may not vote, and voting with multiple accounts or bot accounts is expressly forbidden. Note that due to technical restrictions, editors who have made more than 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 but no longer have access to the account(s) used will not be able to vote. If you have any questions about this, please ask on the election talkpage.

For each candidate, voters may choose to Support or Oppose the candidacy, or to remain Neutral (this option has no effect on the outcome). Voting must be done in a single sitting, with a verdict made on every candidate. After your entire vote has been accepted, you may make changes at any time before the close of voting. However, a fresh default ballot page will be displayed and you will need to complete the process again from scratch (for this reason, you are welcome to keep a private record of your vote), as your new ballot page will erase the previous one. You may verify the time of acceptance of your votes at the real-time voting log. Although this election will use secret ballots, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, voters are invited to question and discuss the candidates throughout the election.

To cast your vote, please proceed here.

For the coordinators, Skomorokh 00:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U about user:WeijiBaikeBianji

No need to advertise an RFC/U
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I recently started an RFC/U about this user’s conduct on a group of articles covered by a recent arbitration case. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/WeijiBaikeBianji Few people have commented there so far, possibly because of Thanksgiving, so more comments from uninvolved admins would be appreciated.-SightWatcher (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC) From what I understand, the account of the user above is currently being investigated by ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I find it endlessly fascinating how you and WeijiBaikeBianji are making sure that this accusation of sockpuppetry gets brought up everywhere that WBB’s user conduct is being discussed. Nether of you has ever started an SPI about Sightwatcher, even though I already told you once (in Coren’s user talk) that this would be the appropriate course of action here. Or you could just let the arbitrators investigate him, if they’re actually doing that. If Sightwatcher is currently being investigated by ArbCom, what is the reason for bringing this up here, in Coren’s user talk, at AE, and in the RFC/U itself? It isn’t as though the arbitrators would make a different decision about whether he’s a sock based on how many different places you and WBB have accused him of it. What possible purpose could your doing this serve, other than just distracting administrators from examining the user conduct issues that Coren suggested posting this RFC/U in order to examine? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC) An arbitrator quite independently already ran a checkuser on SightWatcher. There is no accusation of sockpuppetry. If Captain Occam wishes for any clarification, he can contact arbitrators directly by email. Note also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ferahgo the Assassin. Mathsci (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC) You posted your previous AE thread about us only four days ago. It hasn’t even been closed yet, none of the people commenting in it other than WeijiBaikeBianji think that what you’re complaining about there is actionable, and now you’ve posted a new complaint while your previous one is only halfway up the page. Do you not see anything unusual about what you’re doing? Your having acted similarly to this in the past at AN/I is one of the things that led to your topic ban. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC) ArbCom is looking at evidence of meatpuppetry, which cannot be discussed directly on wikipedia. If Captain Occam has misgivings, he can discuss this with a member of ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC) The RfC/U is listed at the top of this page, in the banner, and similiarly on AN/I, so there is no need for a comment here advertising it. If no one's commented, perhaps no one who's been there agrees with any of the statements. Also, the comments of admins, whether involved or not, should carry no additional weight at RfC/U, which is a community forum, not one for admins only or particularly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) The RFC/U is clearly linked at the top of this page, together with the other ones. Stop sniping at each other in every possible forum. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Paid editing noticeboard

I've marked the noticeboard in question as proposed, since the policy / guideline behind it is proposed. Also, any issues that may be brought up there would be better dealt with at the conflict of interest noticeboard, which is much more active and has more people monitoring it. Regarding the noticeboard now, should we remove all posts there and place it in an archive? Or should the noticeboard be allowed to continue to function despite the guideline behind it being only proposed? Netalarm^talk 23:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be able to perfectly well perform a useful function even without a guideline attached to it: it's a venue for noting paid editing requests made offsite, which are likely to translate sooner or later into editing which merits particular scrutiny with an awareness of the COI issue. Possibly it could be renamed to reflect that. A merger with the COI noticeboard would negatively affect this function, because there may be a delay between the request being noted and something being done, and so there may not be an immediate COI issue to handle, and the note of the potential one likely forgotten. Rd232 ^talk 21:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously I am missing something here. Paid editing is in fundamental conflict with core goals, as Jimbo says, and is not formally endorsed. So the noticeboard duplicates WP:COIN. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • As I argued just above, it is useful to list paid editing adverts in order to look out for such work being done and give it extra scrutiny. COIN can't do that effectively without using a subpage, which is not obviously an improvement. Rd232 ^talk 17:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• The shortcut could be WP:MONEY, or WP:CASH. But no, I think fragmenting the discussion will not help. All such matters belong at WP:COIN, which also sounds like money. Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Fragmenting the discussion"? Any one discussion will be in one place. Rd232 ^talk 17:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Unban request by (part of?) The abominable Wiki troll

Request declined by unanimous consensus; don't see a point in keeping this open. T. Canens (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The abominable Wiki troll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Sockpuppets) Jplarkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The abominable Wiki troll is a banned sockpuppetteer. At User talk:79.75.198.46#Your unblock request, a person who claims to have used The abominable Wiki troll together with others requests to be unbanned. They claim that they have created the account Jplarkin (but no other recent accounts) in order to edit constructively; that account has recently been blocked for block evasion. The request appears sincere to me, but because I am not familiar with The abominable Wiki troll, I'm not yet making a recommendation as to whether the community should grant it or not. I'm submitting the request to the community for consideration and am informing the admins who have previously interacted with The abominable Wiki troll about it. I have advised the person making the request, who also uses the IPs 88.104.*.*, that as far as I am concerned they may participate in this discussion unless another administrator objects to their participation, but that they must otherwise observe their ban until it is lifted.  Sandstein  11:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC) I'm forwarding the following that has been posted to my talk page:  Sandstein  15:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC) "The situation is a bit of a mess, but one that can be resolved. As admins sussed out early on in the SI, this was not the work of just one person, with myself (a Tiscali editor) and another Virgin Media editor being the main players. However, several other users in my home (generaly students) have contributed to the sock. I stress that I'm not playing the "everything was my flatmate" card: I accept full responsibility for my actions. I have, as of literally NOW, demanded everyone else in my residence to stay away from Wiki, and they have agreed. The Virgin editor is currently hardblocked and unable to edit from home until February; I have requested that this gentleman does not vandalise Wiki from any location. Overall, I am aware of five indivduals involved in the sock: myself and two other individuals in my home, and the Virgin editor and another individual in his home. As I explained to Sandstein, I will be moving to a new home by myself in January and likely subscribing to Sky broadband... I'm not sure how "checkuser" works, but I assume that admins will be able to verify my new status. I have at times shown appalling attitude and been rude to admins and other users, but I have made many good edits and created mutiple articles during my Wiki career, including two from my most recent account, mentioned above by Sandstein (one has been erased due to block evasion). I am clearly not simply a career vandal. As I mentioned to Sandstein earlier, there's no 100% tangible proof that I have changed my ways: people will have to take me at my word. After a few months of constructive editing, all fears will be assuaged. If a murderer can be freed from prison and given the opportunity to build a constructive life in society, I believe that a remorseful vandal (who has, all the while, created multiple articles and contributed many good edits), should be forgiven and allowed to contribute to Wiki. 212.139.53.219 (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)"" I think [34] should provide all we need here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Strong Oppose. Sorry, this (NSFW) profane, child-like sign off from his good hand account a few days ago which professes multiple existing socks and continued vandalism, convinces me that there's little change here. His dodgy, social-engineering answers to your questions do little to build trust. I can also see that he's used this account to hide past socks (here). I'm usually pretty open to WP:OFFER, but this isn't that. Kuru (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC) No way. I stopped reading after the second sentence of the unblock request. Elockid (Talk) 15:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Just reading the link that Kuru provided and the unblock request on the anon made me understand that TAWT and Jplarkin will still remain unconstructive editors when a block is lifted. 'list of many fallen soldiers', so inappropriate use of term, like did this guy go into real battle or something? --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose. We'll end it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TAWT666 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC) (TAWT666 indef blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)) Thanks for pointing out that unblock request, Jpgordon and Kuru. I agree that this makes any unban highly inadvisable. It may be of interest to know that the IP editor has claimed on my talk page that another person made that edit with the Jplarkin account, but even if that is true, they are still sharing or unable to secure their account, and should remain blocked for this reason.  Sandstein  16:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Strong oppose – his last sock after Jplarkin was blocked: here. –MuZemike 16:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC) We're being trolled. This is surely not a serious request. WP:RBI. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Ummm, no, per Guy. The entire thing sounded fishy from the start to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sino-German cooperation, User:98.176.12.43 & User: Kintetsubuffalo

Resolved

 – Content dispute / edit war, unsuited for this noticeboard.  Sandstein  12:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please mediate and determine the following "war edit". It's a seemingly trivial matter that myself and this user have unnecessarily escalated. Kintetsbuffalo is angered by my referring to him one time in sarcasm as "your highness" for his repeated reversions of my explained edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sino-German_cooperation_(1911%E2%80%931941)&diff=prev&oldid=398159602

98.176.12.43 (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is a typical edit war about a trivial content disagreement because of poor communication. You both should have stopped reverting after the first revert and started discussing the matter on the talk page. I recommend that you start doing so now, and refrain from attacking each other personally. If either of you continues reverting, you may be blocked per WP:EW. Purely in my editorial capacity, I've proposed a compromise wording, but see no reason to continue this discussion on this board. For future reference, please see WP:DR for how to resolve such disputes.  Sandstein  12:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be this difficult. What happened to being bold - and I have done my best to put the edit into context by providing a link to the word "helmet", which shows why the helmet should be noted. It's not chinese but german. I was hoping you could decisively decide for or against my edit. We seem to be at a standstill. 98.176.12.43 (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

These pretzels are making me thirsty

Resolved

 – Article unsalted and restored

Would an admin mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Bradden Inman and possibly desalt Bradden Inman if ti is determined that the GNG is met? Thanks. Please note that the recent two entries in the deletion history were getting it moved to userspace and not recreations. Cptnono (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I know that block and ban discussions are infinitely more interesting but can I get a hand here?Cptnono (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you try asking the protecting admin or filing an unprotection request at WP:RFPP? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. Wasn't aware of that page. I'll move this over there.Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Block needed

If any administrator who has a free moment could swing by AIV, there's a couple-hours-old report on a vandalism-only or compromised account and the account in question has made another dozen unconstructive edits since it was posted. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Gwen Gale just took care of it. Thanks Gwen Gale! 28bytes (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Cut and paste move help

The content at Children's centre is the result of a cut-and-paste move from contact centre. Could a helpful admin do the necessary with the history to maintain attribution as required by the licences? Ta, DuncanHill (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just add, the two editors responsible are Coast123 (talk · contribs) and Ericwrightassociates (talk · contribs), who appear to be the same person or at least to work for the same company. I disagree with the move of content, as I have stated on the talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• There is a dedicated forum for this type of request: Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'd never heard of that before. DuncanHill (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't do it, ostensibly because of this edit. Graham87 02:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't get why that would stop you doing it. The content which is now at children's centre was copy-pasted from contact centre, instead of being moved. DuncanHill (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But the version at "contact centre" was subsequently edited like this. We had two separate articles that were derived from one article revision. I wouldn't want to truncate the history at "contact centre" just because the page was cut and pasted into "children's centre" at some stage. Graham87 13:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The history of children's centre is truncated and does not include the editors who contributed most of the content. I still don't understand why the edit you linked to would prevent you giving children's centre its correct history. DuncanHill (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I see what's happened. I propose to do the following:

• Move- and edit- protect all pages for a short time, to prevent further recent edits confusing the issue further (I am doing this now, boldly)
• Split and merge the appropriate histories to separate articles, one to do with business contact centers, and one to do with child contact centers.
• Move the business one to contact centre (business), and the child one to child contact centre. They seem like reasonable names, but I am not insisting they remain there, only trying to cleanly separate the history split/merge mess.
• Anyone claiming that I've used my admin tools to impose my preferred version will be slapped with a trout; I have no preferred version, though I may develop an opinion later.
• Temporarily redirect contact centre to the disambiguation page contact centre (disambiguation), which I'll also fix
• Do something similar with the talk pages, if necessary.
• Remove edit protection, but keep move protection, on all articles
• From there on, final page names can be decided at WP:RM (since there is disagreement about the names), and once a consensus is reached, page move protection can be removed, and pages can be moved the proper way, rather than thru cut and paste.
• Decisions about whether contact center should be the name of one of the articles, or a redirect somewhere, should also be part of the RM discussion
• We all live happily ever after.

Does this work for you, Duncan? And, until I hear from Duncan, does anyone see a problem with this? It's a bit tricky, but I'll go slow and I'm pretty sure I won't make it worse. On the slim chance I mess it up more, I'll bribe Graham with an imaginary steak dinner to clean up after me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Floquenbeam, sounds reasonable. DuncanHill (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Should be all set: all pages now available for editing, but move-protected. Duncan, if you'd start a WP:RM and notify the other editor(s), I'd appreciate it. If you don't have time/experience in RM's, I'll try to get to it later today. If I've screwed something up, ping my talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I rather feel that contact centre should be the dab page, I'll have a ponder. DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me as well. I'm just fairly conservative about when history merges should and should not be done ... maybe I'm making too much of the parallel versions. Graham87 01:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

PIA involvement?

I am participating a request for arbitration enforcement relating to a content dispute about Israeli settlements. When I came across the request I remembered that I participated in an RFC on the contentious issues naming of settlements in June 2010. My participation was to the extent of endorsing two views expressed in the RfC to the effect that the word "settlement" was appropriate ([35] and [36]).

Recalling this, I took the conservative approach and considered myself "involved" in respect of the AE request, commenting explicitly under that description.[37]. However, I now recall that I have used my administrative tools on one or two occasions in respect of the PIA conflict more generally (as I recall, a short block for edit-warring (here) and then commenting as an uninvolved administrator in respect of an AE request (here)). I did so in good faith, completely forgetting my participation in the settlement RfC, and acting without any motivation to further one side of the conflict or the other. The settlement RfC is the only extent to which I have ever gone near the PIA conflict as an editor.

I would appreciate any views about whether I should consider myself an involved administrator in respect of the PIA conflict generally. I will to continue to take a conservative approach and consider myself involved in respect of disputes concerning the naming or legality of settlements. But not having any strong feelings about PIA generally, I am reluctant to disclaim the decisive use of administrative tools in respect of the PIA conflict generally. However, if there are reasonable views to the contrary - even a minority - I will so disclaim.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Do the parties involved in the AE request think your involvement is too major? It doesn't seem like you're really involved to me, although I'm not very familiar with that case. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No-one has commented on my "involvement" over at that AE request. I suspect that might be because I explicitly said I was involved. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Having been acquainted with the participants there, you can safely assume that there will be "reasonable views to the contrary - even a minority"; more like half of the views, I would guess. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I missed "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict." (from WP:ARBPIA). Interpreting that conservatively (participating in an RfC as participation in a "content dispute"), I'll consider myself involved in respect of PIA generally. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Requesting close of move discussion for Role-playing video game

Would an uninvolved admin be so kind as to close Talk:Role-playing video game#Propose move over redirect to Role-playing game (video games)? I'm afraid it may require some nuanced interpretation of WP:TITLE. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Someone claiming to be User:Zsfgseg is running through blocked proxies and requesting disruptive unblocks, demanding to be allowed to vandalize articles. Here: [38] is an example of his handiwork (viewable by admins). I have deleted or revdeleted his requests as purely disruptive. I'm off to bed, but if anyone else wants to keep an eye out for this, just a heads up for any future problems. Not sure how to deal with this except whack-a-mole methods. But anyways... --Jayron32 07:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to send abuse reports to the main account's ISP? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Would an admin mind postin the content of one of these requests here so us non admins know what to lookfor? Access Denied 02:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is probably along the lines of what they looked like. Goodvac (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK alert

I have not seen the DYK queues empty in over a year, but T:DYK/Q needs some updating by an admin.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's updated now. 28bytes (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ban discussion: Loosmark and sockpuppeting

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.

---

Resolved

 – User:Loosmark has been community banned from editing en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor with a history rich in political conflicts (mostly Eastern Europe-related) and a number of WP:DIGWUREN-related sanctions on his record, was just blocked by checkuser User:Avraham, for apparently having run a huge sockfarm (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loosmark). Several of the socks were involved in contentious political editing on the same Eastern-European topics and had been edit-warring, incurred blocks, and/or were used to evade topic bans and other restrictions on the master account. This is all the more striking as Loosmark was also running for Arbcom (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Loosmark).

Avraham blocked the master account for only a month, wishing to leave the question of further sanctions to the community [39]. Given the extent of the abuse here, and the Arbcom candidacy, I believe a stronger response is needed. I therefore propose an indef community ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support – I think it's time to say goodbye. See also: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010#Irregularities with candidate Loosmark – jc37 22:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support – given the contentious nature at times in the EE area (and his helping to make it worse), and the deceit by operating the sockfarm and answers to Arbcom candidate questions, there is no room for such editors on Wikipedia. Kick their butts out the door, and say good riddance. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 22:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. There are a few right ways to return, and a peck of wrong ways. This was the back door. Jack Merridew 22:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not familiar with this editor's content work, but seeking an Arbcom seat under such false pretenses (e.g., claiming to have no socks when you have many socks) leaves no room for any action but a permanent ban, for the protection of the project. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs) has just extended the block to one year duration. Given Loosmark's history and the extent and purpose of the socking I support extending this further to a ban. Nick-D (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support There is absolutely no reason why we should allow this user to continue to edit on this project. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Support for permanent ban. Not indefinite, permanent. Running for ArbCom while managing a huge sockfarm is one of the most disgusting things I can imagine. Access Denied 22:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  Remember that blocks/bans are preventative rather than punitive, Access. Note also that "permanent" is a very long time, and removes any possible incentive for the user to cease the behaviour per the standard offer. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  also remember that we can only successfully block people with their permission. Further, you may need to work on your imagination ;-) – the other evening, for example, I was at a function which served some rather yummy pastry nibbles with a tomato and chorizo filling, probably smoked paprika too, all would have been well, but for the wine, which was an aged reisling??? – now that's the sort of behaviour deserving of a permanent ban. Privatemusings (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  Uh, what? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  That's exactly what I thought. Privatemusings (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  There is no indication from the information that I am privy to as an Oversighter that there has ever been an intention to legitimately contribute to the project, so the effect of them continuing to attempt to evade topic bans and scrutiny will be negligible - but the ability to limit such damage will be enhanced. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  I don't really see how there's any enhanced ability to limit damage by making a ban "permanent" rather than "indefinite": in any case, a permanent ban is not possible. Any community-imposed ban can later be removed by the community, which is why we term it "indefinite" rather than "permanent" in the first place. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Non-admin support for the ban per above. Kcowolf (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support once the ban is in place it seems unlikely that this editor would be able to continue to edit in any way. Privatemusings (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yepp, do that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support siteban. Editing a sockfarm is bad enough; operating a sockfarm in an ethnic-conflicts arbitration environment is simply inexcusable. Horologium (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support per the absurd number of sockpuppets operated by a user who clearly demonstrated, in their own ArbCom candidacy, that they are familiar with policy and knew exactly what they were doing. I doubt anything will discourage them from socking, and a WP:BAN means we can more easily clean up after socks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• I have changed Loosmark's block to indefinite, under the general power of administrators to prevent disruption, as I think it is obvious that the extensive sockpuppetry to evade arbitration sanctions and active deception by participating in an arbcom election is entirely incompatible with editing this project. Jehochman's one-year AE block remains unaffected, and runs concurrently with the indef-block. In case it isn't obvious, I support a community ban. T. Canens (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Personally I thought Loosmark was too smart a player to get caught socking, though by no means is it any surprise. Permanent bans are usually short-sighted actions, and shorter bans give problematic users an incentive to stick to their main account and thus remain under our control; in this case though, he doesn't have that anyway, so much dirt being out. Support a site ban for the record. Banned or not, he'll probably disappear for a bit and come back as another user, smarter than ever, in a few months to a year. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Hurry the hell up I was not happy at all with my first impressions of him, which was his intent to desysop all "dickhead" admins if elected to ArbCom. Running a major sockfarm with his attitude? Ban. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As he's indef blocked there's no need to 'hurry up' with considering a ban, which is a very serious decision for the community to take. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I know this discussion isn't going to be closed before a couple of days, but that doesn't change my opinion about his attitude and his actions, which are fully bannable. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Many of the accounts were not used for any obvious disruptive purposes, but some were used for edit warring. I propose an agreement like that which was agreed for User:Jack Merridew, i.e. he is restricted to one account, etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  In my mind that does not mitigate what he has done one single bit. On his candidate statement page he unambiguously states that he has only ever operated one account. He had forty. Let's not get into some typical wiki-nightmare of half-measures that will only prolong the inevitable. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  Some of the edit warring also falls under "removing crap from Featured Articles" (added by other SPAs), e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katyn_massacre&diff=next&oldid=398415828 Someone even proposed a policy for that. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  So? In what way does that mitigate his use of over forty accounts, some used to evade a topic ban, all the while swearing he had only one and asking for access to the most powerful toolset on Wikipedia? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  That should have been made more clear, so... Tijfo098 (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  *Mebbe* in a year, *if* he makes a strong case for an unban, and *if* he makes 10,000 *useful* edits to other projects, and *if* Hell gets SNOW. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 04:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support site ban. The sock farm was used to bypass his active topic ban recorded at DIGWUREN (Loosmark (talk · contribs) and Varsovian (talk · contribs) both topic-banned from Eastern Europe for six months because of mutually reinforcing longterm disruption, see here. Sandstein 22:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)) Tijfo098 (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Pile on support Indef full site ban. This is absolutely inexcusable. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Good grief. --Rschen7754 01:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support; even without the sockpuppetry, was constantly up to no good in EE-related articles. Add in sock puppetry in one of Wikipedia's most festering content stinkholes and there's easily enough grounds for an indef ban. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Despicable abuse of trust. We're lucky this was caught before the election was over (not like he had a chance of winning anyway but still). -- œ^™ 03:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Well-deserved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. - I'm not an admin and I don't know much about ArbCom's inner workings, but Loosmark's campaign is just the height of hypocrisy - and you had to lie about a sock farm in an unblock request? NPA and catchphrase quoting be damned, but your time's up. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Non-Admin Support - That many socks, anyone should be indef-blocked, admin or no. As an admin though, it should go straight to a ban because they should know better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  Thankfully, he/she is not, and has never been, an admin. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry, my mistake, I assumed he was when applying for ArbCom. Thanks for the correction. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef site ban. Amply warranted. Nsk92 (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2010 (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.

