Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive210

Admin needed to close discussion

Resolved

 – Closed by Benjiboi.--RegentsPark (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Could we please have a completely uninvolved admin review the discussion at Talk:Johnny_Weir#Wording_adjusted_per_archived_discussion and close it if you agree that consensus has been achieved, and that the edit which has been made to the article was appropriate. By "completely uninvolved" I mean, ideally, someone who has never edited the article, or participated in any discussion regarding it. Many thanks. Wine Guy~Talk 21:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you need an admin to close the discussion? All the editors who frequent the discussion seem satisfied with the wording.--RegentsPark (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is appropriate to close the current discussion without prejudice to the topic being discussed further in the future. The current thread has come full circle; a problem was presented and discussed, proposals were made, and one proposal gained support and has been implemented. The reason that I ask for an uninvolved admin to close the thread is that there have been recent closings/archivals/deletions of threads by people who have been involved in the discussions they close, and this has caused further problems. It is also my understanding that in most cases it is best for an uninvolved party to close a discussion. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, or if this request is somehow inappropriate. Wine Guy~Talk 00:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Nevermind. Discussion has been closed. Wine Guy~Talk 01:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong, but you don't need an admin. No sense in 'admin responsibility creep'.--RegentsPark (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Under normal circumstances I would absolutely agree, but discussions surrounding this article the past several days don't really fall into the category of "normal circumstances". It should be fine as is though, thanks for the reply. Wine Guy~Talk 02:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• And it was closed by... Benjiboi, who is one of the most involved. Which was a good reason for having an uninvolved admin do it. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. This was exactly why I brought it here in the first place. Everyone, editors and admins alike, who has been involved on that talk page has been involved in discussion of article content either in the thread closed by Benjiboi, or in other related threads. IMHO, it may have been more productive to simply close the discussion per my request, rather than question my motives for making the request; but c'est la vie. Wine Guy~Talk 19:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

To Be Redirected

This Following Article is to be Redirected as soon as possible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_AFC) to the following Article (#REDIRECT [[1]]) Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.66.206 (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• When you go to edit this page a big fat notice opens up that says "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally - announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." This isn't any of those. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done For future reference, you can use the WP:RM for making such move requests, or ask for help about such procedures at WP:Help. Abecedare (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why some (unsourced) BLPs are a huge problem.

We have been lucky that we didn't have a second Seigenthaler incident. For a year and a half, from 26 July 2008 until today, we had an article claiming that someone who in reality is a University professor, former Italian Minister and former President of Sicily (as evidenced by the interwiki and by a Google search) was in fact a "flashy mobster" who "was imprisoned in 1999 at the age of 53, for: narcotics trafficking, conspiracy to commit murder, several counts of murder in the first degree & several counts of assault on an officer." Fram (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

...and the article was...?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The revisions have been deleted; publicising the name of the article helps nobody. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 08:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You can easily check it in my editing history (my log of deletions will help as well), but for BLP privacy sake, I'ld rather not put the name here. Yes, I realise that that makes this a bit awkward... Fram (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Look... If you're going to bring something to a noticeboard, it needs to be useful in some way. Informative - there's a problem we didn't know about, etc. Alerting - do something about this. Those sorts of things.

Posting the equivalent of "Elvis is still dead" is not useful. Yes, we know there are problem BLPs out there. We weren't given any useful information here - no article to check the edit history on, to see if editors are still around who contributed to this mess, to cross-check other articles they were involved in. No information to better inform future decisions on either operational response or policy decisions.

I would accept "other admins / arbs / whoever have already done those other reviews, all taken care of". But in that case... why put any mention on AN at all?

Putting something here is asking for attention. Don't do that if you don't want attention...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a wake up call, a notice that despite the claims of some people in e.g. the BLP RfC or other pages, there are a number of very serious, long term BLP violations on (unsourced) BLP pages which could harm those people seriously (the article in question has been spread over many, many WP copies, with the result that any English language search for his name gives rather bad publicity), and could harm Wikipedia seriously as well (our reputation didn't really get a boost from the Seigenthaler incident). Furthermore, anyone can very easily find which article this is about, so people can check whether I handled this delicate situation correctly and whether any further action (oversight, rounding up of every involved editor, ...) is necessary. Fram (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to reinterate (once and only once more) that this is a curious approach to and goal in posting something to a noticeboard, and that it was not perhaps entirely useful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

And the discussion caused by your objection to it is even less useful.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* - the edits have been undeleted now and suppressed per policy. You can see who made the edits but not the edits themselves, thankfully. That article was an utter disgrace - Alison ^❤ 09:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well done everybody, and it is a bit of a worry that this survived for so long. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have no doubt that that vandalized BLP was not an isolated instance, but its not about having a few sources cited. The reason we don't have a second Seigenthaler incident is because the press won't cover every wikivandal case. Its not exciting to be "second" in the news about such things, aside from an occasional "wikipedia reported XX was dead for 10 minutes today". To the extent the general public knows anything about wikipedia, they know that anyone can edit it, and thus sometimes its wrong. But the root of the problem is not whether an article has a few sources or not--its about vandals who wish to deface a page. One day when I checked out what Wikipedia Review was, I became aware of a trio of articles repeatedly vandalized by a troll for over 2 years, where he asserted (with different usernames or IPs every few months) that one person was not a person at all but a pseudonym of the other. This started happening in mid-2007, and was last vandalized earlier this month. The articles are Chris Gore, My Big Fat Independent Movie, and Philip Zlotorynski (the last of which currently redirects to the movie article as a protective move). These articles were not unsourced BLPs -- they had some sources cited, and the blatant vandalism was slipped in, and overlooked despite other editors stopping by from time to time (like one editor suggesting that the two BLPS be merged if they were the same person, oblivious to the fake claim). Sample diffs for Zlotorynski:[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Since I am watching the articles now, and have berated the loser vandal, I suspect the problem will be controlled (but now that admins will read this, feel free to ban him). So, while unsourced BLPs are the bogeyman of the day, I have had trouble finding any link between BLPs that are sourced and whether they become a vandalism target. The vast majority of BLPs, sourced or otherwise, are uncontentious. Though, if BLPs could not be edited by IP editors or unconfirmed users, this case may have not happened.--Milowent (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that 'xyz was a former President of Sicily' is now considered just as much of a BLP violation as 'xyz was a flashy mobster'. Yet all you have done here is replace one unreffed BLP with another. So, per BLP, somebody delete the professor's article, and then someone can replace it with a sourced article about the mobster of this name, who actually lived in the 19th Century. MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No, its still a BLP violation, but negative material that is provably false is much greater of a violation. Mr.Z-man 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The sort of vandalism claimed here is not he dangerous kind, for such edits will be very quickly spotted. The people advocating strong action on unsourced BLPs have been generally highlighting the danger of the less watched and unnoticed articles, where vandalism can stay for a very long while. I'm not sure either is as much of a problem as the potential for damage to people in what are ostensibly non BLP articles. There are a great many many problems, and the attitude that all usourced statements are harmful prevents a focus on the true problem areas. Given our basic principles of editing this is hardly surprising. Given them, I'd say we had a rather low lever of vandalism, and I think a number of outsiders have commented that we are among the best sites in attention to removing them. The reason we have a very low level is because of the great number of editors, and the true solution to the problem is to encourage new people to become active, which is not done by deleting articles. (In the meanwhile, the existing ones will need to work a little more carefully and perhaps a little harder.) DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For a year and a half, from 26 July 2008 until today, we had an article claiming that someone who in reality is a University professor, former Italian Minister and former President of Sicily (as evidenced by the interwiki and by a Google search) was in fact a "flashy mobster" who "was imprisoned in 1999 at the age of 53, for: narcotics trafficking, conspiracy to commit murder, several counts of murder in the first degree & several counts of assault on an officer. - is that what you mean by being spotted quickly? Guy (Help!) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well unless people actually check the sources to see if they're true or unwarped, it won't help, as many entrenched users use fake sources etc. And people are reluctant to make a stand against entrenched editors, especially when a lot of the pov pushers are part of an ethnic/religious bloc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am not going to defend BLP violations, but are we sure it is vandalism?