ADDED AFTER ARCHIVAL: related discussion was archived in Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Archive_3#Irregularities_with_candidate_Loosmark. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:LobãoV

Resolved

 – Blocked one week, next one is indef. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin take a look at this editor's history of edits and resulting warnings? This user has created dozens of articles on minor Brazilian footballers, and has been warned on multiple occasions (including one 48 hour block) for creating inappropriate articles, but continues to do so. Given that the user has not once engaged in discussion in any forum regarding this topic, he appears to be intent to plow forward despite all warnings. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of communication is an issue (note he has zero talk page edits). LobãoV has chosen not to address the concerns other editors have raised, or he is not capable of doing so. Either way, it has become disruptive. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I just deleted a couple of his articles that had been tagged for A7 but were unceremoniously removed by LobãoV. Under normal circumstances I'd be willing just block him for a week, but with this topic, I figure it'd be better to get a few more opinions; he may have hit the point where he doesn't need to edit here anymore ever. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• A longer, "wake-up and communicate with your wikibretheren" block makes sense (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked 1 week for not communicating, recreating the same speedied article soon after it was deleted, and removing speedy tags from his own articles without reason. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

  I remember this editor - this morning I G4'd a couple of new articles he recreated about nobody footballers that were deleted at AfD only a day or so ago. Definitely agree with the block, and the trajectory is heading towards indef.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Would these articles use an "management agency" as the common source? I recall there was some concern over a batch of soccer player articles whose claim to notability was playing in lower Greek or Cyrpriot division teams - and many if not most individuals were African? At the time I qondered whether this was a scam by the agency to elevate their profile. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin consensus for delink of WikiLeaks 'released' documents

Moved to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Propriety of linking to WikiLeaks 'released' documents
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What is the current consensus from admins in regard to links made to specific documents on WikiLeaks? An informal discussion on IRC was suggesting that it would NOT be appropriate to link to WikiLeaks because the site contains materials which have not been subject to formal declassification, or which represent copyright violations. Before starting a de-link effort for a site that is controversial, I wanted a very very clear consensus. Sfan00 IMG 14:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I think links to WL should be bulk-removed; almost every instance is a clear breach of WP:LINKVIO. – iridescent 15:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Almost everything on Wikileaks was created by Federal Employees in the conduct of their jobs. They are clearly in the public domain. There is no copyright infringement to speak of. Therefore, linking to them is most certainly not a violation of the linkvio policy. Raul654 (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Concur with Iridescent. Horologium (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Concur with Iridescent too. Violations galore, not to mention possible legal repercussions. Delink. -- Alexf(talk) 15:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Disagree. Most of the Memos are works of the US federal government or its employees acting in official capacity. Thus, they are public domain. Whether they are classified or not should not concern Wikipedia. Linking to them is neither illegal not immoral. If it is appropriate should be decided on a case-by-case basis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Classification is entirely relevant. Our policy isn't "Don't link to copyright violations", it's "Don't link to pages which illegally distribute someone else's work". Since en-wiki operates under US law, in which dissemination of classified material almost certainly counts as "illegal distribution" (it hasn't gone to court yet, but there's a reason Assange never sets foot in the US), it's a chance we shouldn't be taking. – iridescent 15:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC) My law is shaky in this area, but it is definitely an area we work in so I asked about the office - it is not illegal to publicly disperse secret material once they have been leaked. i.e. those documents are now considered "public access". However; there are problems with verifying the content and with primary source concerns. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 15:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Diktat in my office was that viewing the leaked material potentially 'contaminated' your (assumedly) unclassified computer with classified material. That computer would therefore have to be certified as purged of the material before you could go back to business as usual. I don't expect that is a problem for Joe the Plumber on his laptop at home, but could present a problem for anyone who works in an environment similar to mine. Syrthiss (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Concur with Iridescent. —J04n(talk page) 15:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Concur 100% with Stephan - linking to the memos is neither illegal nor immoral. The only thing affecting our decision to link to them is whether or not it improves an article. Raul654 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Agreed - and in that regard, wouldn't inferring anything from the original documents constitute original research? Better, I think, to link to a news article or other piece that analyzes the original material, or to articles that discuss its impact. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Primary sources are OK to use as long as you do it carefully. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.. Raul654 (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC) And this is the point where I would say... I'm unconvinced that Wikileaks is an inherently reliable source; so would suggest that only documents recognized/mentioned by/verified in other sources (i.e. those with editorial control and recognised as reliable) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 16:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC) It's rather hard to verify the documents without comparing them to the originals, and that's rather unlikely given the classified nature of the cables. I think you're setting up a catch-22. Raul654 (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Comment If it is legal per legal advice link to it. If it is illegal do not. I do not see this as being immoral. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Non-Admin Comment - Linking to public domain Govt documents should not in and of itself present an issue, the question is, do we consider WikiLeaks a Reliable third-party Source? What level of fact checking and journalistic integrity do they have (as a random website that was little-known until fairly recently, versus, for example, the Associated Press)? Can we assume that wikiLeaks constitutes a reliable source in that the documentation they have presented is a factual, accurate, unedited and uncompromised representation of original Government documents? Personally, I don't trust them any more than any other random website with an unstated but obvious agenda but that's not for me to decide. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I think we can safely assume that the leaked documents are authentic and undoctored. If it was otherwise, we would definitely have heard it by now. (Fox News would be shouting it from the rooftops) On the other hand, many of the observations in the documents may be erroneous (such as the speculation by one diplomat that Mommar Gaddafi was going to get rid of his female bodyguards). That is the nature of a primary source. Raul654 (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC) We should be able to safely link to the NYT/Guardian/etc. pages that Wikileaks sent them; i.e. this. I suggest everyone also read the NYT's explanation of deciding to publish the cables. But I would not link to the Wikileaks pages themselves for now. We should request the WMF's current (stand-in/assistant?) General Counsel to advise us in this situation, though; I'm sure they will be able to explain this issue better. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC) That's a good idea, and should prove instructive for future releases as well. Who really expects this to be the last such release from Wikileaks? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Agree the linking is not immoral and from what I understand they are not copyvios either so it is not illegal either. -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Let's let the actual wikipedia lawyers make that decision. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC) No, let's not. It works the other way round. If the foundation lawyers have a concern, they can state it. We do not assume publication is illegal unless being told otherwise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Once again I concur with Stephan - we've never asked the Foundation lawyers to preemptively get involved. I'm sure they don't want us to, and we sure-as-hell shouldn't. Raul654 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Disagree; the community has a specific concern which they can give an expert opinion on --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 16:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I'm not suggesting passively waiting, but actively asking. I would hate to see wikipedia shut down just because a few non-lawyer editors here think that leaked government info should somehow be OK. Now, if it's in the New York Times already, that could be a different story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Im not an admin but these documents do not seem to meet the Copyright violation criteria. They were created by US Government federal employees in the course of official business and therefore not eligible for Copyright protection. The information has for the most part been released as written by those government employees, Wikileaks doesnt claim copyrights over them, and the government has stated repeatedly that news agencies cannot be penalized for releasing the info (only the source they got it from, i.e. the employee that leaked it). Although I admit that there is some debate wether wikileaks is a news agency but aside from that I say we should allow them. Since the New York times and a number of other more reliable sources has copies and posted or written about a lot (and will continue to do so for some time I imagine) the important information will make its way here from them as well (and they will expand on it and clarify as more information about the various issues becomes available) which will provide futher verifiability. --Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) I'm not sure where you're making the distinction here, Bugs. There's a huge problem with linking to material leaked from a government, but only if it's the only source of the material? Why does it matter if other outlets have also reported the same information? And is there actually a legal reason why we shouldn't link to wikileaks? There seems to be a pretty good case here that there is not. If the WMF legal team informs us otherwise then fair enough, but why bring up an issue if there's no reason to believe it actually is a legal issue? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Please note that things that are not copyvios may still be illegal. For example, I read earlier that the U.S. government is looking into the possibility of prosecuting Julian Assange due to this release. This thread is not over the copyvio (I think it's clear that they're not copyrighted) but over their classified status, and therefore, should we link to them/is it ethical and/or to do that? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I don't think we should cite to the primary wikileaks documents. If something is notable and worthy of reporting then it will be reported at secondary locations, such as the NY times and suchlike. This position will also protect us from charges of reproduction of primary classified documents obtained without permission. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Is this thread about linking to wikilinks, citing it, or both? As mentioned by others above, I don't think we can consider anything inferred from primary documents like these as anything other than original research, as being the interpretation of whichever editor(s) involved in adding the references. Opinions expressed in the media, on the other hand, allow us to report the media's response, response of experts who have published opinions, etc. That's an entirely seperate issue to the (non-)issue of whether we should link to wikileaks for ethical reasons or whatnot. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict × 4) There's a world of difference between publishing leaked documents and simply linking to a site which publishes them, imo. I don't see any ethical issues, either. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Agree with Stephen and Raul. If Wikimedia's legal council comes back saying this is a bad idea, then we remove. Unless they do, then I do not buy "possibly illegal" as a reason to remove. As such, links to the leaked documents should be treated case by case: does the EL add value? If yes, keep, if no, remove. Also, since when was such decisions an "admin only" thing? All editors have the right to weigh in with equal merit given to their viewpoints. Resolute 16:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Why is this discussion being had here rather than at the Village Pump? A mass delinking campaign (except removal of obvious violations etc.) should have the consensus of Wikipedians in general, not just the admin corps. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Uncertain about the venue, but Agree that this isn't just a question for "admin consensus". I believe at least half of the contributors here have been non-admins anyway, though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Urgent Admin help needed: Template:Infobox hindu deity move

Resolved

Please move Template:Infobox hindu deity back to its original position as all Hindu deities' articles (see Chamunda and FA Ganesha for eg) and others related to Hindu mythology are affected with the disappearance of the infobox.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem was just the double redirect from the old {{Hdeity infobox}} to {{Infobox hindu deity}} to {{Infobox Hindu deity}}. It's fixed now. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the quick fix. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

De nada. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal in 2010

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal in 2010? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mkativerata. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Experts

WP:DENY(Struck by RF). Policy issues on paid editing, or COI or behaviour issues with specific editors, should not be discussed here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Heads up. Probably time to buy popcorn futures. – iridescent 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Market cornered. And where did I put my old CV? Seriously, though, I can't imagine how they expect to retain a low profile. Stings should drive them into the open fairly quickly, if that is the community's desire.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Actually, we do not intent to keep a low profile; why would you assume so? On the contrary, to successfully supply a growing network of participating wikipedians with paid assignments, we have to make our offer well-known to prospective clients. This is why we announced our service via nationally-distributed press-release. I believe that our services will benefit not only participating writers, but also Wikipedia. Alex Konanykhin / founder of WikipediaExperts. [Disclaimer: I’m personally not an expert of Wikipedia; just an Internet entrepreneur whose company handles plenty of Online Visibility work.] AKonanykhin (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Yea it's probably easy to spot their accounts, this is WP:COI fest. Secret account 16:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Then look to see what editors have articles in common in the last couple of months. Popcorn anyone?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I have a strong suspicion I know who's behind it. As per my previous comments in the days of MWB, I personally don't have a problem with it—if the articles they contribute meet WP standards then it doesn't matter who's behind it, and if they don't they'll be deleted in the usual manner. I don't see that the COI here is any stronger than a fan editing the article on their favorite band. However, others disagree. – iridescent 16:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC) They don't insert any desinformation, so no need to worry. –xenotalk 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Probably with an eye to sailing under their true colors here. After all, they must know that putting that page out there is like throwing the proverbial red flag before a bull.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC) "Just like financial auditors, we charge for our time, but with explicit requirement of UNCOMPROMISED INTEGRITY". Has he ever actually met an auditor? – iridescent 16:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Sure; I ran a few banks and that involved meeting auditors. AKonanykhin (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC) "the pro bono work of the participating editors"... it's a simple scam. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I wonder what makes you assume the worst? I've done plenty of philantropy (sponsoring museums, theathers, medical research, etc.) - it's fun to promote what you like; even though my primary business is business, like seeing market niches where supply lags behind demand and capitalizing on the opportunity. AKonanykhin (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC) It took around a minute to do some relevant digging. Of note, is that the domain(s) are part of the KMGi (advertising agency) group. You can all find the phone number for owner Alex K - indeed even get a photo of the chap off our article on him - with minimal effort if you want to chat to him. Pedro :  Chat  16:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC) To make the digging easier, KMGi's and my URLs were included in our press-release. I'll try to answer here all substantive points, though it may take some time due to my travel plans during this Thanksgiving week. AKonanykhin (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC) I personally dont have a problem with this as long as the article still meets WP's standards. In point of fact of the article goes higher than B clas it will still have to be reviewed by another editor anyway. I do however think that we should require something be put on the affected articles talk page (maybe something to the effect of this article was developed in part by a paid contributer) and or identify said users as paid editors. In my opinion its ok if someone is getting paid by someone to make and article or a group of articles on WP better but we should mark both to make sure that they arent running amuck. IF someone wants to pay someone else to edit an article that can be edited for free then let them spend the money (its sorta like a donation). --Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I also don't see a problem with this as long as it is transparent. Services like this wont go away, in fact they will just increase as the years go by. Doing our best to reign them in will save countless of hours of BS. I say allow paid editing as long as it is transparent under WP:COI. This particular group appears to wish to work in compliance with Wikipedia policies. It is much better for Wikipedia to welcome paid editors in a transparent manner than to endlessly deal with the hassle of anonymous COI editing.Griswaldo (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I suggested to Jimbo establishing reasonalbe oversight procedures over consultancies like ours. We want to make sure that we establish ourselves as the factor which facilitates Wikipedia's development, and not be suspected of being fly-by-night hackers who pollute it with advertorials. AKonanykhin (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Having browsed their site, I am concerned by the following statements and the underneath implication: "represent your company in a positive, but objective manner." and "When damaging content is spotted, the changes will be undone by our staff." While I believe their editors would produce material that seemingly conforms to all policies, I am concerned that they would intentionally leave out and/or remove material negative to the client's public image. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I think it's a given they themselves will intentionally miss out negative information, but they do state that they cannot remove true negative information - to be fair they've done their research for this site - just more fool anyone who pays them 99 dollars a month for something they could do themselves. Pedro :  Chat  17:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC) (ec)And that is different from your average editor editing in areas they feel strongly about how? Most of the content creation and content haggling here is POV already, at least with transparent paid editing the POV is out in the open for everyone to see. It is much easier to review such work and to correct it for POV issues.Griswaldo (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I also agree. Im sorta on the fence I admit and the system works pretty well as we have it however I do believe this activity is currently going on in the shadows and if we build in some acceptance and a way to keep track of it then we can not only bring it out of the shadows but also potentially gain from it. I do think we need to proceed cautiously, maybe do it as a test to see how it goes, maybe even creating a different class of user similar to the Articles for creation process where it must be reviewed prior to being allowed. I think if we go about this the right way WP can gain from this and at the same time retain credibility. But if we just give a blanket allowance then we will take a big credibility hit. IMO anyone who wants to do something like this as a professional will meet the requirements we establish and those that do not wil get banned. And they will be found out, they always do. I believe that in order for the customer to gain anything from the article it would need to be at least a GA, probably A class or FA so as I mentioned before they will be heavily reviewed before they get done. With that said I do foresee edit wars, heated arguments, etc coming out of some of them as well as the potential for some POV editing and pruning out damaging details. --Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I think it is reasonable to expect that editors for such a business make their conflict of interest transparent and otherwise comply with the conflict of interest guidelines. If they do, they're as welcome to help us improve Wikipedia as any other COI editor.  Sandstein  18:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC) The problem is that the probability will be that they will not disclose their COI, in order to maximize the degree to which they can post positive information and downplay or delete negative information. Any article in which they declare who they are an what they are doing will be watched by many editors eager to keep them on the straight and narrow, whereas if they attempt to fly under the radar and are successful at it, there would be much less attention given to their edits. The lack of any significant downside to trying this makes it probable that they will do so. Therein lies the potential danger to the project. (I'm quite willing to extend AGF to individual editors, but once they act collectively, and with a financial motivation, it's less imperative to do so.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I do agree Sandstein, and also agree to a lot of the comments of Kumioko (not sure about user classses, but I get your thrust). The simple truth is that this is a commercial organisation. A simple Google check shows they have already generated some commentary regarding their venture. If they (i.e. "their" editors - and that is a seperate conversation!) start editing with overt POV they get blocked. When enough get blocked, then their credibility is ruined. Their credibility is ruined = end of business venture. That's my take on it, from a purely commercial view. Pedro :  Chat  19:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC) (undent) My own personal opinion is that I am fine with the concept of professional writers contributing provided that their conflict of interest is clearly and explicitely disclosed (that what they are doing is, in the end, work for hire). They claim explicitly that they will follow our policies; if they do, they'd already be a darn sight better than many volunteers. If they don't, of if they try to behave covertly, then they will be found out and I expect the entire community would fall on them like a ton of sharp bricks, destroying any credibility in the process. — Coren (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Also in the case of a "business" view it should be fairly easy to track the IP range of computers within an organization that does these types of edits. If we create a report or list or something similar to the one we have for Congressional staff then that will be another way to monitor their activity. It is also possible to establish a bot to monitor for certain things and revert them or post a message of the activity somewhere like the administrative incidents notice board. In the End I should reiterate that Jimbo has been adamently opposed to commercial ventures of this type and although he generally lets the community decide rules of use and the developement of guidelines he has the final say. Since this affects WP as a business and could affect its credibility its probable that even if concensus is that it be allowed its unlikely that he will allow it. But things change and if we develop a process and rules that sufficientl govern, monitor and control it, he may allow this to at least test the feasability. Remeber too that WP is a not for profit entity and allowing these types of edits could (im not a lawyer just branstorming here) affect that status or may affect some of the corporate donations that provide WP its funding. If for example a company hires someone to write articles on topics related to them and they are a competitor of a company that supports WP it could impact the site negatively or be made into a media spectacle by the news. --Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC) You can actually apply for a job through them, so it's not one organisation. Anyone can do it as a 'contractor', and they'd presumably edit from home. I for one will be blocking most undeclared paid editors on sight, because they "appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization". I don't mind paid editors editing Wikipedia, as long as they a.) declare it and b.) recuse themselves from any discussions regarding their customers. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC) If they're undeclared, how are you going to block them on sight? Spidey-sense? – iridescent 22:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Let's change that to 'block them as soon as I realise and have proof". A paid editor would fight to the death to keep one of these articles going, like Danieldis47 (talk · contribs) did, at which point it becomes pretty obvious. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Um, "recuse themselves from any discussions" is the opposite of what we want. We want people with a COI to talk to us. We even get very upset (to the point of blocking them) if they don't talk to us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC) At which point I would come into the discussion and say this: We are extraordinarily ineffective at providing neutral, well-written, relatively complete and well-referenced articles about businesses and individuals - even as of this writing we have tens of thousands of unreferenced and poorly referenced BLPs - and equally bad at maintaining and updating them. Given this remarkable inefficiency, and the fact that a Wikipedia article is usually a top-5 google hit for most businesses and people, there's plenty of good reason for our subjects to say "enough is enough" and insist on having a decent article. We've all seen the badly written BLPs and the articles about companies where the "controversies" section contains every complaint made in the last 10 years. We aren't doing the job ourselves, and it's unrealistic to think that we can: the article-to-active editor ratio is 1:960 right now[40], and getting higher all the time. I'm hard pressed to tell someone that they can't bring in a skilled Wikipedia editor, following our own policies and guidelines, to bring an article they're interested in up to our own stated standards. As to COI, one wonders why financial benefit seems to raise all these red flags, when undisclosed membership in various organizations, personal beliefs, and life experiences may well lead to an even greater COI. "Put it on the talk page" only works if (a) someone is watching the article, (b) that someone doesn't have their own perspective that they feel is more valid, (c) and someone is willing to actually edit the article. Those three conditions aren't being met nearly enough (see editor-to-article ratio above). We've created the very situation where organizations and people are no longer willing to accept that they have to put up with a bad article about themselves. And precisely why should they be prevented from improving our project? Risker (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I agree with Risker. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I agree with her to a point, and when I say 'recuse themselves' I mean 'stay neutral but declared' rather tha, for example, voting KEEP in every AfD and launching ad hominem attacks on those they see as 'against' them. I work at OTRS, as you all know, so I'm more aware than most of the problems that our articles cause to people. However, our current system - through OTRS or talk pages - provides an avenue of reply to those who disagree with their article's content. I've seen two sides of paid editing: One side which is insidious, immoral and tarnishes the reputation of the project - the other side is full of people who do follow our rules and happily own up to it when they're first questioned. I don't mind the second sort of paid editor. However, the damage done to our reputation by the first sort is simply too great to ignore. Risker is right, but I think the real solution here is fewer articles, or more good editors. Can we stop all editors with a COI from editing a related article? Of course not, but that doesn't mean we should encourage it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC) They are infringing on the use of "Wikipedia®", a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation. Not clever. Who wants to sick the lawyers on 'em? Fences&Windows 23:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Chase me ladies, are you going to block user:Amorrise and User:Rhettroberts who appear to be shilling for something call AutoPal? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I'm not going to block those accounts because they're from April 2010, and the problem with them is clearly over. A block would really be wasted effort. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I don't want you to put yourself out, but you may wish to look more closely. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC) My apologies, I still don't think it's quite enough for a block - judging by the talk page edit to BuyNowPayNow, he may just be a new user. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC) If you look at the user's first serious edit and later edits, the intervening motive should be abundantly clear. Without contravening WP:OUTING, I am unable to provide more evidence, but I am sure that you would find yet another reason not to block them. Can you perhaps outline the circumstances under which you would block someone for paid editing, or would you like to walk back your "I for one will be blocking most undeclared paid editors on sight etc" claim now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Q: Do you guarantee the articles you write will be accepted by Wikipedia? A: We guarantee that we will submit professional content, consistent with Wikipedia rules and standards; however, Wikipedia does not have a central acceptance authority that makes a final conclusion about the admissibility of articles. An article may be flagged, edited and removed at any time by any user or administrator. In such cases, we will make the necessary changes and resubmit it until it is accepted. The $295 introduction package covers up to five hours of work. This is enough to complete most articles. If extra work is required, we apply our standard billing rate of $95/hour, with the detailed verifiable time reporting via our Transparent Billing application. The $99 monthly fee includes: Monitoring of your article by our proprietary software Immediate intervention by our staff in case brand -damaging content is posted Content updates whenever your company’s situation changes The $99 fee covers up to two hours of work per month. This is enough for most articles. If extra work is required, we apply our standard billing rate of $95/hour, with the detailed verifiable time reporting via our Transparent Billing application.[41] We've had cases where folks charge to write an article. This is the first I've seen that includes a maintenance contract. It appears that the writers from this site intend to do whatever is necessary to prevent articles from being deleted. If they are not transparent in revealing their COI, and participate in AFDs, etc, then that's a problem.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC) This underlines the point I made above. "Immediate intervention by our staff in case brand-damaging content is posted" - do we really want to commercialise Wikipedia if this is the result? What happens when the AfD goes through and the company requires all its staff to formulate keep arguments and post them? What happens if one of those paid editors is the closing administrator? Slippery slope! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, that statement is inimicable to NPOV, which requires the inclusion of all significant points of view, even the "brand-damaging" ones.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC) It is refreshing that some editors do declare their COI. Note this editor's involvement with the BLP of Alex Konanykhin. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Sort of an incentive to keep your maintenance contract. If you cancel it your article will be thrown to the wolves or worse yet, your former contractors will lead the brigade of pitchforks and torches.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I was kinda thinking that too. I wonder how long until one of these companies decides to act like a protection racket? As an aside, what constitutes a "state of the art" article? I would hate to think I am writing obsolete articles... Resolute 00:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC) @Resolute. The Cognoscenti generally agree that Mobile Suit Gundam is state of the art. Template off that, and you should be fine.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Are we going to take this seriously or not? - Paid for editing by corporate teams is happening all the time. Are we going to actually address this, and create a framework for this to happen, or continue to place our heads in the sand forever? In 2006, User:MyWikiBiz set up a paid for editing account, and all Wikipedia decided to do, was to ban it outright, block him, and delete his contributions. This is not going to make the problem go away, it is only going to drive it underground. This isn't MyWikiBiz, it isn't some kook, it's a professional marketing company, they're not idiots. For newer editors who want to see how the previous discussion was handled, take a look at Arch Coal and its history. A very good starting point is its DRV, I made similar arguments then. Wikipedia is too important, too visible for corporations and political entities to ignore. Paid for editing is happening right under our noses because our current policies at WP:COI keep them in the dark. The whole point of Wikipedia's open source model, is to allow for peer review, we should be embracing the strengths of open source to shine a light on their activities. Ideas for a framework for paid-editing All paid-for editors must declare their position in particular, who they're working for and their clients, at a centralised page Paid editors must declare their positions on their user and talk pages It may be possible to create some user flag, to allow for all paid edits to be tracked centrally Repeal Wikipedia:USERNAME#Company.2Fgroup_names policy, and actually encourage users to be up front about their affiliations Allow the creation of role accounts. Entities may wish to use a single voice on Wikipedia, but they may have multiple personnel responsible. Instead of having pile-ons from meatpuppets, they would have a single consistent voice. This isn't useful just for COI, but I think would improve our WP:GLAM collaborations. I think, just as I did in 2006, that there is a role for paid-for editing on Wikipedia. Our coverage of corporations is lacking, because unless they make video games, they don't have fans, and its fans generally, who start those articles regardless on any POV issues. The average consumer does not see what a B2B does - have you heard of Informatica? Well, they're worth over $3Bil, and we probably wouldn't have an article on them unless they wrote it themselves, which they did. Before we deleted it and decided to work against them, rather than with them. There are still holes in major market indices, let alone private corporations. Its clear that corporations are taking us seriously, we need to start taking them seriously, the status quo is not good enough. - hahnchen 00:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC) You say we cannot maintain the status quo, but I ask, "why not?". If the paid editors become POV pushers, we block them, just as we do any other POV pusher. If they add quality content within our guidelines, we let it stand. If paid editors are willing to advertise their position, by all means let them. If they don't, there isn't really anything we can do about it. You speak of requiring paid editors to note that they are such; how do we enforce this? You have been asking "how should we deal with paid editors", but a question we must answer first is "what can we do about paid editors?". As I see it, we have three general options. We can block them as soon as we have proof that they're being paid. The obvious ones get caught, the less obvious continue with their work. I don't favor this approach, but it's what we've done in the past. We can just ignore it, and treat their contributions like we would any other editor, whether they reveal that they're being paid or not. I prefer this approach. Or, we can make up some "rules" that paid editors must follow. Maybe some will follow these rules, many certainly won't. I think this approach sets up an antagonistic relationship that isn't necessary. These are really the only choices we have. We can't ban paid editing outright, and we can't require that all paid editors "register" or take on their own user class (these attempts fall under options 1 and 3, respectively). Buddy431 (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC) The status quo keeps COI editors in the dark. Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest says that you shouldn't create or edit articles. Please get real. Proposals Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline) and Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy) want to outright ban it. This cannot be done. Our framework should dictate all paid editors declare themselves, or face bans if caught - it's not going to be easy for a corporation to move IP addresses. There should be a way to monitor all COI edits. We should allow disclosures in their usernames and allow role accounts to make it even clearer. Right now, we have no framework, and an antagonistic attitude towards any COI editors that we find. Because of this, disclosure is rare and responses scattered. - hahnchen 13:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC) There has always been and likely always will be paid editors whether we allow them to be open about it is the only issue. Meanwhile the COI crusaders can carpet bomb hundreds of articles with COI tags so the tag is rendered meaningless. It would be more constructive to get COI and paid editors to simply follow the editing rules and continue to show the disruptors the door.Wroted (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Or of course, we can let the paid editing crusaders carpet bomb hundreds of articles with POV so the article is rendered useless. Works both ways. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC) So to be clear, POV problems only come from paid editors or do you mean all paid editors are POV crusaders? Either way you're mistaken. We deal with POV issues and any others the exact same way. Wroted (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Is there any way the Foundation can contact this website and explain to them what exactly they are doing? I tried, they don't seem to be taking regular people seriously. I, for one, am blocking any users who are writing spam articles and being paid to do so. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC) OTRS could potentially do it - potentially, and only with approval from the appropriate office folks - but what would we say? 'What you're doing is sort of not OK with us?' Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure the website knows exactly what they're doing. They're professionals - KMGi (advertising agency), an article written by User:Camper-mann. - hahnchen 13:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Idea, we could have a policy where all paid editors are required to request the "paideditor" flag/group. We could than more easily track these contributions, we could also maybe do something with flagged revisions on these edits,,,? I agree with others above. This isn't going away, might as well manage it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC) This presumes that paid editors will be treated with good faith - which they obviously are not - and that they all will identify themselves which is absurd because there is little to gain and no way for us to know. Wroted (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) The paid editors tend to create whitewashed articles. I reported a user here: [42] who is editing on behalf of Neovia (Neteller) and has performed an outrageous whitewash job on the article as I noted previously, but also since then [43]. (Nothing was done) The article is a corporate fantasy (cf. [44]) and the interests of wikipedia are certainly not served by having it edited by the corporation. Sumbuddi (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC) that in and of itself doesn't mean all paid editors (that we know of because they have self-identified or have been outed by a certain group invested in such things) does not mean all paid editors are bad just as we know better than to assume all non-paid editors are good. Instead we know those pushing a POV, whether it be against Wikipedia in general or pro-corporate are likely not worth keeping around. An easy content kept vs disruption ratio would feret ot those whose goals are against Wikipedia.Wroted (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I just wanted to add that I also attempted to contact them and although I have for the most part been willing to go along with allowing this was given the distinct impression they would only deal with Wikicorporate concerns and not those of the individual editors. In the end that won't matter when and if they start actually editing but it does give me pause to reflect on how best to approach the matter and makes it clear to me that there will be some growing pains if this is allowed. One major concern that I do have is that if they have enough editors under their employ they could theoretically force consensus in their favor so we should devise a plan to rule that out as well.--Kumioko (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is "The encyclopedia anyone can edit." WP:COI allows users to make contributions to articles where a conflict of interest exists, so long as those edits are neutral. We all have conflicts of interest. If someone wants to offer their Wikipedia editing services for hire, they are doing this externally to Wikipedia. There is nothing we can and should do. Paid editing happens here all the time. Treat paid articles the same way you would any article. If it's an article written within our guidelines, fine. If it isn't, we have WP:CSD and WP:AFD. If someone wants to be disruptive about it, we have WP:BLOCKING. We already have the tools in place, and we already use them. Paid editing just happens under the radar. If someone wants to do it publicly, more power to them. If their editing skills aren't up to par and they can't get articles past our editing standards, this is not our problem. Prohibiting paid editors, however, is simply not an option. N419BH 06:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Offer to WikipediaExperts Hi, hope you're reading this. I think anyone planning to pay your fees may be deterred by this beauty currently sitting on your front page, above the "Free Consultation" box: We will gladly provide a free consultation for you, including a proposal on developing your visibly on Wikipedia and in other social media That should read "visibility". WikipediaExperts, if you're reading this, I offer that correction to you for free, but can I recommend you add an 'edit' button, so we can help you out properly? This collaborative editing thing we have going here really is quite powerful. I'm offering to copyedit your site for you, (something I have some 'expertise' in) in exchange for a $1,000 donation to the Wikimedia foundation... oh, and a thank you on my user talk would be nice. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC) You missed "desinformation" SmartSE (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Also on the same page, missed 'free of chaNge', that should be 'free of chaRge'. I will consult with the parties involved and reply to your offer soon. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     21:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Cutting to the chase I am inviting User:Eclipsed to contribute to this discussion. As I pointed out upthread (forgetting that subtlety is wasted here), Eclipsed has declared a COI on their user page and just today proposed that "...both the Article Incubator and Articles for Creation be denoted as Safe Harbors for COI contributions". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the invitation. I will read through all the discussions, and reply as soon as I can.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     14:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC) re: Trademark - I will make sure this is brought to the attention of the appropriate people. re: Discussion with WMF - There has been some communication, but I do not know the status. re: Risk of forced consensus - Important issue. This has to be mitigated as best as possible. re: My declaring COI - Wow. That was not an easy thing to do. I knew that once I clicked Save Page that my life as a wikipedian would be changed forever. There would be no going back. I thought there was a really big chance I'd get ANI'd and eternally banned, plus have all my clients pissed off at me for the trouble I caused. That didn't happen, and I am much appreciative of the WP:AGF approach taken by everyone involved. Thanks!     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     23:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I don't understand Eclipsed's statement that he or she has an "Inherent Conflict Of Interest". In respect to what? A conflict of interest must be in relation to something else: a person, a company, a subject or some sort. There is no such thing as an "inherent" general COI. What is Eclipsed COI about, or is this some kind of goof? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC) There's a discussion about that on my talk page. I was concerned about WP:NOTADVERTISING.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     03:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC) You should declare the company you work for in your disclosure statement, just saying you have an "inherent conflict of interest" is fairly meaningless. That you're worried about NOTADVERTISING pretty much shows the lack of framework we have for paid editing. - hahnchen 13:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC) OK, will work on improving the statement. I'm guessing that it is pretty obvious[45] by[46] now[47] who I work for, and that I'm part of the C-suite of the newly formed company that is being discussed in this thread. Having a clearer framework for commercial editing would be most helpful.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     14:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC) I agree that a clear framework for commercial editing would be a good idea. Generally, the choices are to ignore it, to ban it or to regulate it. I believe the first is irresponsible and the second is impractical, so I would suggest that paid editors be required to register at a central location and to specify their COI (specifically as paid editors) on article talk pages, that there be a clear benefit to doing so (ability to edit freely, within the bounds of COI policy, or a new paid-COI policy) and a negative incentive for not registering, such as that all their edits are deleted en-masse (as far as is practical) if unregistered paid editing is discovered. Paid editors should also be disqualified from serving as admins or functionaries. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Re-hashing old discussions If this is going to turn into a re-hash of Project talk:Paid editing (guideline) (and related pages), except with a different (new) set of paid editors being held up as examples, then could you please hold it either there or on the Village Pump, where the discussion will be seen as involving all of the editorship? Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I think that editors hired by companies to whitewash their articles go beyond COI and beyond paid editing. A person named in a Wikipedia article has a personal stake, yes, but he also has his own knowledge, decision-making power, and reputation. A hired whitewasher is just an hourly employee with no special ability to improve an article, but every motivation to make it worse. Based on occasional editing forays it is my opinion that a substantial fraction of corporate articles, but certainly not all, are currently guarded by such employees (e.g. Apple iProducts); I assume they work for some more discreet operation. The key factor to consider here is that for me to remain unsure that a given editor is really a company shill (I haven't named anyone here because I am unsure), he has to edit many topics about many different companies. This implies that either a lot of time is wasted on camouflage edits, or else a lot of companies do business with the same Wiki fix-it firm. While I can't tell just by looking at edits one by one, a mechanized tool might be built which looks at the web of associations between company articles and tries to find statistically significant overlap in the editors who rapidly revert edits made to their pages. Wnt (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Conflict of interest doesn't mean someone can't edit. We have editors with conflicts of interest editing all the time. Some cause problems by it, others do not. The key thing to keep in mind is whether or not the editor with a conflict of interest is not following our policies and guidelines. There is a big difference between someone being hired to white wash an article and someone simply being hired to pay attention to subjects that might be notable but might not otherwise garner editor attention. If they stay within our policies and guidelines, blocking on sight is nothing more than sour grapes and WP:POINTY edits. I'd seriously question the competency of any admin that did so without evidence that the account in question was violating the 5 pillars.--Crossmr (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC) No honour among thieves? I am curious about the interactions between User:Eclipsed and user:Sigma0 1, who, like Eclipsed, is a paid editor. Eclipsed appears to have nominated a number of their articles for deletion, but the remark that I think needs explanation is this one where Eclipse suggests that Sigma0 1 read the WP:COI guideline. If Wikipedia allows paid editors, are we likely to see more of this type of activity where competing companies fight amongst themselves or carry on proxy battles with good-hand/bad-hand sockpuppets? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, I nominated a few of Sigma0 1's articles for deletion, because I felt they did not meet the inclusion standards of Wikipedia. I felt Sigma0 was operating in a negative manner, based on a disregard for the policies and guidelines agreed to by the community. Sigma0 was putting his clients first, instead of wikipedia first. Any paid or commercial editor operating inside wikipedia should "wear their wikipedia hat" first, and be able to tell their clients "No, you can't do that". Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     02:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC) (Question: Should Sigma0_1 be officially notified of this discussion? If so, DeliciousC: I think you should do it, as you were the first to mention.)     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     03:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) A bit more clarity Greetings! My name is David, and on Wikipedia my username is Eclipsed. I recently signed up as COO of the company named in this thread. My boss is Alex Konanykhin. I receive financial compensation for the work I do for this company. I would like to say more, but I feel to do so may be a violation of the spirit of WP:NOTADVERTISING. A bit about how I came to be here: I was part of the underground economy. I came back from a long wikibreak because I got a freelance job to make a BLP, and it seemed like something fun to do. But after I started working on the article, I also started reading up on the guidelines and policies. It took a while to go through them all, and I got more freelance jobs in the meantime. I also had some of my team members help out, and tried my best to train them on the wiki-basics, NPOV, RS, etc. But eventually I came to realize that what I was doing was not acceptable to the community, and on the business side, it was not sustainable. So I started puting feelers out. I put the articles I worked on up for peer review and put myself up for editor review. But no response, my requests just sat in the backlog. I even had a crazy notion of going up for RfA. I contacted a few people about admin tutoring and did a little self-review of my history. But in the end, I thought I'd get snowed, the whole RfA environment turned me off, and I knew there would be unmitigatable COI issues. Then I met Alex. He showed me the website, and I was a bit shocked. The first thing I did was a WHOIS lookup, and saw his name, company address, contact info, everything! Right out in the open. Ouch. I thought there was no way I should join, the biz would surely get shut down within a few days of going public. But then we chatted some more, and I came to realize that he wanted to actually work within wikipedia, according to all the alphabet soup of guidelines and policies. After some more discussion about the Code of Ethics and the Pro bono plans, I was convinced and signed on. More later, Thanks!     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     10:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Eclipsed, I believe one of the issues many people have with paid editing on Wikipedia is the feeling that there is often an inherent dishonesty in their dealings with other editors, which springs from their motivation which, unlike other editors, is not to accurately portray a person or product but simply to get that article up on Wikipedia, frame it as positively as possible and keep it there. While you are certainly well-spoken and much more clever than many of the paid editors I have encountered here, you also seem to suffer from the same inability to tell the whole truth. You returned from your long wikibreak to create the BLP of Guy Bavli on 3 October 2010 All of your edits (as User:Eclipsed) are Bavli-related until you ccreated Online Legal Marketplace on 15 October 2010 Also on 15 October 2010, you made your first Alex Konanykhin edit You put yourself up for editor review on 4 November 2010, nearly a month later Your use of "team members" to edit articles with you is a very good tactic. Editors who are not aware that you are all paid editors working together -- and how could they know that? -- would have the impression that a subject is more well-known than they are or that there is some consensus among unrelated editors. Talk:Guy Bavli is a good example of this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC) These are all very good points. My 'journey' from the underground into the light was not an easy one. I've made mistakes. More then a few times. I'm hoping that I can stick around and try to help build some framework that everyone can accept, so we all know what mistakes to avoid. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     18:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Why are we helping to promote this service by advertising here? Just apply WP:DENY for best results. We find lots of people writing their own poor quality PR puff pieces on Wikipedia. If a professional gets involved, the results will either be the same or perhaps better. If a paid editor happens to write an acceptable quality article, we will ignore them. If they write bad articles which get deleted, we can warn and eventually block them. Existing processes are capable of dealing with this. Posting here is not helpful, and may actually be harmful. Jehochman Talk 20:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion still doesn't belong here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Paid editors are vandals? I am confused as to why the discussion above was collapsed with the rationale being WP:DENY, which is an essay about denying recognition to vandals. Although Jehochman suggested this discussion was promoting a particular company, I had just pointed out several inconsistencies in the story offered to us by User:Eclipsed. I note also that good-faith contributions to the discussion by the company's owner were reverted. We often skirt around the issue of COI and paid editing with suspected paid editors and admins. Rather than debating this issue in an echo chamber, wouldn't it be productive to engage known paid editor in a dialogue? Can we please re-open this discussion (or at least come up with a plausible reason for shutting it down)? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC) I agree that WP:DENY is not particularly applicable. Surely the salient point is that this really isn't an admin question, and the discussion you want should take place elsewhere, I would think WP:VPP, since any consensus reached will probably require a change in the WP:COI policy, either to tighten it up, or re-framing it in regard to paid editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC) I'm sure that some people here would like to have a more general discussion about paid editing (and some would very much like to avoid having that discussion), but I am interested in discussing the specifics of this particular company and its editors. WP:AN seems to be an appropriate venue for that discussion and Eclipsed has very kindly agreed to participate here. I see no good coming from shutting down a productive dialogue on some flimsy excuse. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC) First off, I'm someone who normally doesn't read this board, but only is here because the paid editing issue is always an...interesting...debate. I have to absolutely agree with DC here, as I don't understand how WP:DENY could apply (and in fact seeing it used in general almost always bothers me, though that's a discussion for another time). Both parties associated with the company seem to be acting in good faith, and deleting someone's comments because "the discussion is closed" seems more vandalistic than anything, or at the very least extremely bitey. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC) See here for the reason. It would probably be good if an admin would conclude the discussion with an appropriate summary. N419BH 05:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Although I don't mind the collapsible box due to the length of the string I also think Deny was a bit short sighted. Whether we want to admit it or not we are going to have to deal with this eventually. As I see it we can either stick our heads in the sand and play see no evil or just work it out. Unless Jimbo comes and crushes this debate (a message has been left on his talk page) I think there are a lot of good points being argued on both sides. In my opinion though if we establish criteria and rules to deal paid editing, and they are editing in good faith and abiding the rules then why should they be turned away. --Kumioko (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC) You have Project talk:Paid editing (guideline) and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Use them! Stop complaining that a mis-placed discussion, that should be had amongst the entire editorship and that is inappropriate for the administrators' noticeboard, didn't get very far here (mislabelling in the collapsenote aside). You know where the places for such discussions are. One has 10 pages of archives on this very subject. Use them! This is a noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Quite. And FWIW, I know of course WP:DENY is about vandals, but the related principle of denying unnecessary recognition to paid editors seems similarly sound. If there are actual issues, they should be dealt with where appropriate, which is not here. Rd232 talk 09:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC) There are actual issues, and since this started here I see no point in starting fresh discussion at AN/I where the background will need to be explained. Set aside the paid editing and look at the conduct of the editors involved. Look at Talk:Guy Bavli and tell me you don't consider what is happening there to be deceptive. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC) I hate to say it, but he might be right. That page almost makes me wish I had a batch-blocking button. I'm trying my best not to block them all right now for being SPA advertising accounts. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC) The background would be better briefly summarised in a new thread, and you can point here if anyone wants the whole WP:TLDR discussion. There are possible WP:MEAT issues (cf User:Eclipsed/Adoptees). Rd232 talk 13:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, there's something very fishy about the KMGi related edits.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC) I guess it would violate DENY to point to this rant from a paid editor who was unhappy about being blocked (as a sock of a blocked editor).[48][49] People like that make it clear why paid editing causes problems.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC) I have to say I see no reason surpassing other conflict of interest groups to deplore paid editors. Indeed I would rather deal with a paid editor than a nationalist, obsessive, crank, conspiracy theorist, fundamentalist or extremist, since they are likely to realise that bad behaviour will reflect badly on their clients. Rich Farmbrough, 11:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC). If only that were so! Yes, it's hard to say which is worse among the paid editors, nationalists, Chauvinists, etc. But there are special problems with paid editors, and some of them vary depending on the contracts. For example, one company says it will post an article and keep it for a week or so, but it expects full payment once the article has been up for a few days. In other words, when it comes to AfDs the client is on their own. OTOH, another company offers a complete service, apparently including billable hours at AfD. And these activities are sometimes (always?) pursued by puppet accounts, with little or not transparency. Meanwhile the nationalists are likely to post flags and make themselves known. So there are important differences.   Will Beback  talk  12:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC) How is what you fear going to increase from the current situation? The whole point here is to get greater transparency, and allowing paid editing will do that if anything. If a company declares COI editing of an entry, when it goes to AfD much greater scrutiny will come of it, and socks are much more likely to be caught than if a company is editing with an undeclared and hidden COI. Companies that violate our policies will be banned from editing just like other users. In fact if we write specific policies to deal with this we could more easily ban an entire company instead of it's individual employees. If we don't do this we will just see an ever increasing amount of secret COI editing by marketing companies.Griswaldo (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC) The major problem we have with paid editors is that they are usually paid to have a bias. It's hard to criticize the person who writes your paychecks. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 23:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Yes and errrr, this also includes every source used in every article. Unless you want to argue they are all biased (in which case I would agree) it cant be a valid argument in lesser context? Can it? I'm no expert on the topic. 84.107.147.147 (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC) More or less all published sources are biased, skewed and/or flawed one way or another. Those flaws are carried through to en.WP content. This is the core thinking behind the long standing WP:V: All one has is verifiability as to published source, truth is another topic altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Not to mention that most top editors to a given article are at best enthusiasts of the topic they write about, and far from unbiased. Those lengthy articles about entertainers don't get written by detached non-fans, you know. Skomorokh 11:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC) You can be a fan of someone or something and still write a fair article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Exactly! You can be paid for something and still write a fair article. Skomorokh 12:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I would guess that some of the most skillful among paid en.WP editors are those who write content which doesn't stir up any fuss, is thoroughly sourced and keenly written, all within the policies. This is the same thing done by many unpaid (but skilled) editors who are eager about their topics and it's how much of the content here has been built. A harmful editor/writer can be disruptive, PoV flogging and heedless to policy whether paid or unpaid. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I kind of thought it was agreed that this was not the place for this discussion. But since it continues anyway: a fundamental difference between a paid editor and someone advocating for a topic out of conviction is that we believe (WP:AGF) that (a) the latter is acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia as they see it (b) that they are open to persuasion, discussion, and argument. The paid editor has the interests of the subject (usually) at heart, and are not open to changing their mind in anything like the same way ("oh, right, this guy is non-notable, I'll give back my fee..."). Paid editors may be better at appearing to follow the rules, but because of the way Wikipedia's rules are mutable and inconsistently enforced, combined with the risk of socking or meatpuppetry, they are extremely dangerous if they exceed a very low proportion of editors. If POV nationalism is Wikipedia's cholesterol, paid editing is its cancer. The former you can manage (though it might cause heart attacks), the latter you just want to get rid of in case it one day causes death. Rd232 talk 12:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC) So it sounds to me that what where advocating is a WP version of "Dont ask, dont tell". We know thats its happening but as long as the paid editor keeps their mouth shut about it and maintains a low profile we pretend we dont know...but we know. Oh but if we "catch you" well block your account so go and create another one, maybe more than one using a different IP and or EMAIL address so that when we catch you, you wont be slowed down. I agree that POV editing is bad and I agree that there are serious risks to allowing paid editing, thats why we need to drag it out of the dark alleys and cast light on the shadows. If we draft some policies that must be followed in order for paid editors to operate (such as COI banners, preceding their comments with paid editor, forcing them to use an articles for creation/article incubator type system, or any number of other things) here then we are just kidding ourselves. Are we going to have to tweak things along the way, of course, absolutely, but if these editors are "professionals" and they want to continue to make money editing without having to hide, then they will abide. As an individual editor you can probably make a few bucks and stay hidden but for the big firms that have several editors and want to publicly and actively write, they are going to do it and if that means they have to generate dozens or hundreds of accounts, using different EMAIL domains and multiple source IP's then they will do that and generate a whole lot of work on us trying to figure them out. --Kumioko (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC) If an article is written in such a way that it adheres to policy, what's the problem? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I agree and I have made my preferences known but in the end I fully believe that this whole conversation is just burning time and effort because there is almost zero chance that Jimbo would ever allow it. In that light I have left a message on his talk page to please come and make a comment, although he has done so before, so that we can put this baby to bed. If he is willing to allow the discussing of how WP can allow for paid editors without compromising the integrity and status of the community then great. Otherwise we may as well do as the jedi say and "Move on, there is nothing to see here." --Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC) What does it have to do with Jimbo? Malleus Fatuorum 19:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC) He has vocally stated several times in the past that he is opposed to it and although he usually lets community concensus drive policy but allowing paid editors could have ramifications beyond simple editing including: affecting the nonprofit status of WP and the WMF loss of paid contributions by soe benefactors if paid editing is allowed loss of editors who would no longer donate their time to a project that allowed paid editors negative Press due to assumptions and arguments by the media. So based on that and the potential affects it may have on WP, the WMF and on his business in general he would have the final say before something like this occurs. Wether he chooses to exercise it he does have the power to quash decisions that could affect the health of the project. IMO the items I mentioned above can be overcome if we plan and set policy accordingly. --Kumioko (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC) He can state whatever he likes, as can any other editor, but I repeat what does it have to do with Mr Wales? Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Perhaps the only problem is a philosphical one; "if I'm not being paid then nobody else should be paid either". But who knows, perhaps I am being paid for some of the stuff I write, who can tell? As you say BB, it's the quality of the product that ought to matter, not the motivations for its production. Malleus Fatuorum 19:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Rd232, thanks to your attempts to squelch a productive discussion about a particular company and the actions of that company's employees here, you have inadvertently managed to turn this into a discussion about the general issue, which has even attracted opinions from some of the less thoughtful ANI regulars. Something to think about next time, perhaps. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC) It wasn't productive, and it didn't belong here; and the reason it's continued is because of your refusal to accept the fact that it didn't. Start a discussion somewhere else, and drop a note here. End of. Rd232 talk 19:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Why would I want to do that and face still more heavy-handed interference from people such as yourself? Keep your head in the sand, it's all the same to me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC) If you choose not to break up the issues into appropriate parts and discuss them at a relevant location, that's your call. Maybe someone else will. Though since nobody really has any solutions worth a damn, maybe it doesn't matter anyway. Rd232 talk 20:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This tree is dead, cut down, pulped, pressed into paper, signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, lost, found, queried, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighter. On no account should you allow a paid editor to read poetry to you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry for the attitude here but since some users seem intent on closing out the conversation before its completed rather than doing the right thing and either letting it run its course here or moving it to the correct location I have cut and pasted it to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) . Its not exactly protocal to copy and paste it I know but its too long and too many things have been said to just start a whole new one. Regardless of how it comes out the conversation needs to be completed. --Kumioko (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC) While Rd232 is correct and the above Village pump link is a much better place to discuss the general topic, he and several others have completely missed the specific issue of this one instance of paid editting. The place to discuss a specific issue of paid editing, in a specific place, by a specific editor or group of editors, is here on the Administrators Noticeboard. This hatting, while well intentioned, has not been executed well. Moderation requires careful thought, not wild stumbling around waving arms and yelling "nah nah nah nah nah, I can't hear you". Do your *whole* job, admins, not just the easy part of it that lets you show how big your ban hammer is.120.19.16.221 (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC) My hammer is thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis big :P If there are specific issues with a particular instance or company, a new thread here or at ANI or WP:COIN would be appropriate, reusing whatever bits of the discussion above are helpful for that. The hatted thread was far too long and unfocussed to be any use for anything. Incidentally Kumioko moved a lot of not terribly helpful meta discussion to Wikipedia:VPP#Wikipedia_Experts. Sigh. It's not like this hasn't been discussed plenty of times before, so that any old messy discussion will do: to get anywhere it needs some thought and organisation (summary of prior discussions) and focus. There was a standalone RFC before, and a followup to that would make a lot more sense that what Kumioko just did. Rd232 talk 13:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Rd232, since you have taken ownership of this thread, would you have any objection to moving the sections dealing with the actions of specific editors (namely the sections entitled "Cutting to the chase", "No honour among thieves?", and "A bit more clarity") into their own thread and continuing that discussion? My suggested thread title would be "Actions of WikipediaExperts editors". The rest can then be archived. It seems a bit unorthodox, but perhaps it is a compromise that you would be willing to entertain? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC) If you think it useful to do that, I have no objection. But it should probably go to WP:COIN (with a note here). Rd232 talk 14:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Have you read the discussion you are determined to quash? The concerns are not primarily about paid editing or conflict of interest. Please let me know what you are willing to allow here on your noticeboard. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Rd232, I would prefer not to restart the discussion only to have you close it down again, so if you could provide an answer it might save us some grief. Also, did you approve this discussion? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC) "have you read the..." yes, and re-reading now I've no idea what you're getting at. Look, I didn't want to acquire "ownership" of this thread in anyone's eyes, so I'm officially putting this thread on the pavement/sidewalk for anyone to pick up and do with as they wish. Please give it a good home! Rd232 talk 21:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC) To be honest RD it would have been better to let the conversation play out here where it started rather than end it, twice, because some non admins were having a non admin discussion on the admin noticeboard. If it wasn't appropriate it should have been moved earlier rather than several days after the discussion began and after it had drawn attention. In the end it doesn't matter because since I moved it there has been no action at all eventhough it was fairly active here. So your actions have had the affect I believe was intended all along and unofficially killed it. In the end, admittadly it never would have gone anywhere anyway and the paid editors will just have to stay out of sight and out of the watchful eye. --Kumioko (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC) The tree was cankerous. I told you where you could plant new seeds. This makes me some kind of anti-tree fundamentalist? The reason you haven't had success at VPP is because you declined to plant new seeds, and instead took a large cutting of the diseased tree. Rd232 talk 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Extra points awarded for use of an extended metaphor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Company name I think it's the foundation that should take a look at this. As said, it's a peculiar case, and we should take this seriously. I think I know one spot where we might hit them: The company name. If i'm not mistaken, the Foundation have Copyright on the "Wikipedia" name. U.S. Copyright law prohibits the use of copyrighted names, or any part of them. I am not saying the Foundation should go to court with this, it would be a feast for the press, but an Wikimedia Foundation attorney should take a look at it. MikeNicho231 (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC) It is my impression that the Wikipedia name has been used so much that the foundation doesn't really pursue these matters much unless they are really serious (and paid editing is nothing new). Also, there's no official general counsel for the WMF currently; they are looking for someone to fill that position now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: in terms of moving the policy issues forward, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing concluded in August 2009, failing partly because there was just too much input for the RFC structure to handle (I suggested that major RFCs like that need to use some type of collaborative position statement rather than dozens of inevitably mostly similar individual views). The proposed Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline) has existed since 2007. It's probably time to have another go at an RFC, but it needs to be kicked off with a really good summary of the background (drafted collaboratively on an RFC subpage before it formally starts, perhaps), and it probably needs an innovative structure to attempt to handle the likely scale of input. If anyone wants to pursue these, go to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Paid editing 2 and Wikipedia talk:Paid editing (guideline) respectively. Rd232 ^talk 12:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A. James Rudin