I cannot see the deleted edits. However, the Italian corresponding article is weakly sourced but enough to confirm that the guy has indeed a criminal record as being involved with Mafia, even if dissimilar in the details from the one cited above, and he has indeed been involved in that at the age of 53. See here for example if you can read Italian -the source is one of the main Italian newspapers; I am happy to provide a translation if needed. (The thing is complicated by the subject having the same surname of a notable Italian mobster -with whom he is involved in the events leading to the arrest, making the whole thing a bit convoluted). --Cyclopia^talk 00:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, see [8]. Again, the details do not fit with what Fram says it was in the article, but the situation is much less clear-cut than it seems. Again, happy to provide translation if needed. --Cyclopia^talk 00:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia is right. The guy was "presidente della Regione siciliana", and was also arrested as a mobster; he was also addressed as "professore", which doesn't necessarily mean he was a university prof. Did you think their mafia has no political connections?! Surely references are good, but there seems to be no contradiction here between the two statuses. Reminds me of a recent similar case in Romania, but I forgot the name of the guy. Pcap ping 02:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not the same person - the problem is there are two separate Giuseppe Provenzano's. One is a 19th century Sicilian mobster (see [http://www.onewal.com/w-proven.html this link). The other one is a former President of Sicily who was in office from 1996-1998 (see Politics of Sicily). Unfortunately their names both linked to the same article, which apparently contained both the mobster bio and the President's bio scrambled into one. They need to be disambiged and separated into 2 different articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.136.35.108 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two different Giuseppe Provenzano. But the professor (who was a university professor indeed) we're talking about was also arrested or otherwise implicated for strong suspects Mafia connections, due also to turncoat's confessions, and not in the 19th century but few years ago. An excerpt from one of the refs above "Ma l' incarico di "curatore" dei patrimoni del boss di Corleone - è la rivelazione di Francesco Di Carlo - sarebbe stato affidato poi a Giuseppe Provenzano, eletto deputato regionale in Forza Italia il 16 giugno scorso e diventato presidente della Regione. Il pentito Di Carlo avrebbe raccontato di conoscere queste vicende "per averlo appreso personalmente" da Totò Riina e da Bernardo Brusca. I due boss sostenevano - sempre secondo Di Carlo - che il professore Giuseppe Provenzano, commercialista, docente alla facoltà di Economia e commercio dell' università di Palermo, un tempo anche perito del tribunale, avrebbe fatto quadruplicare i capitali di Binnu." ("But the responsibility of managing the belongings of the Corleone boss -that's the revelation of [turncoat] Francesco Di Carlo - has been delegated then to Giuseppe Provenzato, elected as a deputy in Forza Italia 16th of June and became president of Region [of Sicily]. Turncoat Di Carlo explained he knew about this for "having personally learned" from Totò Riina and Bernardo Brusca. The two bosses claimed -according to Di Carlo- that professor Giuseppe Provenzano, accountant, lecturer at the Economy and Commerce faculty of Palermo University and even assessor to the Palermo court, would have made the fortunes of Binnu quadruplicate") --Cyclopia^talk 13:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