A. James Rudin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created by a sockpuppet of Historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The article seems on the face of it to be reasonable but may or may not be a violation of the topic ban that the sockpuppet was blocked for evading. Please check this out for me as I have an email from the subject via OTRS (Ticket:2010120110018911) Guy (Help!) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Historicist was, it seems, banned indefinitely from editing any Wikipedia page related to Israeli-Palestinian issues, broadly construed,[50] at the time the article was created (notwithstanding that he was blocked and using a second account). The subject A. James Rudin appears to have had no involvement in Israeli-Palestinian issues, his work rather has been devoted to interfaith dialogue between Christians and Jews, so I do not see a violation of the topic ban here. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not ready to be a featured article, but the article has had several editors (though the edits were all minor) and there appears to be nothing inherently wrong with the article as it stands. I will be more than happy to assume responsibility (not owenership) for the article and to address any content issues, should they arise. Alansohn (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please revdelete a few edits

Hi, can you please revdelete the edits from User talk:Snow storm in Eastern Asia containing password info? It's the latest few by the page's owner. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Nakon 02:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Revdeleted and blocked indefinitely for a possible compromised account. Nakon 02:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just an FYI; I came across this account some time ago (had no idea it was still active). The editor was erratic and confused and had a tendancy to create long rambling articles/lists and cut/merge/split them all over the place. So it could jsut have been a continuation of that (a block I support though) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

All Day (album) full of original research

All Day (album) was covered in some online news source (it might've been a school paper) last week. While doing research for last week's Signpost, I came across the article and therefore checked it out. Full of original research, with IPs and SPAs seemingly trying to "identify" samples on the album's tracks. I tagged it for OR, only to find out today that it had been removed, with discussion on the talk page where the users partaking in the OR refuse to accept that what they are doing is OR (one use even called the person who put up the template - me - an "idiot"). One user also suggested trying to get Wikipedia to reference itself if the artist acknowledged the accuracy of the page, in direct contradiction to our WP:RS policy. User:OverlordQ has tried to explain to them that it is OR, but so far to no avail. Admin eyes would be good, this is just a big mess. StrPby (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: Notified at the article talk page and notified OverlordQ (talk · contribs). StrPby (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is a veritable orgy of original research, but as pointed out by NPR, MTV, Billboard and The Guardian: it's cool. <shrug>. dissolve^talk 10:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I dislike doing it in this case... but the OR is now removed. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. All the other albums (see Template:Girl_Talk) have the same problem... how do we feel about removing it all? For me it is too bold and action w/o others weighing in. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As I replied on the talkpage, the downside of being "wrong" on the samples has no consequence, and there is some sourced basis for the samples, it's not like they are being pulled from the sky. IAR/common sense, if the risk/downside of being wrong on the times/tracks is minimal, why get worked up over it? I'm generally pretty tight on OR, but the downside of this is basically zero. Same does for the other albums, though I would like to see more sources, in this case, I'm for a more liberal interpretation in this case.--Terrillja _talk 14:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that other sites are providing times for samples. Also given that nearly every single one of those sites reference this article as a source, it's just a bunch of circular references. All that has been published so far is a list of tracks sampled in alphabetical order, it hasn't been covered anywhere else; at least nowhere nobody has bothered to cite. That is WP:OR no matter how you slice it. Q ^{T C} 15:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I provided a number of links at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Girl_Talk_albums which are independent of wikipedia. In fact, whosampled was up before wikipedia was connecting the samples.--Terrillja _talk 17:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Whosampled isn't a reliable source. Like IMDb it's community generated. Q ^{T C} 19:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, call it IAR/whatever, but the downside of being wrong is none. Does it help the reader to understand how the songs were combined in terms of timing/overlap? Yes. Does having the timing enhance the reader's understanding of the album? Yes. Is giving the reader better information and more detail about how the mashup was arranged (even if the sources that it is based on are not prestigious) a net benefit to the reader? I would say yes. So the question is whether more information or [essentially] zero information is better. If you consider illegal art to be a SPS, then you can't even include the list of sampled songs at all. So using common sense, how can a mashup album be described without even including the songs sampled. To me, common sense and adding to the reader's understanding are a good use of IAR here.--Terrillja _talk 00:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"One user also suggested trying to get Wikipedia to reference itself if the artist acknowledged the accuracy of the page" - that was me, and that was a joke. sorry if it was inappropriate to joke on a talk page... the intent obviously didn't carry through the text Leav (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC started. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language article

Recently, a shitstorm kicked up in the Croatian language article. The cause was an influx of Croatian editors who were/are encouraged to all edit the same articles with the same point of view. Today I found the source of where these editors came from: [51] (English translation: [52]) On the forum Croats are encouraged to "fix" the Croatia and Croatian language articles that are "constantly under attack by crazy Yugoslavs". Users Ivan Štambuk and Kwamikagami are referred to as Chetniks while DIREKTOR and I are accused of using "every opportunity to ruin any Croatian article and turn it into a pile of Yugo-garbage". This is an obvious conflict of interest and a case of canvassing and sockpuppeteering.

The editors that have not been banned yet are:

• Hammer of Habsburg (heavy editing on only the Croatian language and Croatia articles)
• Kennechten (same POV also suspected sock of Aradic-es)
• Wustefuchs (only edits WW2 era articles concerning Croatia)

-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 02:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny, last time I checked, the Croats were South Slavs as well; sounds like a self-fulfilling forum post to me. 69.136.6.110 (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No surprises here, business as usual in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there concrete evidence which editors/WP accounts are linked to the posters in that thread? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to reinstate Bus stop's topic/community ban?

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

---

I believe that Bus stop (talk · contribs) has crossed the line back into his obsession with Jewish ethnicity and that it may be time to consider placing him under a community ban once again.

I first encountered Bus stop making tendentious arguments about Jewish identity at Talk:Jan Schakowsky. The discussion was about the appropriateness of putting "Jewish" into the religion field in an infobox, rather than "Judaism" (or a specific branch of Judaism if known) which is more semantically correct. I filled in the field with "Reform Judaism" after finding a source that confirmed that. He then followed me to Isaac Asimov and made changes to the long-standing wording describing Asimov's ethnicity.

My next encounter with Bus stop was at Talk:Andre Geim, where he has been making tendentious arguments advocating labelling Geim as Jewish even though Geim's direct statements indicate that he doesn't consider himself Jewish. He proposes that because there are several erroneous sources that say that he is, that that proves it and has now begin inserting material into the article based on these erroneous sources.

I noticed at the top of his talk page that he was previously banned for just this sort of contentious activity. The conditions for his return include:

• You may not edit any articles having to do with cultural or religious identity of individuals, living or dead. This should be construed broadly. Should you try to WP:GAME the edges of this ban, you will be blocked again.

He also had a six month general probation, and it seems there has been some confusion that the above restriction was also temporary, but I believe it was intended by those who proposed it to be permanent. Please review the resolution and discussion here: "Unblocked contingent upon mentoring by User:Durova, a topic ban, 6 months of probation, and a full apology to the community.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)" Notice that the topic ban is not restricted to six month. Several admins stated that they would only be comfortable allowing him to return if he was topic ban as described above. Only one admin suggested that ban be limited to six months, and that was never generally agreed upon. Prior to his original community ban, he was permanently topic banned from any articles related to Judaism, as well as any editing related to Jewish ethnicity of persons both living and dead. For further information, please see this AN search.

I believe that the duration of the topic ban needs to be clarified at the very least. This editor appears to be able to be productive, but not in this particular area of editing. He is falling into old behavior and it appears to be getting worse. Yworo (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Aervanath lifts restrictions here. I try to conduct myself with propriety. We don't have to agree. Wiki can be a contentious environment. If we act courteously towards one another and try to avoid underhanded tactics we can construct the best possible encyclopedia—given the human foibles we are endowed with. Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

He lifted the restrictions intended to be temporary (i.e. six month probation, mentoring by Durova). He did not specifically lift the restriction clearly intended to be permanent and which you knew, or should have known, was permanent. Yworo (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yworo—there was only one restriction and it was lifted. It was temporary—for 6 months. Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the actual discussions about implementing restrictions, that does not seem to have been the intent of the restriction on cultural or religious identity of individuals, living or dead. In any case, I believe that that topic ban needs to be reapplied if indeed it has expired. I agree that the wording actually posted on your talk page is ambiguous. But I think you know very well that you are returning to previous behavior that the topic ban was intended to stop. Yworo (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive177#Community ban review for user:Bus stop, only the "general probation" had a time limit attached to it, so the topic ban is probably still in effect. (since clarified by unblocking admin [53]) –xeno^talk 18:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• The topic ban doesn't say indefinite either, I would have read it as 6 months as well and would understand why Bus Stop did so. I notice you have notified Aervanath so hopefully he can pitch in and clarify what he meant. In my experience whilst Bus Stop can be a little over-zealous in some articles, the edits I've dealt with him in were made in good faith and often made in contrast to other editors who were equally zealous. I certainly wouldn't be pushing for another Topic Ban if the previous one is found to have been lifted. Yworo on the other hand has been seeking to file RFC/U on Bus Stop and another editor with whom he disagrees particularly on Jewish issues. It also looks like he's been WP:Canvasing in order to achieve this. Not sure if that's important but it does seem reasonable piece of information to set out on the table. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Reading through the Jan Schakowsky talk page megillah, I'm convinced that Yworo is ignorant on the subject, and should not be editing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• What's the point of making that comment? It is a borderline uncivil comment about Yworo that has no relevance to the issue at hand. Someone commenting elsewhere might well say that "reading through the Administrator's noticeboard megillah, I'm convinced that Baseball Bugs is ignorant on the subject and should not be editing it." Please leave the personal commentary at the door. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• He thinks "Catholic" is a noun. There is no such religion as "Catholic". It's "Roman Catholic" vs. "Byzantine Catholic" or whatever. Sorry, but Yworo himself should be topic-banned. As for me, I'm not editing the article anyway. But the bottom line is that readers should be given accurate information, and Yworo ain't the one to do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's no such religion as Roman Catholic either - there's one called "Christian" and a denomination subset called "Roman Catholic"  :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right. "Christianity" or "Christian" is a religion or religious designation, and "Roman Catholicism" or "Roman Catholic" is a denomination or its designation. I also dispute the notion that "Reform Judaism" is a separate religion. It's all Judaism. The Judaism vs. Jewish debate is nuts. The sources all say "Jewish", and we go by sources, not some ill-informed editors opinion on what the sources "ought to say". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Under John F. Kennedy I see "Roman Catholic" as his "religion", when it's a Christian denomination. Under Keith Ellison (politician) I see "Sunni Islam" as a "religion", when it's a branch or sect or denomination of Islam; and for George Washington I see "Church of England / Episcopal", which is actually "Christianity" the last time I checked. Barack Obama says the generic "Christianity" because apparently he hasn't joined a specific church in DC. The point, though, is there is a serious lack of consistency, and rather than one editor trying to get or keep another one banned, there needs to be a broader discussion of this subject. That's presuming that wikipedia cares about consistency. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at some Jewish government figures, I see Al Franken and Norm Coleman listed as "Judaism", and I see Abe Fortas and Felix Frankfurter as "Jewish". Here's a new name for wikipedia: "Consistency Rn't Us". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If I've gotten this wrong, it's solely due to a lack of clarity in the infobox instructions. I am certainly willing to implement fields correctly if I've gotten it wrong. And "Catholic" is both and adjective and a noun, just check the dictionary on that, will you? In any case, I'd certainly prefer to see "Roman Catholicism" rather than "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" where appropriate, but there seems to be even more opposition to that than to using "Judaism" rather than "Jewish", so I simply went with the flow on that one, as the same ambiguity doesn't exist with those terms. Yworo (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The word "Catholic" means "Universal", which is an adjective. The usage "a Catholic" is a long-standing colloquialism. If an item says "Roman Catholic", then "Jewish" is equally acceptable, as they are both adjectives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You'd better tell that to Wiktionary then, which has it down as a proper noun, "A person who belongs to the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church". Obviously, the name of the religion is preferable. But Roman Catholic does not also imply ethnicity, while "Jewish" does. Therefore, using "Judaism" is essential to conveying the correct meaning, while "Roman Catholic" conveys essentially the same meaning as "Roman Catholicism". Yworo (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary is a wiki. And since there is disparity in the use of "Judaism" vs. "Jewish", you should get busy fixing that inconsistency. By the way, why is religion even needed in the infobox??? I see it for Al Franken and Norm Coleman, neither of whom makes anything out of their religion as far as I know - yet it's absent from Groucho Marx, who very much identified himself as Jewish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's the Apostles Creed (used in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and many other denominations) that states "I believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" - I'm pretty sure the Church of England is not saying that they believe solely in the Pope; especially considering its history. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I do think the question as to whether we should have a "religion" field in the infobox is a valid one. The same for the "ethnicity" field. Yworo (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Procedural question - if there were community imposed editing restrictions placed on the Bus Stop account that were not tied to a specific time limit, would a single administrator have the authority to lift said restrictions without bringing it back to the community for discussion? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Bus Stop paid his dues; and he has become a valuable asset to this project. He is an editor who consistently brings thoughtful and interesting perspectives to the articles he works on. Many disagree with him; and sometimes he's right and sometimes he is wrong - however there is no reason for this thread to proceed. He was banned for a year, he returned and was on probation and he has to be seen today as a member of this community - free and clear - he's earned that, like him or not...Modernist (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. If he was indefinitely topic banned, he remains indefinitely topic banned. My experience with Bus Stop also leads me to vehemently disagree with your evaluation of the perspective he brings, but that's neither here nor there. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest people take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ed Miliband to see what's going on. The same thing is happening on a number of articles. Bus stop has the eccentric opinion that anyone who's got a Jewish granny should be labelled Jewish for all purposes (even religious and even if they've explicitly denied it). Now, having that opinion is fine - so perhaps no need for a topic ban, however repeating it and failing to recognise when you're flogging a dead horse (per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) isn't. Perhaps a restriction allowing Bus stop to make ONE SOLE contribution to any Jewish related discussion might be in order.--Scott Mac 18:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Scott Mac—can you please show me where I've argued that "anyone who's got a Jewish granny should be labelled Jewish"? Also, can you show me where I've argued that anyone should be considered "religious…even if they've explicitly denied it"? Bus stop (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You repeatedly added Jewish - religion to ed milibands info box even though he has clearly stated he has no belief in God. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob—concerning the Infobox and my insertions into it—the results were no different than found here, which reads "Religion: Jewish". We even have a Category:Jewish_atheists. Bus stop (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't bother linking me to such non reliable locations. Here is exactly your issue, your refusal to listen, you have no consideration or understanding of the weight of consensus opposition to your position. You even refuse to listen to a living person that is the subject of our BLP article, that is the issue with your POV, unless you understand and agree to back away from adding such denied claims to the infoboxs of living people then I support you returning to your previous editing restriction. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob—there is no source to support the configuration "Religion: None" in the present Ed Miliband Infobox. That is just original research. And it may be a WP:BLP violation. It has been presented as a "compromise." WP:BLP says that "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." "Religion: None" is not supported by sources. There is a footnote next to the word "None". It links to an article in which we read Miliband saying, "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense." You have extracted the second half of that sentence and discarded the first half.