He was arrested for suspected mafia connections, he was not convicted for murder and so on, and didn't die in prison last year (as the article also claimed). Some vandal used the bio of the 19th century mobster, and pasted it on the current professor/politician. That minor parts of it were correct does not mean that it is somewhat better. Was the professor ever convicted? Fram (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't know. Don't take me wrong, you were absolutely right in removing such unsourced information, being it true or not. I was only presenting such info here because, being unable to see the edits, I wasn't able to decide if they referred to the real arrests or not of the subject. --Cyclopia^talk 22:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The article did not refer to the actual allegations of links with the mafia, but only linked the actual 19th century mobster facts with the current politician (using his date of birth and so on). Fram (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, with my trez kewl Admin powerz I can see some of the edit history of this article, & it appears that the material Fram is using to argue that unsourced biographical articles on living people is a problem was added by an editor using an anon IP address. Ignoring the possibility of a mistake made in good faith here (it appears both persons with the same name were arrested for being alleged Mafia members), since this derogatory information was added by an anonymous editor, then we should ban anonymous edits from Wikipedia! (Oh wait -- that's one of those perennial proposals which will never be accepted.) Then the unsourced controversial information remained -- despite the fact over half a dozen people editted the page -- for over a year & ahalf until Fram came along. (Maybe we ought to sanction all of those editors for failing to remove this information. That's not a perennial proposal -- yet.) I'm not saying that we shouldn't keep such unsourced information out of Wikipedia, but that WP:BLP is rapidly becoming one of those slogans -- like "Think of the children!" -- which will lead us to cures that are worse than the illnesses. -- llywrch (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How does who added the material have any relevance on this discussion? No one has argued for any of your strawmen here. Fram (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Who added the material is not the issue; I don't know why you would think it is, unless you fail to recognize & understand sarcasm. The issue is that derogatory material was added, & the fact this biographical article about a living person was unsourced is irrelevant to how the derogatory material got there. Putting sources on the article would have been as ineffectual as banning anons from editting or punishing editors for not removing derogatory material. This instance does not justify the claim you made in the header of this thread. You made an error in logic here. (I can't believe I need to explain what I was saying in this post; maybe I should start using more words of a single syllable or less.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The claim I made in the header: "Why some (unsourced) BLPs are a huge problem." This article is a BLP, right? And it was indicative of a huge problem, namely that we can have content that is so negative that it needs to be oversighted hanging around for a year and a half. So I hope you do agree that some BLPs are a huge problem. And in this case it was an unsourced one, hence the (unsourced) in brackets. If it had been sourced, people could have more easily checked it (certainly if it had been an online source: just a click and you can see for yourself). With an unsourced article, you have to make more of an effort to check it, or just believe the contents as they are. But anyway, my header focused on the BLP problem, and added the unsourced because this was an unsourced article. I have not made an error in logic, and it appears that your opposition against the unsourced BLP RfC has blinded you here. I agree that if you would use words of less than one syllable in this discussion, it might be a bit more constructive (and would have been archived already). Fram (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No blindness on my part. Unsuitable information is added to Wikipedia as we write this, not only to biographical articles on living people, but to articles on dead people & to articles on various useful subjects. The original concept of Wikipedia was that many eyes would be sufficient to keep this unsuitable material out. Sadly, over half a dozen people editted that article & never thought to remove this unsuitable material -- which means either we accept that this situation is the best the Wikipedia model can do -- proprietary reference works have the same problem, yet fail to respond to mistakes as quickly as Wikipedia has done -- or we openly admit that the "many eyes" concept isn't good enough & stop calling Wikipedia "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Because the BLP policy is being invoked more & more frequently to overrule any process of discussion, thus becoming a nuclear option that will eventually be used by someone in a way that will destroy Wikipedia -- just like an exchange of nuclear weapons. -- llywrch (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We all want to keep bogus material out of Wikipedia, but some people act as if Wikipedia can be perfect when it can't possibly be. Like any online forum, it will pick up false and derogatory material now and then. I'm even seeing a big BLP hissy fit currently where somebody doesn't want people to add comments about someone's potential homosexuality that have been widely reprinted in the mass media, and despite a formal complaint being made about the case by a gay rights group the GLBT project isn't even allowed to tag the article. In the effort to make Wikipedia "perfect" they're creating a censored never-never land that rivals the complaints people have made about Wikipedia alternatives in China. And if they enforced this harsh BLP regime without racial bias, to also protect the reputations of Chinese soldiers and officials, we'd have to change the Tiananmen article to read just like the Chinese government's version of events! Wnt (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit notices

Request for assistance I tried to add an edit notice to George Orwell bibliography, but found out that only administrators can do this. I would like to suggest that an admin either 1.) add an edit notice to this article of {{British-English-editnotice}}, 2.) add this edit notice to every article that has {{British English}}, or 3.) investigate if {{British-English-editnotice}} can somehow be automatically created as an edit notice for any article that has {{British English}} (or another such English language variation template.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done I think you can request this with {{editprotected}} at the talkpage (someone please correct me if this is in error). - 2/0 (cont.) 18:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realized this was an admin-only thing, it was just switched on one day and I guess I figured everybody could do it... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume that the rationale is somewhere along the lines that they are high profile vandalism targets or they should not be added without talkpage consensus or some other good reason. Anyone can create an editnotice in their own userspace, though. I think we have had the ability to create /Edit notice or something like that for a while, but they recently made it much more user friendly (thanks, developers!). - 2/0 (cont.) 18:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

May I request a similar edit notice for U2? It has undergone similar attempts to switch from British to American English in the past. I'm a bit leery about trying to use {{editprotected}} in case that's the incorrect way of going about it. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Using {{editprotected}} is in fact the best way to go about it, really. Also, note that account creators (for whatever reason) can also do this along with administrators. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Block review?