We find something similar at the Isaac Asimov article that Yworo mentions at the beginning of this thread. Do we find any source mentioning Asimov's "ethnicity" being Jewish? Not that I can discern. And in the edits and reverts I've exchanged with Yworo no such source has come to light. Even in the case of a nonliving individual there is little justification I can think of for applying "ethnicity" if sources do not support it in relation to the individual. Bus stop (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If you cant get it that ed milliband is not religiously Jewish then I don't have anything else to say to you. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That was the puzzler in this discussion. I've heard that Asimov was an atheist, but that don't make it so, nor is my memory a reliable source. But they can't say "religion = none" if they lack a reliable source asserting that. Better they should say "religion = unknown", which looks silly; or just leave that parameter out altogether. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs—yes, the parameter should just be left out of the box. I have suggested that. My suggestion was rejected. I have flip-flopped on whether it should read "Religion: Jewish" or just be left out of the box. But as I have said before, I think I have suggested it more than one time—leaving the "Religion" parameter out of the Infobox is a good idea. Bus stop (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Because you disagree with him as many here apparently do concerning his opinions about who is Jewish; is no reason to ban him. This is not a reasonable request. User:Durova should weigh in here also...Modernist (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. No one should be banned for their opinions. However, in a collaborative project one needs to know when you've lost the argument and move on. You don't have to agree, you just have to be able to recognise consensus at some point. Bus stop seems incapable to doing that.--Scott Mac 19:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To quote the last thing Durova said concerning Bus stop - [54] lets be real...Modernist (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The post you reference also contained "He acknowledges his mistakes and pledges not to repeat him [sic]." How's that pledge worked out, then? —chaos5023 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering the scope of his work here since his reinstatement - pretty well I'd say. Although he seems to have ruffled a few feathers...Modernist (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

So returning to tendentious editing in a topic area that he was either previously or currently topic-banned from is a "good job, well done" on a pledge not to repeat one's mistakes. Aw, man, nobody told me it was Opposites Day, I would've worn my NASCAR hat. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

People can disagree; this is the United States of America, free world and not everyone agrees with you, and as far as I can tell not everyone agrees with Bus Stop or with Yworo; thats what makes this community strong, provided people respect each others rights to exist...Modernist (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement is great. Hammering on a point, irrespective of consensus, until people get sick of it and you get your way is not. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As the one who reported yet another sock of User:Russian.science - An edit of whom Bus stop 'strengthened' by adding a reference which was already contested I agree with having such a restriction in place. Bus stop, you edit knowingly while both the information that was added before you, and the information that you added, were contested (and it does not matter who contests it, it was contested and under discussion, which you knew).

Regarding this, I urge all editors active there to keep looking out for socks of Russian.science, and report and revert that editor on sight (even if you agree with him). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is commendable that Yworo is willing to stand up for and protect the rules of Wikipedia. I believe that editors who cannot follow the major rule WP:NPOV should be banned unless they can conform to the rules. People like Yworo should be listened to otherwise we will be pushed around by self-serving, combative individuals. (Salmon1 (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC))

Section break

I have had significant interaction with Bus Stop, both before and since his ban. My observation is that he has returned as a highly productive editor.

Productive or not, suggestions that an editor be banned should not be lightly thrown around. An analysis of the complaint by the OP renders as follows:

• They disagreed on someone's religious definition in an info box, but note that Bus Stop provided a reference on a third option.
• Bus Stop followed them to another article. That, if true, is naughty, but not the stuff of bans
• The OP then seems to have followed Bus Stop to another article. There, Bus Stop has been making arguments. That's what Wikipedians are supposed to do.

That seems to be the sum of the complaint. Discussion of whether the old ban was properly completed or not seems a totally separate discussion. I suggest that unless the OP has plenty of strong diffs of truly ban-worthy behaviour, this discussion is ended. We can then discuss, without any hysterics, whether the original ban was properly concluded. --Dweller (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice the Isaac Asimov article because Yworo brings it to the attention of a Talk page discussion I was participating in here at 21:43, 18 November 2010. Bus stop (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, I disagree with Bus Stop about living people--they should not be listed as having a particular ethnicity or religion if they have stated they consider they do not belong to it, no matter whether there are good sources otherwise. But his suggestion to simply omit the line from the infobox is a very ingenious solution--I'd carry it one step further and suggest we omit it from the infobox of all living people. I consider this situation is has spread into a number of AfDs as very unfortunate,but I do not think Bus Stop has acted worse than other editors and cannot see banning him. I would reimpose a more closely crafted a restriction on his adding or removing a religious or ethnic designation from any article or infobox, narrowly speaking. That should be enough to deal with the problem in its worst aspect, the influence on the stability and fairness of BLP articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said above: Bus Stop has become a valuable asset to this project. He is an editor who consistently brings thoughtful and interesting perspectives to the articles he works on. Many disagree with him; and sometimes he's right and sometimes he is wrong - however there is no reason to ban him. We should all calm down. I agree with Dweller - and I concur with DGG and BusStop that maybe the religious designations should be reconsidered and removed from infoboxes...Modernist (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

People like Yworo should be heeded. Otherwise self-serving, combative individuals will push us around. Knowing the rules of Wikipedia and standing up for them is critical when there are WP:SOC and WP:BULLY. Yworo recognizes that: ”some editors have their "pointless argumentation as a distraction from the actual point" down pat.” Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that has to rely on highly reliable sources. It is not a question as to who is agreeing with whom but rather that editors who cannot follow the major rule WP:NPOV should be banned until they can conform to the rules. Yworo is willing to stand up for the rules. We should encourage him. (Salmon1 (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC))

I don't think it's just one user who has an obsession with Jewishness. Just look at the AfDs posted to my talk page. For better or worse, there are sources that "obsess" over these issues, and there's some disagreement among Wikipedia editors over their reliability, or the extent to which Wikipedia should follow such categorizations in lists, categories, infoboxes and what not. Interesting enough User:DGG has taken the opposite opinion from the one he states above in this discussion: "There are varying definitions of Jewishness , and the article should therefore being inclusive of sll of them, either self identification, or multiple RSs, not all of which can be Jewish.". Tijfo098 (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

DGG makes a good point here; in fact it is a point that is actually part of our BLP policy. We need a centralised discussion, perhaps, to clarify how relevant religion has to be for inclusion - and then work to remove it from appropriate articles. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

... and similarly for ethnicity; Jewishness is not a religion; see Category:Jewish atheists. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I thought this had all been settled before: That religion or ethnicity is generally not part of a BLP unless it's significant to the notability of the person. So why is this an issue again? A simple example: Myron Cohen was definitely a "Jewish comedian". Many of his jokes centered on Jewish subjects. Jack Benny, though Jewish, was not a "Jewish comedian", as his comedy was driven largely by his own invented personality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• About my inconsistency. Right, my opinion above needed some rethinking. Part of what I suggested above is that the information be removed from the infobox. There's a problem there due to the conspicuous situation and the difficult of suitably qualifying in that space. I now think I was wrong & have struck out that part of my comment --this has been a very fast moving discussion in several places. In specific cases, I'd remove any contentious or disputed information from infoboxes as a general rule unless it's absolutely essential, on the basis that its inclusion isn't worth the quarrel. I strongly disagree with removing such information from the article in most cases, unless its a non-public figure and the subject objects, and I would support revising our criteria--in the article, the nature of the evidence can be stated, and the one-word description problem does not apply. Judging whether it is significant is not easy--BBB gives his personal opinion about Jack Benny, but I think there should be no difficulty finding sources for the Jewish influence on his humor. The possible Jewish influence on their work has been discussed in sources for any reasonably famous person. The basis of BLP policy is DO NO HARM, and that is adequately met by removing material to which there is an objection. As for the definition, there is no single definition; Jewishness is both a religion and an ethnicity--some people have one, some the other, many have both. It's other things also, for example a genetic line of descent , for which it is now possible to find objective evidence--there will be a strong overlap with other criteria, but not complete. My position is that for the purpose of articles, it should generally be included; for the purpose of lists it should be included if the person fits any reasonable use of the word, unless the there is objection or the person is known to renounce it. There is no way that this is not in general encyclopedic information, as it is included in almost all reference works. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking admin

(Note: Thanks to xeno and Dweller for bringing this discussion to my attention.) For the record, my intention when placing the conditions on Bus Stop was that ALL of the conditions would expire after 6 months. Referring back to his talk page, I was unclear in stating this in his initial unblocking conditions. This seems to be a source of confusion, for which I apologize. As far as I'm concerned, Bus Stop has been free of any and all restrictions since I posted User_talk:Bus_stop#Conditions_lifted in June 2009, which was actually 7 months after the initial imposition of restrictions. The current issues aside, I've never had any reason to regret unblocking him. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Move to close

With Aervanath clarifying the original ban terms, above, no strong evidence of the need for a new ban and no consensus for the need for one... not to mention discussions drifting into more interesting but off-topic content territory, I call for an uninvolved admin to close this thread now, please. --Dweller (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:50, 2 December 2010 (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.

Realmanbyt

I blocked Realmanbyt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Ggghhhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Diujyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely as sockpuppets. Realmanbyt was the first registered so I figured them for the master. They all made the same edit to Billie Jean. Bringing for review. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

All  Confirmed, plus Smartguy990 (talk · contribs). TNXMan 16:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Administrators input needed

At least few administrators how are informed about WP:ARBMAC, and contemporary Kosovo status, are highly needed at Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split. Thanks. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We are still waiting for someone to comment. We need uninvolved editors. Come, read the threat, and post your opinion!! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Once more, we really need someones opinion on talk page. Be involved! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Person wants to delete account

Anybody want to help this guy out? Herostratus (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• You're on the wrong noticeboard. Administrators don't have the tools for that. Uncle G (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

ITN needs updating

Resolved

 – Posted by BorgQueen (talk · contribs). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:In the News hasn't been updated for three days. Could an administrators please post the news about FIFA awarding the 2018 and 2022 World Cups? I tried to post a blurb, but User:Tariqabjotu reverted me, even though it is a protected page. He refuses to discuss the matter, and I'm not going to edit war (wheel war) with him.

Wikipedia could use more editors. When people come here looking for information about these events, we should have a link on the home page. It is not acceptable to have three day old news, and nothing about a major event of global interest. The announcement was 45 minutes ago, and still nothing. Jehochman ^Talk 16:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Get over it. He's discussed it just fine on his talk page. As has been pointed out to you at WP:ITNC and his talk page, we don't post articles right up onto ITN without a significant update to the linked article. He was right to revert your hasty addition imo, and your coming here in a content dispute to get another admin to put it back is unimpressive behaviour. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I request an uninvolved admin to look over the matter. Tariqabjotou refuses to discuss the matter. There is no other way to reach a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 16:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Propose something at WP:ITN/C. When there is consensus to include it and the article meets the criteria, the blurb should be updated. I don't know what else to say. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Been there. Done that. Consensus already exists. We lack an uninvolved administrator. Jehochman ^Talk 16:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Consensus is there. What is disputed is if the article meets the criteria for being adequately updated – at the point of original inclusion on ITN, it probably hadn't. I haven't checked again to see if it does now. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs)
  • How hard is it to update the page? Seems like a five-minute update to me; I already read through the page and it seems fine. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Convenience link to discussion on Tariqabjotu's talk (since removed). Seems like this is being discussed at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids. Fragmenting the discussion is probably unwise. –xeno^talk 16:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, discussion there seems to be stalled. The ITN page is three days past due for an update. That indicates the process is broken, and attention from more editors is needed. There are too few admins watching that page. Instead of pooh-poohing my concerns, how about you dig into the substance of the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 16:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • In that case, the correct course of action would have been to request more attention and participation at the thread to determine or achieve consensus - not to request another admin overrule it completely. –xeno^talk 17:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Did you look at the thread before commenting? WP:SNOW support. The consensus is quite obvious, except that it's been stonewalled. The ITN template is supposed to be updated frequently. It's three days stale, and needs attention.
      • Leading off our news today: "Canadian–American actor Leslie Nielsen (pictured) dies at the age of 84." Posted Nov 29, last month. Is that the best we can do?
      • "A new item should be added to Template:In the news by Tuesday, 30 November 2010 23:53 Wikipedia time (UTC)." Jehochman ^Talk 18:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Should be does not mean that it must be. It seems to be standard practice that ITN is not updated just for the sake of updating it. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Amiablecdn blocked for legal threat

I have just blocked Amiablecdn (talk · contribs) for making legal threats. He is [55] and I wouldn't be surprised if he does take legal action. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Several unblock requests, I love the last one:

"The valid, reasonable, and right request(s) to allow discussions to proceed as discussions are intended to proceed on Wikipedia have been declined with no justifiable reason given. The discussion(s) have been reviewed and the participant abusers and administrators are in violation of Wiki policy, legislation, and the Constitution & Charter of Rights. It remains their choice and their responsibility should they continue to act in an illegal manner.

"It also remains the right of any participant in a democracy and a democratic process (or message board) to address those abuses using the methods and procedures provided for to address those abuses. Those methods include those suggested by Wikipedia but do not supercede those provided by civil and criminal law and the Constitution/Charter of Rights.

"No one can be threatened that they cannot participate in a democracy; nor that they must adhere to any procedure in violation of that provided by law and the Constitution; nor that they can be inhibited in any way from seeking or proceeding with actions as provided for by the law or the Constitution.

Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

side comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ooh, he was fun. I don't think I've laughed that hard in weeks. Oddly enough, the term "sack of hammers" came to mind when he was spouting off the day before. HalfShadow 09:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Wow, I just read the last version of his talk page. I think my brain is dribbling out my ear. Good block. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC) ...and he's also socking now. Explains how he gets involved in "class action" suits with all those multiple accounts. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Aw, that's cute. Someone take a picture. HalfShadow 22:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC) More like "NO-class action". So where are the socks? I have an itch to taunt a moron today. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Oh he's funny when he gets steamed; I can just imagine him chewing on his mouse in fury. HalfShadow 22:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC) In my fantasy, he would take the case to Judge Judy, who would smack him down faster than you can say "nolo contendere". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC) I'm a great fan of Judge Judy and of anything on Wikipedia that resembles that show. However, we don't taunt the blocked (however much it may be deserved), so that should be an end of this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Block review: DAFMM

I have just blocked DAFMM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely (not to say infinitely) for disruptive editing. In particular, the editor has recently taken to blanking pages and then restoring them...and immediately prior to my block instituted some vandalism to Book. Looks like they were a productive editor at one time, so I'm somewhat concerned that the account may have been compromised. Requesting opinions. Syrthiss (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm well I guess my intuition is worth something then. I didn't even look at the userpage. Syrthiss (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• See also my unblock request decline. Could a CU please check for his other accounts, as the unblock request itself is concerning and I am not sure of these "worthful contributions"? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's a simple "decline unblock - move along - forget about" situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• He now says it's his brother's account, and he makes me think of a similar situation. I think a CU would still be useful here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No others found. –MuZemike 23:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there some kind of bug with these obnoxious panhandling banners?

Resolved

 – Go to thread at WP:VPT#Banners refuse to close for further discussion. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

For some reason when I click the X on these banners begging me to give money, they either do not close or they do close but then immediately pop up again when I go to a new page. Is anyone else having this problem? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:VPT is the place for this - there is already discussion there and the issue appears to be fixed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Add to Special:Mypage/skin.css -

#centralNotice  .siteNoticePic,
{
    display: none;
}

No more ads. –xeno^talk 19:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Turn the option off in your "preferences". It worked for me after experiencing the same issue as you did. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see from the Village pump discussion that it might be a browser issue, and that preferences probably wouldn't work for you. Unless you switch browser of course. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) See WP:VPT#Banners refuse to close; the gadget does not seem to work always either, browser independent. Seems like faulty coding to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I clicked to suppress the banner ads in my gadgets... it didn't initially work but now it seems to be working... if the problem reappears I'll give Xeno's code a try. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This kind of problem is not likely to generate any additional revenue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think even if you suppress them, they have to happen once per page they appear on. HalfShadow 22:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Shermy

Resolved

 – done. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone move Shermy (Peanuts) to Shermy? I tried doing this but it says that Shermy is on the title blacklist even though it's already a redirect to Shermy (Peanuts). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no apparent reason for it to be on the blacklist, but maybe there's a "hidden" story connected with it that admins can enlighten us about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a long feud between General Sherman, Sherman the Peanuts character, and Sherman the Worm-man from the Backyardigans? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

At a guess it contains "hermy", an old page-move vandalism favourite. ~ mazca ^talk 23:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This[56] indicates the reason it was moved was on the off chance someone would need to create a "Shermy" disambig page. That was almost 4 1/2 years ago, so it seems safe to move it back. It can always be moved again if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Autoblock check down

The autoblock checking tool is down. Anyone know how we fix that? Or who Eagle is?--Chaser (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably User:Nixeagle, who has not been on WP for quite some time, now. –MuZemike 22:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've thrown up a quick tool at [57]. Please let me know if this is what the old tool covered. Nakon 23:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I just tried it out. Looks good. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Picked a dozen autoblocks at random from Special:Ipblocklist, and it found all of them. Once 24 h had passed then it confirmed that no autoblock was set.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the Template:Unblock reviewed so that it links correctly to User:Nakon's substitute tool.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I got all the others. [58] Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Did I just do the right thing in response to self-identification by a minor?

I've just deleted User:Spark98 as Spark98 (talk · contribs), who appears to be 12 years old, had used it to post what looked like a personal profile which included their location, date of birth and a photo. I'd appreciate it if other admins could please review this deletion to a) confirm I did the right thing and if so, b) ensure that the level of deletion I used (simple speedy deletion) is appropriate. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Fully endorse deletion. Referring the user to WP:CHILD also is a good idea. I would think oversight might be appropriate as well, but I'm not an oversighter, so I can't do anything about that. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I posted a link to Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors on their talk page after deleting the user page. Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin here, but I would say you done good. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That is fine. Obviously no objection to the editor contributing if there's compliance with child protection issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The user has not gone he has just had his talkpage deleted, as I understand it, the best thing to do in such a situation is to quietly do the deletion and perhaps if you are wanting a second opinion to email someone and not to post the details at a high profile NB. Off2riorob (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources vs. synthesis

What is Wikipedia policy where a normally reliable secondary source makes a demonstrably false statement? Should it be quoted blindly, tagged as not reliable (leading to endless debate on the overall reliability of the source), contradicted, deleted?? What if the statement can be shown to be false only by reading two other clear primary sources (i.e., synthesis)? Does making a simple arithmetic calculation constitute OR or synthesis? Here's an example: Fredville passes a city budget of $10 million for 2010. The Fredville Times, normally a very reliable source, covers the budget accurately but then states, "The total budget is $8,000 for every man, woman and child in Fredville." No other reliable source covered the Fredville 2010 budget. The article is quoted in Wikipedia. The U.S. Census bureau a month later shows the population of Fredville in 2010 is 2,000. Doing the math, that is $5,000 per person, not $8,000. What should Wikipedia editors do about the quotation? Retaining it unmodified perpetuates a statement that is demonstrably false. Disproving it requires synthesis of two primary sources. Please consider this very carefully. The conclusions for this simplistic example may have far reaching consequences for Wikipedia policy, especially if the facts do not so clearly contradict the source and the article is of widespread interest and controversy. I have encountered the problem often, and would like to constructively contribute within policy guidelines. Oldtaxguy (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• WP:VNT. However, a simple calculation from what is already reported in the sources does not count as OR in my opinion. The best route may be "Source X says this[1] but the census bureau says something else, which conflicts with Source X[2]." /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In my example, I intentionally did not state that the newspaper reported the population. The example facts require synthesis in the form of simple arithmetic (a/b) based on two very clear primary sources to disprove the only reliable secondary source. Again, I believe the implications of this thought problem are significant, and directly relate to articles with which I am involved. Oldtaxguy (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Have you asked at the article's talk page? There's nothing an admin can do here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm asking for policy advice, not action. If this is not the right forum, please let me know where that is. Thanks. Oldtaxguy (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or the article's talk page, are probably best. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
        • … or even Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Policy concerning reverts of admin actions

Having observed many heated disputes as a result of undiscussed unilateral reverts of admin actions, I've proposed an amendment to the admin policy that would clarify the community's expectation that admins at least talk to each other before undoing each other. Because this change has been contested, I've drafted an RfC about whether the admin policy should be so amended. I invite all editors to express their opinion at the RfC.  Sandstein  11:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: last chance to vote in the Arbitration Committee Elections

This is a brief reminder to all interested editors that this weekend is the final chance to vote in the December 2010 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee. Voting began last Friday and will close just before midnight UTC, end of Sunday 5 December (earlier for North America: just before 4 pm west coast, 7 pm east coast). Eligible voters (check your eligibility) are encouraged to cast their votes well before the closing time in light of the risk of server lag.

Arbitrators occupy high-profile positions and perform essential and demanding roles in handling some of the most difficult and sensitive issues on the project; editors are urged to vote for the candidates they consider best suited to service. The following pages may be of assistance to voters in coming to an informed decision: candidate statements, questions for the candidates, discussion of the candidates and personal voter guides.

• Proceed here to cast your vote

For the election coordinators, Skomorokh 19:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Just want to clue everyone in (who just clicks "dismiss" on them) a site note that just came up. There is help needed clearing out the almost 20,000 Unreferenced BLPs. Please go to WP:URBLP to help. A good amount of people would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

To help with motivation in clearing out the unreferenced BLPs, the DYK project has adopted a new policy that any previously unreferenced BLP that is thoroughly sourced and two-fold expanded (in readable characters) is eligible for a DYK nomination for the following five (or so) days. This is a relaxation of the usual five-fold expansion requirement which applies to existing articles. All usual rules about hook quality, not being overly negative about individuals, etc, continue to apply. More details can be found at WT:URBLP, or at WT:DYK. EdChem (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is fantastic news. Well done everyone who has collaborated to raise the profile of this problem and come up with ideas that will actively help to fix it. Poorly-referenced BLPs are a significant ongoing problem at WP:OTRS, this will improve Wikipedia's credibility and reduce complaints at the same time. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

BAG nomination

Hello! I invite you to comment on my BAG (Bot Approvals Group) nomination: Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/H3llkn0wz. Thank you. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a place to spam about your nominations, really... ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 19:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm following Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Bot_Approvals_Group. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry – I genuinely did not know that that was part of the procedure! Heads up that I'm going to be proposing a change now, though... ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 20:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Jewish list AfDs

There are a couple of these over a day past the closing date: WP:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American cartoonists and WP:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers. After doing WP:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, WP:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors and WP:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish heavy metal musicians I'm mentally exhausted. I just wanted to post here that because of that exhaustion I'm not intending to knock off the last two, in case anyone was holding off expecting me to do so. I think there is something to be said for the same admin closing out related AfDs to at least ensure a consistent approach, but I'm not sure I could do a good enough job on the remaining two. So I'd appreciate it if another admin could do so. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Cartoonists done. If I have time, I'll take on the entertainers. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London art scene needs closing (I would, but I commented), as does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of wind turbines in Denmark, which I find confusing (who knew we had so many lists on wind Danish wind turbines!) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Entertainers done as well. Now to finish the ethnic Chinese nobel laureates if I have time :P /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fetchcomms, now to see how many of them end up at DRV...--Mkativerata (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hah, I was thinking that too :P I closed the Chinese Nobel laureates one and actually am not exactly sure if it was the best route, and actually thought it harder than the Jewish AfDs, although it seemed shorter. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I think I'm about to get dragged there: User talk:Mkativerata#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors. Anyway, I've closed out the Danish wind turbines one so all that's left is the London Art Scene (I !voted there). Since when did AfD ever get backlogged? --Mkativerata (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Jewish list MfDs

The Jewish MfDs should be coming up in five or so days. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Admin attention needed at Talk:September 11 attacks

There is an ongoing active disruption at Talk:September 11 attacks by an extremely persistent sockpuppeteer and conspiracy theorist, who appears to be User:Freedom5000. Yesterday, the talk page had to be semi-protected for several hours (there was a major disruption, see the page history log), but today he is back again. Either the page needs to be semi-protected again or an admin (or several admins) need to chaperone the page for a bit and keep blocking the socks to see if that helps. Maybe some rangeblocks could be explored as well. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

174.89.55.48/24 could a start Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The IPs that I found were 174.89.48.0/20 and 76.68.52.0/24 which I blocked previously. Given that accounts have been used, I cannot completely verify whether the accounts used these ranges or not. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

More eyes please.

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair - MfD of User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair - MfD of User:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair (which is merely a copy of the first page)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 26 - DRV which only lists the copy's talk page

(While noticeboards like WP:AN are specifically noted at WP:CANVASS, it still may be considered that this is not a "neutral" notice. To that, my response is: "shrugs". Even were I to do a Barnum-esque '"Come one, come all - vote the way I want you to", I highly doubt that that's in any way going to affect how people are going to choose to comment.)

This all seems a mess given the circumstances. I'd like some more eyes on all of this.

I can do a quick chronology, if you'd all like, though it's been explained several times on my talk page (User talk:jc37#Closure) and at the DRV.

Apparently (before I was aware of any of this), On 9 November, Giacomo created User:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair. Which I see now apparently had it's own MfD on the 9th, though it was withdrawn the same day.

Looking over the page histories, it would seem that about 2 hours after Giacomo created that page, though an hour before the MfD of it, User:Demiurge1000 created User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair. (For clarity, referring to that as the DU2 page and DU2 talk page.)

On the 14th, Giacomo copied the DU2 page and DU2 talk page to: User:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair and User:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair, respectively. (GR2 page and GR2 talk page - again, for clarity.) He later stated that he did so because he felt that the DU2 page and talk page would be deleted. Presumably due to User:Alpha Quadrant posting a request for a speedy deletion on the DU2 page.

Alpha Quadrant then listed both DU2 and GR2 at MfD. (MfD of DR2 and MfD of GR2)

This is where I come in.

User:SmokeyJoe posted a note to WT:MFD that there was a backlog. I noticed that note on my watchlist, and so went to help out. (As an aside - and I think I'll be starting a discussion about this elsewhere - the "separate page" process of MfD stinks, in my not so humble opinion. It may be useful in many instances for AfD, due to discussion lengths, but the discussions at MfD don't appear to be any longer than typical at CFD. and the daily log system there works rather well, making commenting and closing much easier. And imo, part of the subsequent confusion here might have been avoided.)

So I started in at the bottom and started working my way up, eventually closing both MfDs

And closed the 2 MfDs as supporting the G10. (Though I might say that - due to this being a cleanup of a backlog, this wasn't exactly "speedy".)

Initial follow-up explanation of the close is on my talk page, with further clarification at the DRV.

Also, I salted both deletions, immediately following closing both MFDs (and noted there), due to this.

A few things I'll note:

• Giacomo has been taunting, threatening, and so on, towards me. I don't care. I think at this stage it's ignorable, so please no one think about blocking him on my account, at least. (preventative and not punitive, and all that...) Normally, I'd think this goes without saying, but this has ben an interesting several days. Also, I won't attempt to guess at his motivations in all of this, but at face value at least, it's mostly the suggestion that this is all part of a white-wash campaign to protect certain arbitrators in some way.

• The DRV is a mess. For one thing, only the talkpage of GR2 was listed, while I would presume that we would want an airing/discussion of all of it. (Which, I might suggest, is partly the fault of the separate listing "process" at MfD.) And because of that, it's been more than a little confusing as to which page is being referred to by commenters. (See the DRV for examples.) To be clear, when I refer to "the original page" there, I am talking about DU2, and "the copy" is GR2.

• Another reason I would like more eyes on this is because I feel that there is are some decided questions emerging from the DRV, including:
  • a.) whether fear of on-wiki drama should be a reason to not do what we would normally do.
  • b.) whether disparagement through humour should be considered disparaging, and thus G10-able.
  • c.) whether this should apply to the userspace of an active editor. (Does WP:BLPTALK, apply?)
  • d.) whether WP:IAR should be cited due to the assertion that this (the talk page at least), may be seen as tangently related to the recent events regarding User:Rlevse.

Needless to say, I strongly oppose "a". Any sort of fear tactics or attempts at bullying, even if seemingly passive, should always be denied, and never considered acceptable or appropriate.

And I am currently neutral on "d" - I'm honestly not sure. Though I do question how close to the events this page should be considered.

Thanks in advance for your (plural) thoughts on this. - jc37

---

DU2 restoration

(If wanted, this part could be split to a separate section.)

I also would like more eyes on my decision to restore DU2 temporarily for the elections.

This diff shows giacomo adding a question linking to the talk page of DU2 on the 22nd. (noting that the GR2 copy was made on the 14th, and the MfD of each was on the 15th.)

Due to this, following the MfD closure, User:Jehochman requested that the page be undeleted for transparency during the elections.

I did. (For the reasons noted on my talk page - User talk:jc37#Closure.)

But, I am concerned that this may be somehow gaming the system.

If this is just: "I'll ask a question to an arb, in the hopes of getting a page I want kept, restored".

I dunno if it is, but I'm leery of us setting any sort of precedent in that direction.

I'm also wondering if merely restoring the talk page of DU2 would be enough for the purposes of transparency, or if the main page of DU2 is needed for context. I deferred to the latter in restoring it, choosing to err on the side of transparency.

Thanks in advance for your (plural) thoughts on this. - jc37

Adding time stamp. It's true Giano can be an ass, but the issues this thread raises appear to have been resolved roughly two weeks ago. It's time to archive this and move on... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Subtemplates of Template RussiaAdmMunRef

Are all the templates at Category:Subtemplates of Template RussiaAdmMunRef really needed? It looks like many templates are used only in one page (transcluded into the reference section) and many templates have their own redirect. Is there really a relationship beween the text in the article and the transcluded references? If not, it would be difficult for an editor to revise the references in any one article since they are transcluded and perhaps transcluded into two or more pages. Also, would would be the purpose of a redirect to a template transcluded onto one page as the reference material for that page? Perhaps the transcluded reference templates for the RussiaAdmMunRef scheme, including Category:Subtemplates of Template RussiaBasicLawRef should be substituted, if the template is only used on one page. -- 14:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzma Gamal (talk • contribs)

There's nothing an admin can do here, unless you go to TfD. I would, however, ask the creator of the subtemplates first, to see how it is supposed to work. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

sitenotice?

dunno the best spot to note this - but I think '• Voting to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee will close at 2359 UTC today. [dismiss]' is out of date now? Privatemusings (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Removed [59] - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maer_Roshan#Radar.2C_Radaronline

Maer Roshan - please assist with edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emetemet13 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place for a minor edit dispute. Talk to the user who you are having issues with. If this isn't a dispute, then you need to tell us what to assist with. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

{{{Allmusic}}, Editprotedted-Request

Resolved

Could someone work on this request? The sandbox version has to be copied to actual template. I will continue migrating external links to allmusic, there are about 70000 pages left that will be migrated using template. Now there are only about 6000 tpl usages and it would be better to do the template edit now before bot continues cause the cache becomes unnecessarily bigger. Regards --Cactus26 (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Amazon have added Wikipedia into their site

I do not know if anyone has seen this [60] but Amazon.com has incorporated Wikipedia [61]. This will hopefully be good for both organizations. Is there any direct collaboration going on? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a marketing technique to me. Not sure if this is going to help or hurt both in long run. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

So Amazon is going to host copyright violations of the books they're trying to sell. That's novel. :) --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Just... why? I can't see how this helps with shopping. You can't search it, and you can't add the International Space Station to your basket. Useless. --Dorsal Axe 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a no lose move for Amazon, this certainly won't decrease their sales and could well just increase them, all at no cost to Amazon. E. Fokker (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, visitors could get fascinated by the never-ending content and never get to shopping. Especially with no search function! Yworo (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• There's no direct collaboration; WMF didn't know about it until it was announced. They're using a database dump, presumably. Shimgray | talk | 20:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, here come even more spammy articles about non-notable authors and their non-notable books when publishers adjust to this. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, might be a career opening there. Where do I apply? Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Here presumably. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Get a job in a publishers marketing department or advertising agency ;) Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that I haven't already got one? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The wiki is awaiting your writing here, Jmh649. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What?!?! To me, it looks like Amazon.com has finally flipped their lid wide open and gone off the deep end. :-D<L.O.L.) Amazon's copy of Wikipedia is nearly ridiculous, because if someone is reading an article on [the real] Wikipedia abou something he/she wants to buy, all he/she has to do is go to either Amazon.com or eBay and just buy it! And that is exactly why Amazon copying Wikipedia into their website is so nearly absurd. Next thing we know, eBay will be following in Amazon's footsteps next. :-D<L.O.L.) --[|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I love Amazon :D -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm curious about how eBay is going to respond.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what Amazon really expects from doing this, except huge laughs from us at Wikipedia. :-D (And the laughing urge is building up within me as I look at this, but for some reason it just will not come out. :-D{L.O.L.)) Being that Amazon and eBay are probably arch rivals, who knows what to expect from eBay because of this. :-D Of course, a lot of people know about this original, real Wikipedia, so I wonder how many people will find Amazon's Wikipedia copy, and how people will respond about such a not-too-extremely-user-friendly (as its missing the number one most important part of such a website--the search box! :-P) Wikipedia copy, like Amazon has made. ;-) Regards. --[|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 09:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I just looked at that CNET news article on this, linked to above, and now I think I may be getting the picture now on what Amazon is trying to do, :-) but I still do not see how too many people are going to find their Wikipedia page copies outside of Amazon.com, ;-) and even further with the search functions missing. :-D{L.O.L.) Regards. --[|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 09:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The real stinker about Amazon's Wikipedia pages, is that all redirect pages redirect to the real Wikipedia, instead of Amazon's Wikipedia pages! X-D<L.O.L.) Regards. --[|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 07:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about censored quotes...

...such as here

Now, of course, in most national publications, if someone swears, they censor it, but do we?

That is, if the quote censors the word, do we censor it as well because that's the way it was quoted? HalfShadow 03:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Privatemusings (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)that is to say, I think it's best that we just repeat the info. from the source :-)

I don't really mind one way or the other, it's just a bit of a grey area, you know? We're not censored, but the quote is; what do we do? HalfShadow 04:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is really quite interesting. When he said it, I assume there was no BLEEEEEP so he wasn't censored at that time. But we use the sources, which do censor it. So I think it doesn't hurt to censor it, because we're quoting sources, not him directly. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur: we don't censor, but we don't UN-censor, either. The direct quote is to be used exactly as it appears in the RS. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit summary has it correct. No matter how obvious the word is filling in the blanks is WP:OR. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 07:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Request to delete duplicate images in Wikipedia

Hi, would someone please delete the following images. These images already have duplicates in Commons.

These were uploaded in both places by User:Konkani Manis, and have received OTRS tickets on Commons.

Check the following link for the list of images uploaded on Commons.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Konkani_Manis

These are their duplicates in Wikipedia:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VJP_Saldanha.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karnadsadashivrao.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kamaladevi_Chattopadhyaya.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jagannath_Shankerseth.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DinakaraDesai.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blasius_D'souza.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Benegal_Narasing_Rao.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ammembal_Subba_Rao_Pai.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ravindra_Kelekar.jpg

Thanks. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 09:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. — Edokter • Talk • 12:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of inappropriate language by User:Ibn.Kathir

Moved to WP:ANI § Use of inappropriate language by User:Ibn.Kathir

 – GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Adélie Penguin

 Done Can someone move Adelie Penguin to Adélie Penguin? I tagged the page hours ago for G6 but ain't nobody touching it. So much for "speedy" deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There's an old page move discussion on the talk page that closed as "no consensus", so this is probably not an uncontroversial request. Mind you, I would support such a move, I just don't think it's a speedy candidate. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing a talk page

Please assist Can someone go to Talk:Florida_State_Board_of_Administration and add {{WikiProject Florida}}? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done - KrakatoaKatie 01:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Round two

Please see Talk:Michigan_Occupational_Safety_and_Health_Administration and add {{WikiProject Michigan}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposing article ban on Ronda2001

Apologies if this is in the wrong please, but Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement appears to be for requesting enforcement of existing sanctions not proposing discretionary sanctions.

Ronda2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disruptive on Lebanese Civil War, which is under a 1RR restriction under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. He was blocked for violating the 1RR restriction to try and keep his preferred version, which most people agree is a one-sided point-of-view nightmare. The block was then extended for evading it using an IP sockpuppet. With his first edit back from his block he reverted to his preferred version, and was warned about discretionary sanctions. Despite this, with his second edit back from his block he has reverted to his preferred version. Obviously slow motion edit warring is not helpful either, so another approach is needed.

A block would probably not work, other than indefinite one, since we will be back in the same situation once the block expires. It is too early for an indefinite block in my opinion though. A topic ban would amount to an indefinite block also, or we would be in the same position once the topic ban expires. Therefore I am proposing that Ronda2001 is banned from editing the article, for an amount of time yet to be decided. He would still be welcome to propose changes on the article's talk page, according to his posts he does have access to apparently excellent sources. I think this would be the best way for Ronda2001 to learn how things work round here.

Someone please move this to the appropriate venue if this is wrong, or frame this proposed sanction in a more conventional manner. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ignored the talk page.(Talk:Lebanese Civil War#Original research and POV edits) Has also had admins attempting to help him out. Failed to respond as needed so a block is appropriate. ANI should be sufficient venue with such an open and shut case. Editors could have tried harder maybe to get him in the fold but it doesn't look like he really even cares from the lack of response. Might as well indef unless the editor argues that it is more than a problematic single purpose account.Cptnono (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Open proxy

Resolved

 – Reported to OP - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently 208.87.234.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a WebSense proxy (WHOIS resolves to SurfControl). Just saying. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Not that someone who reads this wouldn't eventually fix this problem, but WP:OP is the better place to report these, in the future. --Jayron32 04:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reported to OP [62]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Request to delete duplicate images in Wikipedia

Hi, would someone please delete the following images. These images already have duplicates in Commons.

These were uploaded in both places by User:Konkani Manis, and have received OTRS tickets on Commons.

Check the following link for the list of images uploaded on Commons.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Konkani_Manis

These are their duplicates in Wikipedia:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vishwa_Konkani_Sammelan.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WKCinaug.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Basti_Vaman_Shenoy.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madhav_Manjunath_Shanbhag.JPG
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TMA_PAI.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wilfy_Rebimbus.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shenoy_Goembab_portrait.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NGChandavarkar.jpeg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vaikunta_Baliga.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T.A._Pai.jpg

Thanks. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 07:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just change the template to {{NowCommons}} as I did here for example. Someone will delete it eventually after checking that it's been moved properly.--Misarxist 12:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Drudge work completed. FYI, most of them appear to be unlicensed derivatives. The description says they're property of some Hall of Fame in Mangalore and there's no indication of permission. Someone probably ought to delete them here and mention it to admins on Commons. Nevermind, I see the OTRS notices. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Done I deleted the files. One NowCommons link was wrong so I fixed that and one file on en-wiki was larger than the one on Commons so I uploaded the larger version on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsherr (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Steve Benson (cartoonist)

Resolved

 – edits suppressed - Alison ^❤ 07:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Oversight needed for long-term vandalism, several offensive edits exist in the history. The BLP was not in acceptable shape before it got cleaned up and semi-protected in response to an AFD today. I've added it to my watchlist, but so should some editors more active than me. THF (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't post oversight requests in public fora; WP:RFO. Skomorokh 04:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Nothing in RFO says not to make a general request on WP:AN, and I specifically did not repeat any problematic information. If there's an additional unwritten rule that one isn't supposed to post to WP:AN, it should become a written rule somewhere so casual editors like me don't make the mistake of relying upon three-year-old procedures. THF (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Working on it. A complaint has been posted to OTRS and is being actively addressed - Alison ^❤ 07:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 29#Category:Major League Baseball pinch hitters and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 1#Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 29#Category:Major League Baseball pinch hitters and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 1#Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So, this is new

Someone at the help desk pointed out COTS Demo Flight 1, which has a sparkly new reader feedback survey at the bottom. Anyone know where this came from, when it was implemented, who discussed it, etc., etc.? TNXMan 17:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, appears there is more info at mw:Article feedback/Public Policy Pilot. TNXMan 17:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Something to do with Category:Article Feedback Additional Articles I guess. Haven't seen anything around these parts about the scheme... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a list of articles in this initiative? The survey template was added to India, but there's no notification on the talk page to alert the regular editors of the page. —SpacemanSpiff 17:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any substantial discussion on en. about this. A heads-up would have been nice. TNXMan 17:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Earlier info was at Category:Article Feedback Pilot. David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The links from the above cat are helpful. According to mw:Article feedback/Public Policy Pilot/Additional Pages, the page I was referring to isn't part of either the original or subsequent additions to the pilot, and was incorrectly added in. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

COTS Demo Flight 1 is a redirect from Dragon COTS Demo Flight 1, which is listed. David Biddulph (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about India, the other one was from Tnxman307. —SpacemanSpiff 18:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Article Feedback Pilot may be added to pages which are expected to undergo substantial expansion in the near future, and it's OK to add the AFP to a few pages that meet this criteria if they are then listed at mw:Article feedback/Public Policy Pilot/Additional Pages too, which helps keep track. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks - should we have a hatnote clarifying there is no association between WikiLeaks and Wikipedia?

Just wondered if I could get some more people to weigh in on this discussion. Thanks. --Dorsal Axe 11:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Main_page_disclaimer. Can't see that happening in a month of Sundays, but there it is. Rd232 ^talk 12:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sitenotice might do the trick. It's not intrusive enough to violate guidelines/policies yet it clarifies any misinformed users. How does that sound? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• We get maybe a few tens of emails about this per day. It is not actually that large a number. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, this is the lower-end of the stats since some people won't be emailing us on this. If we follow the 80/20 rule, that means around 80% of the people are misinformed and didn't contact us for clarification. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Sitenotice#Wikileaks. Rd232 ^talk 13:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Community ban proposal: Benjiboi

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

Resolved

 – Benjiboi is banned --Jayron32 17:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

---

• Propose community ban for Benjiboi (the person, not just the account), based on:

• massive socking (see also)
• unrepentant attitude.

• Cla68 (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Paid editor and pornography promoter who was enabled for far too long here by the guileless. What's really needed is periodic check users. I see ol benji was also seeking to confound the development of paid-editing guidelines via his socks. I wonder why that might be? At any rate, it rather drives home the point why they shouldn't be tolerated.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• ya; needs to do the get-useful-on-non-en:wp-WMF-projects thing for at least six months per WP:OFFER. Jack Merridew 12:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, a no-brainer. And no, no "standard offer", at least not such a simple one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  I did tweak it yesterday. I'm thinking on the order of 10,000 useful edits, elsewhere. That's the 'new' std offer. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Now I understand more about some of the harm I've seen done through time to some of those topic areas. Hopefully a reminder to editors that the project is laced with this kind of sockpuppetry and that it does sway content in meaningful ways. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yup, makes sense. pablo 12:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Not that a ban will make him change his ways, but this is long overdue. AD 13:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - As one of the primary targets of attacks from Benjiboi's sockpuppets and IP edits, I support this community ban but have no expectation that the sockpuppetry will stop until a range block is put in place. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. as a mere editor. Disruptive behaviour. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - further, Jack Merridew is wrong (or I read him wrong). No standard offer in this case. Too disruptive, too unrepentant. We don't need any content from this contributor. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  Well, the 'ya' means I'm supporting banning Benjiboi. And see the tweak to OFFER; I believe it needs to shift to a solid expectation of significant work elsewhere. It worked for me, and should be available to others. Benjiboi certainly doesn't seem about to shift gears, so I won't be holding my breath; this is unimpressive: s:Special:Contributions/Benjiboi. Mebbe in six months; mebbe in sixteen months. Or we have a pattern of long-term abuse and and socking from the former King of the ARS. As you know, I have had significant concerns about Benjiboi's approach to gay porn BLP; I've not looked at the paid editing concerns (which are troubling). Fut.Perf.'s right that any return will not be at all simple; restrictions may apply ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I thought he was one already....has been abusing WP:RS and WP:COI for far too long. We don't need users like this.--Scott Mac 15:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Very reluctant Support: Benji and I always worked together well and I was glad to see someone working in a difficult area (LGBT articles), but this amount of sockpuppetry and unrepentance can't be overlooked. :( - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom.   — Jeff G.  ツ 15:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Keeping in mind they were blocked indefinitely on December 8 for socking. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support- as per User:Bali ultimate. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support- nuke from orbit. Syrthiss (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - very, very disappointing Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support I took a very long break, came back, and he's still at this? Talk about a long-term problem in need of a solution. - KrakatoaKatie 21:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Agenda account with persistent WP:BLP problems. Should have been banned ages ago. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This is an example of why paid editing is incompatible with Wikipedia norms - it seems to lead inevitably to sock-puppetry.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support, completely incompatible with the project. I couldn't support a return ever. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per it "only took four years" for us to realize it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Sadly but with the standard offer + tweaks in place. AniMate 03:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Far too interested in using Wikipedia to push their POV. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support- long term sock puppeteer and POV-pusher. Good riddance. Reyk _YO! 09:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support; has been fairly problematic in the past and if it's reached this point, it's too late for him to change. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I just read his comment on the archived SPI and I think he's trying to turn things around against Delicious Carbunkle, who made a strong case. MuzeMike, that's a lot of socks uncovered in one fell swoop! When an editor's created one sock too many, that's when you drop the banhammer. Benjiboi would probably be uncooperative off-wiki. Get him out of here. AND STAY OUT!--Eaglestorm (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2010 (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.

General treatment of blocked users' pages

(Inspired by several current events, but not directly related to them, so this noticeboard seems a reasonable place)

I'd like to see if I can gain consensus for stopping two things that I've seen done recently, almost always applied inconsistently, and I feel are detrimental to the project. Also, they're needlessly mean.

1. Could we agree to back off a little bit as admins from the meme that a blocked user's talk page is only for requesting an unblock, and the user should be re-blocked with no talk page access if they aren't actively seeking an unblock but are instead discussing other things? If he's abusing the unblock template (wasting the reviewers' time), insulting people right and left, giving instructions on how to wreak further havoc to his minions, or using it as a blog, that's one thing. But I think it's counterproductive to close it down otherwise, particularly when discussion is going on with other editors, but even when it (currently) isn't and he's just complaining to no one in particular. Interactions with other editors are about the only way a blocked user is going to be convinced to change his approach; it's pretty unlikely that reading policy pages is going to do it. Suggestions and explanations can be made about changing behavior, discussion about conditions for an unblock, even responding to friends expressing disagreement: these are, at worse, harmless, and at best, will help improve things when the block expires. Only when active disruption is going on (and it is rare that editing one's own talk page is disruption, instead of the more common disrespecting a cop) should talk page access be removed. This is true whether the block is for a day, a week, or indefinitely.
2. Could we agree to back off from racing to blank their user page and user talk page and place the {{indefblocked}} template on one or both? Indeed, for users who are not sockpuppeting (where the template and its links are useful), can we back off from ever using it at all? It is of no practical benefit (adding a user to a category is not a benefit), and has the effect (and sometimes the intention) of rubbing the blocked user's nose in it. Generally, he's been blocked to protect the project, not so we can thumb our noses at him on his way out.

I wouldn't be surprised if actions like this can harden the attitudes of someone, and make them more likely to be a problem than they currently are. I'm not looking to gain consensus to change the wording of policy somewhere (not a masochist), but to just get an agreement, if possible, that these two actions are not automatic, and should only be done when active damage is still occurring, and there's reason to believe these actions can somehow help prevent it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Support - Seems fair to me. As long as they aren't being insulting or hurting anything its their userpage IMO and they should be able to edit that. --Kumioko (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, I'm no fan of locking the talk pages of blocked users unless some meaningful harm is being done, though I understand how editors might be nettled by the venting that happens now and then. Meanwhile, one might keep in mind, almost nobody likes to be blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle to these general concepts, but being involved in one of the obvious inspirations for this thread, I note that there will be cases where some admins genuinely feel that the user is being grossly disruptive at their user talk page, and another group of admins will hold a different opinion. I am not of the mind that these sort of general ideas are all that helpful in resolving problems, indeed even if #1 was in force before the situation I am involved in, I still believe it would have come out with the same result. If we want to discuss that situation in specifics, there is a thread ongoing at WP:ANI to do so. In the general, statement #1 by Floquenbeam above is nice, but I can't see where it would do much to change how situations are handled. There will be genuine disagreements between reasonable admins regarding what constitutes gross disruption. At some point, enough is enough. While I agree that we must provide some avenue towards rehabilitating a blocked user, eventually, after some time, it becomes clear that they aren't interested in being rehabilitated. We shouldn't allow for infinite disruption under the hope that some day, they will eventually come around. I am a strong advocate for rehabilitating blocked users, and have argued for it time and again, but even I recognize when enough is enough. If its the first time someone is blocked, then sure, of course, we should have a large amount of lenience regarding "venting" at ones talk page. But when someone had been blocked and unblocked almost monthly, for several years, at several different accounts, it cannot be argued any longer that they don't understand what is expected of them, or that people have not tried to rehabilitate them. Regarding #2, I am in 100% agreement. Unless the userpage is itself part of the disruption, there's no need to rush to blank it. Tagging it with the indefblocked or banned template may be useful for categorization purposes, but theirs no need to be vindictive, which is all that blanking the userpage looks like. --Jayron32 20:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is categorization useful? Assuming it is, for reasons I don't know, perhaps we can just add the category to his user page, without the template? That might be a good compromise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a quick cat is all that helpful. Meanwhile, TFM is not banned, only blocked, which is in itself but a techincal step. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Support - indefblocked should only be used in cases where we're darned sure "indefinite" = "infinite" -- if then.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Indef can be less than an hour, given a fit unblock req. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say that {{indefblocked}} should only be used, but left the brackets out because I thought it was obvious. Obviously not.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur that these should be the default situations. Per Jayron32, there will be editors whose past behaviours negate these courtesies — which rationale might be included in the edit summary of a page blanking/templating. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

When it gets so bad, I can understand either outlook. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Agree with Jayron32. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Concur This practice all too frequently assumes the appearance of unseemly grave-dancing. I would support any amendments to the relevant policies and guidelines that discouraged such hasty triumphalism. Talk page access should only be revoked for those intentionally abusing it, and page blanking ought only be applied to the incorrigible. Skomorokh 21:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Support but I thought we were doing this anyway. I've seen plenty of blocked editors who were permitted to continue discussions on their talk pages, as long as they didn't get disruptive about it. Looie496 (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'm all for rehabbing blocked editors too. Rushing to stick an indef notice in someone's user space doesn't help at all. - KrakatoaKatie 23:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Just here to note that I haven't seen any problems with admins blanking user's talk and user pages other than in circumstances where the account is for vandalism only, and I have not seen administrators protecting talk pages incorrectly. I also wonder whether this discussion is the best way to try to get whichever administrators are acting incorrectly. Not every admin checks WP:AN often enough to notice this. Malinaccier (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, which means using common sense and being courteous to all users, blocked or not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment from a non-admin: Blocked users should use their talk pages for proper unblock requests and civil discussion about their situation and about article edits. Anything beyond that is typically not good, but it's case-by-case. Being too eager to post an indef notice is kind of rubbing salt into the wound of an established editor. For obvious SPA trolls, though, it's totally appropriate. Maybe there needs to be an in-between template that says an established user is indef'd but that the case may not be "settled" yet or that there is still discussion going on? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support (mostly) — Locking talk is usually unwarranted and is about getting in a kick, when there are no attacks or other shite from the blocked user. {{indef}} tagging is useful later on as a notice to users who would otherwise miss noting that a user is blocked, but it would be appropriate to let pages be while things are in flux; call it a week, or at the close of some an/ani/rfar discussion. If the user page is uncontroversial and there's a reasonable possibility that the user will be back, a tag can be placed wo/blanking the rest. Of course, there will be full-on trolls that warrant all the kicks available, but that's not the sort I believe this thread is mostly about.

  I've experience here; eight months of it. My pages were tagged and my talk locked against me and redirected. This was while I was talking to arbs and moving up to the wider WMF-space. The pages were even attacked by the usual trolls. But things mellowed and I had regular chats on my talk while I was off building a road back on other WMF projects; see it at User talk:Jack Merridew/Archive 2 (63kb).

  Everyone seen my recent tweak to WP:OFFER? The new standard needs to be 10,000 useful and appreciated edits to other WMF-projects (less for Gabi, moar for Ottava;). We need to expect a large dollop of honest dialogue, too.

  Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support We should always aim at taking the least drastic action that will solve a problem. there's a tendency here to first, ignore a problem, and then, once it becomes inescapable, to over-react to it. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support If a blocked user is using their talk page to ask questions or seek guidance etc then there is no need to restrict access to their talk page. Those using the talk page to spout off with a load of obscenities should have that privilege removed. Indefinite is not the same as permanent, although some seem to think it is. Mjroots (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Policies and rules exist for a reason. Treating "special people" differently does nothing but promote the concept that "some editors are more equal than others", and while a newbie who does something to get blocked gets their account tagged indef, special people with special friends here don't. The only objective way to deal with this is to treat everyone who engages in disruptive behavior exactly the same and xpect them to adhere to the policies just as everyone is expected to adhere. Let's not kid ourselves: this thread is about The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. If it was about tagging indefblocked accounts and sockpuppeteers with a template, then I suspect Floquenbeam would have submitted those templates to MfD, as the logic presented above implies they are redundant. This isn't an objective proposal, it's subjective because The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's friends are mad that he was blocked. He's currently indefinitely blocked and as such his account should be tagged. He's also an acknowledged suckpuppeteer, and thus his page should be tagged. If these templates are no longer needed and tagging accounts with them is considered "counterproductive", then perhaps the WP:DISRUPT and other policies should be revised to correspond to this new consensus and the various templates used to tag indefblocked accounts and sockpuppeteers should be sent to MfD. Treating people differently just because they're popular and you like them is, frankly, bullshit. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No, this thread is not just about TFM, I believe I made that clear above. Not sure why you think I'm lying about that. Since you're reading my comments through the incorrect filter of thinking I'm trying to get TFM special treatment, you misinterpret a lot, and end of arguing with things I didn't say, and looking a bit like a fool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The only one looking like a fool is you, speaking to me and everyone else as if we're idiots, as if you haven't already shown your hand here [63]. If you feel the block and sockpuppeteer templates are unnecessary why haven't you submitted them to MfD yet? What is "mean" about placing block templates on an account that is blocked? Or is it just mean because he's your friend? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I have run into something similar with 2 other users in the last few days, as (again) I believe I made clear above. The incriminating diff you provide above can also be seen as me waiting for agreement in this thread before I did what I said I thought we should do, for the reasons I thought we should do them, for any recently-indeffed editor. He is not my friend, I do not know him. I am not lobbying to have him unblocked, I'm lobbying to have him treated like a human. The other two users, whose talk page access I asked be restored, are also legitimately blocked, in my view; one of them was blocked for a week only because he was blocked while I was asleep; I would have blocked indefinitely. Hysterically flinging around baseless accusations of nepotism and doing favors for friends is much more damaging to an atmosphere of collaborative editing than using rude words; I suppose holding my breath waiting for the civility police to ride to my rescue would be unwise, so I'll do it myself: Shame on you. Do not expect further replies from me unless you can learn to follow the guidelines we have for interacting with each other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support, although I would add blocked users being allowed to demonstrate that they can make productive edits. My general philosophy is that only disruptive use of the talk page while blocked warrants cutting it off. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support, but noting that user pages are often blanked and tagged by non-admins as well. —DoRD (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that {{indefblocked}} is sometimes used too quickly and somewhat indiscriminately, and more caution should be taken before blanking and/or applying this template to blocked editors. WP:CIVIL applies all the time, even when dealing with disruptive editors. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I can understand the desire, but an editor like TFMWNCB is actually an example of when an editor should be blocked without access to his talk page. Banned and blocked editors are just that: banned and blocked editors. We don't need to provide them with a forum to edit by proxy. There's no reason to automatically slap this template all over, because the vast majority of blocked editors just disappear (or open another account that is never successfully traced to them). That said, there's no reason to really discourage using the template, either.—Kww(talk) 18:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's odd how community consensus supports the indefinite block of TFMWNCB but yet a few admins who favor TFMWNCB are tenaciously intent on preserving on his userpage. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

All 'I'm interested in doing is shaving it the hell down to the current edits: it's 130+ kilobytes right now, and anyone else would have been told to archive it. HalfShadow 22:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support- noting that the proposal doesn't say to never block usertalk access, just not to be so trigger-happy with it. I agree with that general sentiment. Reyk _YO! 21:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to out alleged victims of Julian Assange

I recently reviewed, and declined, an unblock request from a user who not only started a BLP-violating article outing one of Julian Assange's alleged victims (I am keeping diffs minimal to avoid increasing the exposure). The article has since been redirectified to Assange's, although I noticed neither woman's name is included there, and the redirected article was the first place I saw it, frankly.

My question: are the women's names formally protected from disclosure by Swedish law, or just not used in the media out of respect for their privacy? If the former, as I indicated in my decline, we should really oversight not only that user's edits but any mention of their names (and salt the articles). If the latter, should we do this neverthless as a broad application of our policy that merely being a victim of a crime, particularly a sexual assault, does not make one notable?

And if oversight is necessary, I would prefer that someone other than myself, another oversighter who does not edit under their real name at least, do it because I am concerned about the possibility of retaliation. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The victims are protected by WP:BLP, more specifically WP:BLP1E. They are not notable for one unfortunate event. If their names are reported in the press, those facts go into an article if WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE can be maintained. Jehochman ^Talk 16:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% up on the current situation (have been involved in editing Julian Assange where we also face this issue). BUT, I believe the victims names are now out in the media so it is not an outing per se (although clearly the block is correct and appropriate for that user). Consensus on the Assange page seems to revolve around our BLP policy of erring on the side of not naming parties such as this (rightly so). We have discussed AB, and she may qualify at some stage for an article (thinking on that is ongoing I believe). At this stage I do not think oversighting/revdel is needed; the names are out there and it is simply for editorial and BLP considerations we are not naming them. I would delete AB's article (esp as now it is a redirect) and leave it at that. From a practical perspective revdel'ing all of the mentions of the names is near impossible and would essentially require revdel of most of the Assange edit history for the last few days. I see the article is now deleted, thanks Jehochman --Errant ^(chat!) 16:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No oversight needed. Both names are widely known. One of the (ardin/benardin) has an active twitter feed, has spoken to the press in sweden, etc so there is no possible "outing"... Whether there should be an article on these ladies (probably shouldn't) should be decided by site policies. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Anna Ardin should be deleted also. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be a matter for WP:RFD, but since the name is being widely reported in reliable media by now ([64]), I think it is a valid redirect target. Whether it should be mentioned at the target article is an editorial decision to be made by the article's editors in accordance with WP:BLP.  Sandstein  17:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with the redirect is that it makes an implicit mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Ardin#Alleged_sex_offenses but she is not listed at all in the actual section. It doesn't look right. Either the paragraph needs to be fixed or the redirect. Ocaasi (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Also deleted. If properly sourced and balanced content is added to Wikipedia, the redirects could be recreated. Jehochman ^Talk 18:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. Looks like I made the right call. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Time To Rock

Can an admin delete and salt Time To Rock? It's been recreated at least 3 times by the same author: each incarnation has had totally bogus chart positions and has credited the song to a different artist (Gabry Pointe did have an EP with this name, but it was in 2002 and didn't chart — definitely not a single in 2010 that's at #33; the current FIMI chart shows no such song anywhere). I don't wanna keep playing whack a mole with this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Also, maybe block the author for rampant hoaxing; they also made Mortal Kombat Single which was just as blatantly hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The recent speedy deletion request was declined (IMHO, a proper decision) because the article claims notability as a charting single, and the admin who responded to the db-request did a google search and established that it wasn't an obvious hoax. If you think deletion is merited, try WP:AFD. --Jayron32 00:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Redirected to artist. It maybe not beis not a hoax, but it's not notable. Notability requirement for songs exceed just about every other type of thing. So not a notable single per WP:NSONG which requires enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• I have explained the situation and the re-direct of the article on the users talk page. Please don't bite the newbies. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

RevDel review

Diff. I haven't blocked the user and I haven't asked for OS yet. Are either one of those warranted, and is my RevDel justified? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I see another admin has RevDel'd another diff I missed, so I'm assuming it's all good. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

RevDel is fine, OS not needed. I've blocked the account, as it is quite clear that the name of the account is not the name of the person who created it, and the account was created to harass (or tease) an acquaintance with that name. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough

Note: this discussion was moved to ANI against the express wishes of its initiator, which didn't help its productiveness. Comments made at ANI addressing the substantive issue have been moved here. Rd232 ^talk 13:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Per User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Smack_bot_complaint and much previous, it is apparent that enforcement of the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions placed on Rich (per this) are not working; even though I blocked him for 24 hours a couple of weeks ago for violating them, issues continue, and Rich appears increasingly resistant to taking them seriously. I have drifted unofficially into monitoring the restrictions, and at this point I feel it needs wider discussion (again). Obviously it is difficult to deal with an issue with such a prolific contributor - nobody wants to lose the vast stacks of very necessary edits made. But it's well established that good contributions don't excuse poor behaviour, and the plentiful slack Rich has had in sorting things out so that the restrictions are properly respected is surely exhausted; besides which he's now calling an editor a "troll".

So - what to do? Set a deadline for full compliance? Mentoring? Someone to look at his code? Adjust the restrictions (if Rich has a suggestion)? Give up on the restrictions and let him do what he thinks is best? Something else? Rd232 ^talk 00:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets clarify that these were not so much errors as they were a difference of opinion. Whats in debate here I believe is Rich performing insignficant edits using his main account and his bot via AWB. These edits include removing spaces and changing some lower case characters to upper case. While these are unnecessary and insignificant they are not errors per say. Some editors feel that he and his bot should operate in a flawless manner and everytime he strays and does one of these there are 2 or three editors that bombard his talk page. Although I agree that some of his edits are not needed I also don't believe they are inherently harmful and the majority of the time his edits are ok. The editors also noted that they find it annoying when their watchlists fill up with these insignificant edits. As I mentioned to them, I can understand their logic on the difference of opinion edits but I am not concerned with the filling up of watchlists and this is not a good argument. --Kumioko (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

R.F. is certainly aware that he has an edit restriction about this. It's boggling why he hasn't addressed the problem given the huge amount of scrutiny the bot has been receiving. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I ran into the same problems before Rd232. For a time I tried informing R.F. and blocking the bot when it went awry. After a while I gave up (perhaps I am not so sharp, and it took me too long), because R.F. simply didn't make a visible effort to keep the bot bug-free. Problems that were "fixed" would reoccur regularly. I have no intention of being involved in any administrative capacity with the bot again. However, I can confirm the pattern that Rd232 is seeing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You know full well, or should do, that it is only because of your insistence, that I am using a hacked version of AWB, which impacts on the latest fixes - and of course exacerbates other minor problems. And this is because you have a fixation with ref numbering that has I believe been dealt with off in some talk page. Keeping things simple is an engineering principle that seems to have passed many by. Rich Farmbrough, 01:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

The AWB devs have explained to you how to use customized general fixes with the newest versions of AWB. Also it is possible to disable general fixes entirely. But the reordering is only one issue. The CURRENTMONTHAME bug occured over and over, and the ongoing problems with minor edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't feel there are any bugs; SmackBot and Rich's AWB code seems to be largely working as intended. There are just some edits that certain editors dislike, and they are pestering Rich to stop because they hate the 'pollution' on their watchlists. Somehow, they managed to have editing restrictions imposed, but much lies in the grey area of how one operates AWB without making any inconsequential edits at all. If general fixes were considered unnecessary, those complaining ought to take it up with the developers to have these removed outright. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The developers have already put in place a system to allow AWB bot operators to disable individual general fixes. R.F. has simply not made use of it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Well thats partially true. You can disable general fixes as a whole and several other things like typos but the only way I know of (and this may be wrong) is to build a custom module that calls the individual fix. This is extremely difficult (although Rich knows how to do it im sure) and is honestly more effort than its worth. Its better to live with the occassional minor edit. --Kumioko (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a very sad case these days. It's a shame, I'm sure most users will agree (even those who supported the restrictions, such as myself), how things have turned out. The problem was that some community members didn't want pointless edits such as redirection bypassing, whitespace modification, and other cosmetic changes. Rich largely gave the impression of not caring enough, and after a year or so of this, we finally got fed up, and imposed the restriction. IT was my hope that this would be enough so the Rich would see how the community felt about the whole issue, and begin making changes to his AWB code. I even pointed out a few problems to him after the restriction were imposed, and they were quickly fixed in a friendly manner. Unfortunately some seem to treat the restrictions slightly different from me, and prefer to use them almost as an excuse to block Smackbot/Rich, without giving him a chance to fix the problems. In some cases of course he is given a chance, so fair enough. Most of the time however he's not. I think many users see this as an "easy" fix, which should be done in one go for all the cosmetic changes. However, that's not the case, since Rich's rule set is inevitably very long and complicated. Compliance with the restrictions is going to take a long time, and I think if we all except that, and allow Rich to get on with it, so long as when concerns are raised about specific violation of the restrictions, they are dealt with. All that said, there do seem to be some problems, such as violations made from his main account when he should be manually reviewing the edits for violations himself. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As the originator of the complaint at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Smack_bot_complaint, I wasn't expecting this sort of escalation. In Rich's defence, he answered my (rather terse) complaint politely and to the point, promising to look into the problem and sort it out. I've seen no evidence of the problem repeating, so I'm happy to assume he's solved it. I really can't see how he could have been more responsive and helpful. --RexxS (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Substantive questions

OK, I see two substantive questions arising:

• (i) how common are the errors? User:Fram stated he looks at 20-30 edits at a time and finds a number of errors; that seems too high a proportion.
• (ii) how hard is it to fix coding so that it respects the restrictions a rather higher proportion of the time, if not perfectly?

These questions will help us decide what we should do. Some options for resolving this situation: Set a deadline for full compliance; Mentoring; Someone to look at his code; Adjust the restrictions (if Rich has a suggestion); Give up on the restrictions and let him do what he thinks is best; Something else. Rd232 ^talk 13:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I am confused by the whole discussion. Are we having a discussion about sanctioning someone because they have a bot which bypasses redirects and clears out extra spaces? It would seem to me to be largely insignificant what he is doing, but what seems more disturbing is to actually care this much about someone else doing something insignificant. I do not remember the initial discussions, so pardon me for being a bit behind, but I have serious doubts that anything disruptive is being done here. Can someone clearly and succintly express how fixing articles, no matter how small or insignficant the fixes, represents disruptive activity? I am willing to also hear evidence that he has done something else disruptive. I am just perplexed by the desire to sanction a user whose worst behavior is being somewhat trivial in the fixes he does. --Jayron32 15:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AWB Rule 4: "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), bypassing a redirect, or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." The desire is obviously not to sanction or frustrate a prolific editor, but to get him to respect this rule, which the editing restrictions were materially supposed to achieve. But clearly it isn't working, hence the range of options I suggested just above. Rd232 ^talk 17:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Having never used AWB (or anything except IE and my own keyboard) to make an edit at Wikipedia, I was unaware of the details of the rules to use it. My understanding is that AWB makes a whole bunch of changes in a single edit; are his uses of AWB to do things like only remove whitespace, or is he using AWB to correct spelling mistakes and stuff like that, and then removing whitespace as part of that edit? --Jayron32 18:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, is this another instance of a special wiki-definition, in which "avoid" that means "absolutely do not ever do this under any circumstances" rather than "normally don't do this"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought Rich's comment below, which your question postdates, obviates it. The issue isn't errors yes or no, it's error rates. Rd232 ^talk 20:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I keep referring to what is being done with the best will by various people as "tampering" - let me explain what I mean, in general terms then move to the specific. Tampering is a term popularised by the wonderfully named W. Edwards Deming, and refers in particular to research done which showed that the variation of output of an industrial process was in the main due to either of two sets causes, which could be characterised as natural variation and systemic variation. For example wood will behave differently when cut depending on grain, humidity, knots etc, that can be considered natural variation, whereas a mis-alignment of a saw blade would be a systemic variation. Research showed that managers would have a machine re-calibrated when it was performing within the bounds of natural variation - imagine pieces of wood being cut within +/- 0.5% natural variation and coming out for a few hours at +0.3 average. Realigining the blade to -0.3% might seem sensible but regression to the mean results in cuts outside the -0.5% variation, and possibly out of spec.

So with SmackBot's edits and my edits, the edits I made on the 24th September might be considered "out of spec" due to the volume and/or the case changing of in-line Cite templates (systemic). Reverting the rule change (which had been running for about 3 weeks with no complaints -by they bye) fixes the systemic problem. In terms of the issue of making watchlist entries with no category fix, the status quo ante bellum was that there were few or none. If I ran SmackBot against 1000 articles approximately 4 or 5 would still be in an undated category after the run, an "error rate" of about 0.5%. If I then fixed these manually,of course, the error rate would drop to 0%. Having said that there are numerous reasons documented in my FAQ why SB might either appear to or actually make no substantive change. Readers should familiarize themselves with these if they wish to have a full understanding of what is happening.

The result of the previous imbroglio was that:

1. A big category move occurred without anyone taking care of the dated category creation. This is a massive out-of-spec that totally threw the workflow for the rest of the month.
2. SB was stopped from running repeatedly, extensively and to little benefit.
3. The backlog of hard cases which I cleared down in September (resulting in me having the time to look at the other projects, which in turn resulted in the issues above) started to form again.
4. Work on SB's rule-set was stopped dead.
5. A substantial amount of what SB does was transferred to core AWB functionality and number of other tag dating agents, human and bot, started running or were proposed. This has resulted in a massive increase in virtual edit conflicts - tags being dated after SB lists the articles and before it edits them.

Net result, "error rate" is now up from zero or 0.5%, depending how you count, to approximately 10%. This is why I refer to tampering, no-one, I hope and beleive, set out to make things worse but that is what has happened, as a result of misguided attempts to make things better.

Given time SB's rules will catch up with the actual state of the article-space, but time is limited, and while I make fixes on the fly to current rule-sets to comply with the editing restriction, I have not had time to change much in the ruleset generators. Fixing hard articles and adding new templates is higher priority. Furthermore common sense is needed in applying the edit restrictions, which has been forthcoming in abundance from Rd232, bit not so much from other quarters. Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

OK, thanks Rich, that's very helpful. So where do we go from here? Would some collaboration on fixing the ruleset be possible? I also vaguely have the feeling (had it before) that the workload weight on your shoulders is a bit too high. Perhaps some of these tasks could given to someone else? Ideally (perhaps) someone not already deeply involved with AWB/bot work (so risking loss of work elsewhere), but with good general tech skills and willing to learn from you. I could do it, for example, except RL issues prohibit taking on this sort of responsibility. Rd232 ^talk 20:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree when Rich Farmrbough states that "adding new templates is higher priority", e.g. the 731 templates of Category:Dictionary of National Biography contributor templates he created in October 2010 in less than two hours time, and which are since totally unused. Or the repeated attempts at automatic redirect creation of the last two months, which had a considerable error rate as well. You have every right to spend your time on Wikipedia on whichever project you prefer, but please then don't come complaining about your limited time a sa reason why those improvements to things people have been complaining about for months (e.g. User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2010Sep#Could you not capitalize citation template in the future? are not yet made. Fram (talk) 07:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. I'm sorry Fram but you always misunderstand and need things explaining again. The context is SmackBot's ruleset. New dated templates are created on an almost daily basis. These need to be added to the Bot's ruleset in order to clear the undated list. While clearing the undated list is not critical, failure to do it at least occasionally defeats one part of the purpose of having dated tags - to ensure that there are no "really old" tags that "never" get fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

WRT to the mass creation of templates which are afterwards not used, apparently Rich Farmbrough also created several thousand unused ISO code templates earlier this year. When confronted this week about these, he removed the speedy delete from Template:ISO 3166 code Saint Kitts And Nevis, which is a violation of the speedy deletion policy (The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it.: bold in original), even though the concern seems completely justified (an unused duplicate of an existing template). This is an episode where I was not involved at all, so neither the deletion nomination nor the reaction to it have anything to do with any history Rich Farmbrough and I may have. It is just another, rather typical example of his reaction to criticism of his work, it seems. Fram (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Er... if you read the edit summary you will see why the csd tag was removed. It's not a big deal. Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

Well, yes, I think there are some errors of judgement there, including a violation of Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass article creation. But that doesn't seem to be an ongoing issue, except perhaps in the broader sense of trying to do too much. Does anyone have any comments on how to proceed? Any volunteers to work with Rich, for instance? Rd232 ^talk 09:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been my opinion for some time now that we would be better off without Rich's bots. I don't believe there is any other bot on Wikipedia which has as high an error rate or receives as many complaints as SmackBot. Rich has had more than enough time to sort out these errors but has failed to do so. Personally I would have preferred the editing restriction to have been far stricter and prevented any kind of automated editing, because I knew back then that the problem would not be resolved and that we would be having this discussion again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Smackbot working properly, with a low enough error rate, is clearly an asset. The question is, how do we get there? It surely can't be impossible. Rd232 ^talk 12:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I for one still don't think that what Smackbot was doing was an error. Some of the edits were minor and perhaps uneeded but they weren't "in error". That is a matter of opinion and part of the problem I beleive. Case in point my watchlist just filled up with VWbot reverted a bunch of articles because its "assumed" that every edit someone made was copyvio. After I just reviewed about 20 ( I reverted a couple but Ill do more later ( I didn't see one that had information I would classify as a copyvio. Assumptions like this are "errors" in my opinion not deleting a few blank spaces. Although I will admit that I wasn't familiar with the cases of creating a bunch of uneeded templates and categories. --Kumioko (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well Smackbot isn't supposed to do that sort of thing, so if it does, by definition it's an error. One option, of course, is to define the problem away by saying "it's a feature, not a bug". Rd232 ^talk 13:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Smackbot working properly is never going to happen as long as it is operated by this user. After how ever many kilobytes of discussion, that much should at least be clear. If you stop this user operating bots, it won't be long before someone else steps up the challenge of coding a similar bot, and hopefully with a lot more success. As things stand, Smackbot is a net negative to the project. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Historically SmackBot gets approximately one comment per 10,000 edits. These vary from thanks through vandalism, requests and complaints. Of the complaints a suprising number are about the previous or subsequent edit to the one SmackBot actually made, often by users that think it added the tag that it merely dated. Those that have foundation are usually dealt with quickly, almost all are replied to. Any message also stops the bot which gives me a chance to evaluate the situation. Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

So - how do we get back to that? Could some form of collaboration work? Stripping Smackbot down to basic bits and adding back the more complex parts gradually? Rd232 ^talk 12:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected image on the Main Page Part X

"WP:WHACK" redirects here. You may be looking for WP:Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole (WP:WHAC).

Not to be confused with Cod throwing.

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.

To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

for letting File:Flag of Singapore.svg reach the main page unprotected. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No need. It's already protected, just not locally. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats because it was left unprotected for 35 minutes before I found someone to protect it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else but me feel like going for sushi all of a sudden? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Trout makes lousy sushi. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest a nice backyard grill-out but it's effing cold here - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Beta (or delta), your bot seems to be flawed; File:Royal Avenue Belfast2.jpg was unprotected on the Main Page for more than an hour. Also, why doesn't your script alert humans before the image hits the Main Page? Let's try to be proactive instead of reactive. Shubinator (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I wish you would have pointed that out then, I cannot for the life of me figure out why the bot did not detect that. If your on IRC its easy to check, I run a IRC bot that alerts people. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that MPUploadBot did detect that it should be protected, and the log says it was. Yet for some unknown reason, it appears the upload failed. I'll have to look into this. (X! · talk)  · @560  ·  12:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Does cascading protection not effect files?— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not if thr file is on commons. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, it does affect files, but only on Enwiki. It's cascade protected, but someone can edit it on Commons to the same effect. (X! · talk)  · @197  ·  03:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Beta, is your script using prop=images? If it is, that can be delayed by a few hours as Wikipedia's servers crunch through jobs. It's more accurate to parse file links themselves on the transcluded pages; granted it does make the code more brittle (see my implementation of DYKUpdateBot). Shubinator (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I use the API. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

API itself isn't the problem, prop=images is (using the API to fetch wikitext, and then parsing that, is fine). Anyways, it's a code improvement for a rainy day :) Shubinator (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

See bugzilla:18483 for the bug; Happymelon's comment (#23) explains it pretty well. Shubinator (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Two articles from which I recently removed copyright violations would benefit from revision deletion to ensure that the copyvio is thoroughly scrubbed: Benjamin Ginsberg (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Psychological torture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thank you. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I did the requested deletions, but I really need somebody (or somebodies) to come check and fix any mistakes I made. I'm sure I made one because this is my first time using rev/del since I've returned. I think I deleted the username of one of the plagiarists when I wasn't supposed to, or perhaps I should have deleted all the usernames and edit summaries? The instruction/policy page was unclear. Maybe it would help if the critique and any necessary fixes were listed here so other admins can see what to do/what not to do. Thanks. :-) KrakatoaKatie 03:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK, but I believe that only removal of the page text is required in this case. Nakon 04:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Two points before someone can mark this resolved. 1) Katie, usernames and edit summaries should stay on RD1's. I've restored those for those four edits you removed it. 2) We have a template for these RD1 situations, {{Copyvio-revdel}} that will add the article to Category:Requested RD1 redactions where it will be handled within a day or so. Thanks, all. Courcelles 05:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Got it - thanks, guys! :-) KrakatoaKatie 05:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit

Please fix Can someone please add {{WikiProject Montana}} to Talk:University_of_Montana_School_of_Business_Administration; it's edit protected. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't see any protection there. It's a non-existing page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not explicitly protected, but it's create-protected on MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, along with all other talk pages which contain the string "admin" or variants, with the (Talk:).*[AΑÂĄĂÃÀĀΆẠẬẢẤẦẨẮẰẴẲẪẶḀǞǠȀᾼᾺᾈἉᾉἌᾌἊᾊἎᾎἍᾍἋᾋἏᾏÁÂÄÆÅǺ٩4aáàâäãǎāăảąæåάαᾳᾴὰᾲᾶᾷἀᾀἁᾁἄᾄἂᾂἆᾆἅᾅἃᾃἇᾇаӑӓӕạậ]+dm[ÌÍÎÏĨļǏĪĬİḷŀΙЇɨ!łľıĮįīij]+n.* entry. Try logging out, then attempting to create the page, and you'll see the problem. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If this were changed to trigger on variants of "admins" instead of just "admin", I bet it would still block 90% of the abusive page creations without Koavf having to manually request all these talk page edits. It's even possible to split off the account creation block, so that could still block "admin" account names created by non-administrators without taking effect in mainspace. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation, that never occurred to me. Created now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

T.U.F.F. Puppy

Can I have some extra eyes on T.U.F.F. Puppy? There are fanboys who are choking the page with excessive detail about every single character who's ever appeared on the show. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That's, like, half the articles on this website. Check out Angela Anaconda.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Need a favour / Backlog

I've got a request in at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#thebestof.co.uk. The spam-whitelist request page is backlogged. Would an admin kindly attend to my request, as I've nominated the Somerhill House article for GA status, and at the moment the fact has had to be marked as unreferenced (the ref is in place, ready to use, but commented out otherwise the page won't save). Mjroots (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. This still has not been dealt with. Cunard (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. This still has not been dealt with. Cunard (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cunard. Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My request has now been done, but there's still a general backlog. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 19#$ony and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 25#File:Dale Robertson Racist Sign.jpg

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 19#$ony and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 25#File:Dale Robertson Racist Sign.jpg? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

done the Dale Robertson one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., thank you for the detailed closing statement. Cunard (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 19#$ony still needs to be closed, as well as the discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 22. Cunard (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. This still has not been dealt with. Cunard (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed. T. Canens (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Change to Common.css

Resolved

 – Discussion is ongoing GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Question: is the consensus at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_67#Change_to_template:reflist_fontsize_wiki-wide.3F sufficiently strong to support implementing the proposal? It involves making <references/> format the same as {{reflist}}. Rd232 ^talk 01:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think so, but I supported the change, so I'm not uninvolved. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My only concern might be that not enough people have weighed in since the proposal was cleaned up and made clear. Maybe a centralized discussion notice and a little more time would be appropriate? If the ratio of support to oppose stays the same, I think that the consensus is there.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember if it was tagged {{rfc}}. Should we unarchive and tag it to get more input? — Edokter • Talk • 12:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)it wasn't. Rd232 ^talk 12:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK, re-opened at VPR (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#styling_.3Creferences_.2F.3E_like_Reflist) and added to WP:CENT. Rd232 ^talk 12:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks hatnote / Questions about administrator role in "determining consensus"

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.

---

Resolved

NuclearWarfare has assessed consensus and closed the thread. Thank you.--Chaser (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't replace this as "resolved" while there is ongoing discussion, thank you. - brenneman 03:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Could we please have some admin involvement in this? I'm saying there's no consensus on the matter and the hatnote shouldn't be there until there is. Discussion is here: Talk:WikiLeaks#Note_about_association_with_Wikipedia. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that there are ten subthreads (many of them brief) and also this thread. Finally, I did a headcount here (one of those ten subthreads).--Chaser (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2010

This is a content issue. It does not require admin intervention, nor is it an "issu[e] affecting administrators generally". - brenneman 08:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What FormerIP and I were hoping is that a neutral third party would assess consensus. We disagree about whether there is consensus to include the note. Obviously this neutral third party would not necessarily have to be an administrator, but administrators that, for example, close AFDs, are usually experienced in assessing consensus, so I suggested posting to an admin noticeboard.--Chaser (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly a content issue. And I am surprised to see that people are using admin imprimatur to put a stop to discussion. Is this normal?
brenneman 05:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

When a discussion gets that messy, it needs an uninvolved party to determine consensus, and it should be an experienced editor. It doesn't have to be an admin. Rd232 ^talk 13:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added an additional rider to the section header, as I still have some questions.

• @User:Rd232 - What was "messy" about that discussion? There had been extended debate, yes, but everyone appeared to be being reasonable and polite, there had been no untoward editing, etc etc. What were the mental metrics you use to determine when something needs consensus assessed?
• @User:Chaser - What led you to believe that this was an appropriate place to ask for third party opinion? Historically, the number of venues where we allow administrators to serve as adjudicators is strictly limited.

My understanding of behavioural norms was that consensus was in most cases best determined locally, that as long as there was reasonable debate we kept debating, and that administrators did not get involved in content disputes.

brenneman 03:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was clearly messy. At the time of closing it had not one, not two, but twelve subheadings, with little if any coherent structure, and discussion essentially going around in circles. In these circumstances, asking someone to come in and determine consensus, particularly when there's an urgent need for a decision (it's not like many discussions, where waiting 3 or 6 months doesn't make that much odds) is perfectly normal. Rd232 ^talk 19:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I made that action solely in my role as an editor on Wikipedia, nothing more. The fact that I was once an administrator shouldn't be relevant to this. NW (Talk) 03:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. It ought at least to have been an experienced editor without an editing history with regard to the article. Regardless of anything else, there pretty clearly isn't what would normally be called a consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a Gordian knot, and it was cut. Since we're probably not going to get a sitenotice (MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice), a hatnote on one article is really a terribly small concession to the ongoing PR disaster of Wikipedia and Wikileaks getting confused, or more generally Wikimedia being held responsible for Wikileaks. Rd232 ^talk 19:07, 13 December 2010 (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.

Administrator died

Resolved

 – Account blocked, bit removed. No other immediate admin assistance is needed. For the discussion on "to block, not to block", please take it to WT:RIP or WP:RFC out of respect for the deceased. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:59, 14 December 2010 (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.

---

Very sad news: User:Kbthompson died on December 10. Do I need to notify anyone officially about this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. m:Steward requests/Permissions, since deceased administrators have their sysop permission removed to prevent account hijacking. For the same reason, deceased editors are blocked indefinitely (though without the usual templates, which would be disrespectful in this context.) Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any need to take either of the two actions suggested above. Dormant accounts are less of a security risk than active ones. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, standard procedure is to desysop, indef the account, and fully protect the userpage. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The desysopping and blocking is a security measure - the user's computer may be set to remember passwords and someone else may then be able to access the account.

May I pass on my condolences to Kbthompson's family at their loss. Mjroots (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely. Hut 8.5 11:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, is there any proof of this? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 12:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not directly involving article content, this matter does not need to be established to Wikipedia:Verifiability standards with a source satisfying WP:RS. User:Ssilvers has contributed at a high level of activity for over four years, with a clean block log, and seems to have personally known the dearly departed. I believe that we can trust him on this. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

AGF goes both ways, perhaps you should have a look at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians: "Please do not add people unless you can supply verifiable information that they have died." There is nothing wrong in asking for proof to be sure. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 13:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Turn that around, though. If the user were to return with a "reports of my death were greatly exaggerated" or some such, no harm done - they can quickly be unblocked, and the tools quickly restored - with the bonus that we'd get to sanction the false reporter. But if they are indeed among the deceased, then there is also no harm done. In this case, the reporting editor is judged to be trustworthy (i.e. with a reputation from time editing and experience that would preclude such a prank as this), so I concur with GPB that the block and de-bit is in order here - and my condolences to the family, as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite a fair balancing of the costs. If someone thinks you're dead, it exacts an enormous psychological and emotional toll, not to mention any administrative spillover. Cautious condolence seems like the best path. Nothing is going to come of letting the account remain open for a few days, at least until the matter can be verified. Meanwhile, best option would be for those who knew the editor best to try and figure out the situation, and report back with confirmation. Then the community can react however is best. Ocaasi (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, coming from an organisation that does periodically send accounts to the deceased and condolences to the still living, it is the first that always causes more upset and distress, as the relatives have to get on the phone and explain again that their loved one is dead. Prematurely terminating the still living gets responses ranging from wryly amused to pretty infuriated, but rarely distressing, as the individual is very well aware that they are still in the land of the living. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Does anyone else think the photo of Ken Campbell should be removed from his userpage, or else moved to the bottom? When I went there just now, I immediately thought that Kbthompson was an account name for Campbell, tht they were the same person, and then I was going to come here and mention that Campbell actually died in 2008. I think it may confuse other people too. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, no I don't think so. The confusion, if it occurs, is shortlived - just till you read the caption. I think that editing KBT's page without his consent is a large step for a small problem, and should be avoided. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm at a loss as to how "standard procedure is to block indef". Indeed after we debated it a couple of years ago, standard procedure is to remove rights and not block the account. See WP:DWG. Pedro :  Chat  15:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I added a notice to Kbthompson's userpage and added to the page the last image that Kbthompson uploaded. I think it is fitting as a tribute to his work here on Wikipedia. I agree with Burpelson that it was confusing to have an image of Campbell at the top, so I moved it a bit lower. I hope no one minds. Kbthompson's wife has not yet released information about his funeral, but I will leave any updates on his talk page. Meanwhile, if anyone needs evidence of Kbthompson's death, please e-mail me, and I will let you know. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Why do we have to block his account? I think it's disrespectful and don't agree with doing that. Maybe removing admin status is okay, but not blocking the account. I understand the concern about the account being hijacked, but think chances of that are quite low and can be dealt with then in the unlikely event that happens. --Aude (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think that's standard procedure. At least see Jeffpw. I don't think it's rude, I see it as a preservation of what he's done—no one will tarnish his reputation, etc. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Fetchcomms. AD 22:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's not the "standard procedure". As I pointed out above, the procedure is to remove rights and DO NOT BLOCK. Jeffpw was blocked prior to WP:DWG but his death was partly what prompted the discussion to get some guidelines in the first place. After all, as I pointed out some two years ago, we don't block users who have given up editing - even those with advanced permissions. So why do we get all block happy with deceased ediors who have also, sorry to be blunt, given up editing via death? If I thought it would serve any purpose I'd undo the block but it's academic now. Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Pedro. I think it would be nice if the blocking admin reversed himself though. I am not going to do it though, I am not going to have a Derrell Robertson moment by unblocking a dead person.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

They haven't given up, it's not at all the same thing as just leaving. They are never going to come back. Should someone manage to hack into their account, the edits made would be a lot more disrespectful than simply blocking the account as a precaution. What's the harm in potentially preventing any sick jokers from tarnishing his record? AD 22:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Disrespectful to who? The relatives won't be allowed to use his account, and the deceased won't care. Still, perhaps there needs to be a template that explains that the account was indef'd for security reasons, along with something resembling condolences. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a thought. Maybe we need to have a discussion about it and write a guideline. *cough* Pedro :  Chat  22:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And BTW "security reasons" is a total red herring. As I've said, repeatedly, and indeed have the bloody devs said, an inactive acoount is FAR less likely to be hacked than an active one. Further, a community reported dead wikipedian who suddenly starts editing is likely to attract far more attention. Heck - let's use this thread to propose deadminship of all inactive admins and removal of all rights if you don't edit for a while. I'm sure we've never discussed it before and I'm sure it will pass.......... Pedro :  Chat  22:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) First: My condolences to anyone reading who was close to the deceased editor.

Second: To those concerned about the account being blocked (And this concerning any and all accounts of editors who have passed away):

Why do you care? Whether it's blocked or not, the deceased individual won't be editing using it. So it shouldn't matter one iota. And since no one should be using the account, blocking would seem appropriate. I would think that "preventative and not punitive" would totally apply here. We're preventing the potential of what really would be (at the very least) distasteful disruption.

And please lets do protect the user's main page, and archive the talk page from the moment that the individual's death was noted. But leave the talk page unprotected so that those who wish to, can offer their thoughts and condolences.

If it were to turn out that a deceased editor was indeed not deceased. it would presumably be a simple enough thing to unblock (perhaps with a paraphrased quote from Mark Twain), and move along.

I don't see what would be wrong or insensitive about doing the above at all, rather, it seems rather appropriate mopsmanship to me. - jc37 22:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Jc37 has it completely right. The account will never, ever be used again. We can be certain of that, for obvious reasons. This is nothing like removing rights from inactive users. The user isn't inactive - they are dead, and there is no chance of them returning. I can see a risk, albeit a small one, of leaving such accounts unblocked. And FWIW, should I die tomorrow, I'd much prefer my account was locked so no one could possibly edit it. AD 22:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not mopmanship. It's being sensible and understanding about how the Wikipedia community deals with grief/loss in a respectful manner whilst maintaining site security but not being pompous twats about it. I'm a humanist but "you're blocked because you're dead" on an open content work? seems a little insulting to the family. What I'm struggling with here is how people seem to see some "threat", when without rights the user account is no more (frankly far less) problematical than any other account a month old - of which we have millions. Pedro :  Chat  22:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A person is more than an account, pedro.

And I'm sorry, but I don't see how my comments above are pompous, or for that matter, anything but respectful.

Maybe this will help you: An individual who lives alone dies, wouldn't you lock up their home to try to prevent vandalism? An account is, by wikipedia policy, a single user "home". There are probably much better analogies, or better ways to say it, but regardless, it's just the respectful and prudent thing to do.

To be honest, I really don't understand what your problem with this is. - jc37 23:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard a single reason why the existing guideline shouldn't apply in this case. (As a symbolic gesture of respect, accounts of deceased Wikipedians should not be blocked unless they have been compromised.) If you don't like a guideline the most appropriate thing to do is to start a discussion on changing it, not advocate that we simply disregard it. I am tempted to unblock the account, but will refrain from doing so only because, honestly, it doesn't seem very important. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

De-sysopping is obviously essential. Once that's been done, whether the account is blocked or not is of little importance, as at that point it's just an ordinary account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not edited in a few months and I am not dead. No policy has been violated so the supposedly dead person should not be blocked. If information is provided on the supposedly dead person, this person is being outed and the person doing the outing should be blocked for invasion of privacy. Let sleeping dogs and dead people lie. MVOO (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Invasion of whose privacy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know of any deceased users whose accounts have not be blocked? I know I've seen quite a few who have been blocked, but don't recall seeing an unblocked account of a deceased user (we blocked that one Pentagon shooter guy, too), so I'm wondering if the guideline against blocking has been followed much in the past and if a new RfC would be a good idea. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Every time we get a sad report of a death, the announcement of it is marred by the same old arguments about do we block or don't we - I do feel it is insensitive in the extreme to have those discussions in the same thread as the announcement. There are policy and guideline pages, and they have talk pages, and those are the places for this discussion. It cannot be very pleasant for friends of the late editor to see his name come up just to be followed by a lot of argy-bargy. DuncanHill (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Wholeheartedly agree with Duncan. Recommend this be taken to WT:RIP or a RFC open on the subject. Otherwise, I am marking this resolved as nothing more necessary to be done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:57, 14 December 2010 (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.