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive592#MisterWiki. Again.

MisterWiki (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · sockssuspected) was blocked for a period of 10 years (later altered to indef) around a month and a half ago. I am not questioning the original block, but I am hoping that the community will see fit to allow MisterWiki back. It is my sincere belief, having been in email contact with him, that he has learnt his lesson and is willing to come back and resume his good quality contributions to the mainspace. He has apologised (more than once) for the comment which precipitated the block and struck it out. The Following is a statement from MisterWiki:

Please, my sincere apologies to the admin I offended and the rest of the community of Wikipedia because of that unexplained situation I did in mid-January. I promise that if I comeback here, I'll go back to build articles, specially to Pichilemu, an article that I hope sometime will be a FA, and to get Modern Talking to GA. It was really an idiotic thing to say that you, a jewish admin, were nazi. I know it is very offensive. My great-grandfather itself was killed in Germany because he was jewish, in the World War II. I really need to comeback, it is the best thing I've ever found on the net, and a space to show everybody my knowledge. Again, my apologies. --MW talk contribs 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am more than willing to mentor MisterWiki and will take personal responsibility if the community sees fit to unblock him. If probation or restrictions of some kind are deemed necessary, MisterWiki and I are willing to cooperate with any conditions that gain consensus. I apologise for the tl;dr and thank you for taking the time to read this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the blocking admin, implementing what seemed to be clear consensus. I feel that MW is genuine here. It may be that he should be made to wait a little longer per WP:OFFER, but I would currently be willing to see him unblocked. I base this on my interactions with MisterWiki on Wikinews, where he went after being banned here. He was perfectly friendly towards me and held no grudge; what's more, while he has had problems getting his articles past our deadlines due to hid non-perfect English, he is damn well trying. See Wikinews:User talk:MisterWiki and his contributions, where he has two articles to his name but has tried to get several more published (stale articles are eventually deleted if they aren't published on Wikinews, which can't have been nice). Of course, here there is no WP:DEADLINE so it would be an easier environment. He's keen to contribute, and has become a regular in #Wikinews on Freenode where he is quite pleasant to people and clearly trying to be useful. I say yes. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• No. The problems extend far beyond simply calling another user a nazi. No. Just no. Why waste the time? → ROUX ₪ 19:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm fairly strong with my view on removing troublemakers. My main wiki - WN - has a blocking policy where admins can hit a disruptive user straight away, and that is generally how it's done. I was recently chastised for getting it wrong here with a block length in excess of what the community felt was appropriate. If I'm saying a user can come back, I'm not doing it lightly. Partly, I am trusting HJ to try and keep the guy on the straight and narrow. I still have concerns about it being so damn soon, but if not now then at some point, yes. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hells to the no. The problems were far greater than "calling another user a Nazi", involving immaturity amongst other things, and the fact that MisterWiki doesn't seem to recognise this is indicative of said immaturity. If he's useful on wikinews, fine! He can be useful on wikinews. And when he's demonstrated 6 months of useful work on a sister-project, maybe we can discuss allowing him back. Welcoming him back with open arms after little or no evidence that he's changed and matured simply demonstrates to blocked users that a block is more a day off then a formal suspension. Ironholds (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• That sounds like a reasonable deal, Iron. I believe something similar was said at the time of the block, actually. HJ, you seem confidant you can mentor MisterWiki. Would you be willing to come accross and help him there? Learning curve is steep but not insurmountable, and we're a friendly bunch. If not, we're doing fine with him and you may not have time to add another project to your workload, but given your willingness to help out I thought I'd throw that out there. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's similar to Durova's standard offer, really. I'm not saying "contribute for 6 months and we'll welcome him back", but if he demonstrates maturity and usefulness elsewhere, then I don't see why there's any theoretical problem to refuse him. Until that point, however, I remain opposed to any unblock. Ironholds (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm keen to agree with Ironholds; we need a bit more time. If MW contributes constructively and with maturity on a sister wiki for a few months, I'll support the unblock, but not right now. Airplaneman ^talk 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• @Sandman, yes, I'd be willing to do what I can to help out on WN. I've contributed there before. The pace is a bit slower there so it could make for a nice break. I am confident I can mentor him because, at the end of the day, I genuinely believe he means well- I've no tolerance whatsoever for trolls and vandals (and I've encountered my fair share) but I think MW would benefit greatly from having someone to bounce ideas off- he is, after all, a good mainspace contributor, but perhaps needs to think things through. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'm also with the "wait" crowd here. It has not been too long since MW's block, and I would like to see a little more time to ensure that he won't return to the behavior he was blocked for. (X! · talk)  · @971  ·  22:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• I agree, it's too soon. When someone gets blocked as a result of prolonged debate at ANI, it's usually a waste to even consider unblocking them for at least a few months. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• He'll need to promise not to recreate his one-man Wikiproject on Modern Talking for the third time. He is however, only young (still at high school), so it may well be more likely that the sharp lesson has taught him than with an older person. Give him another couple of months on Wikinews working with HJ Mitchell and review the situation, as he does have the capacity to be a useful editor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Definitely needs more time. He was getting reported to ANI on about a weekly basis, and definitely needs some time away to ponder where he went wrong. I think his enthusiasm, even desperation, to get back onto Wikipedia is not necessarily a good sign. Fences&Windows 01:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia

• Hello,

Again, Abnima, who's apparently an admin in the Arabic wiki, is deleting, reverting valuable resources, in the criticism section, applying abusively his point of view. I hope, someone will check this issue, [[9]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by النول (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Or, put another way, you insist on rewriting the article to include a badly spelled "Arabic Wikipedia is teh suck", leading to the obvious conclusion that you've been in trouble there for POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Another angle, POV pushing, as criticism. you can judge the links instead, and also, correct paragraphs included before, in the AraBic Waykipedia, for I'm not an English Guy!. (i never said it sucked too) --النول (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated edit warring will get you blocked, and your edit summaries are turning out more than a little pointy. Woogee (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Woogee, do you find this sane: One Arabic journalist living in the Netherlands!, and why abnima is deleting the akhbar reference, you lucky to be in the English wiki, where there're much of Communists! (you were a former admin too) --النول (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Cat's for Speedy Deletion

Did I miss a discussion somewhere? There's a crapload of cat's under CSD right now ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Kitteh needs speedy deletin Guy (Help!) 17:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I CAN HAZ TEH DELORTED??!? A tiny part of me died when I wrote that. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That was the weak part. Now you are stronger. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

LGBT Wikiproject tags

At CENT, if I'd looked harder. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been three debates recently on WP:ANI over tagging of WP:BLP articles on individuals not known to be gay, with the LGBT WikiProject tag. It is asserted that this is a problem because inclusion in the LGBT project implies something about their sexuality, whereas in the cases cited this is founded entirely on media speculation (in some cases minor speculation at that). This is, to my mind, akin to the issue with contentious categories: the tag does not include any kind of rationale and the project is not "WikiProject sexuality" but "WikiProject LGBT studies", so inclusion is binary, lacks nuance and places the article in a specific set (LGBT / straight) rather than an encompassing set which does not imply membership of either (since the fact is Unknown, not LGBT or straight). Any removal of the tags results, not unexpectedly, in a large number of editors form one side of the debate descending on the article. There is no obvious corresponding group to organise the other side of the debate, so this necessarily tends to skew the discussion, with a result that we risk confusing agreement of a large number of members of a specific group for actual consensus. I am sure the consensus in the project is that they should be able to claim any article on anybody they like, but that is not necessarily a neutral or correct view, albeit held in good faith. This argument is clearly not going away, so I'd like to encourage some uninvolved admins to consider how we might kick off a process to resolve the argument properly. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Perhaps an RfC would help. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with protection

My work as an admin almost never involves protection, so I need advice from others. Lone district of Bacoor and Lone district of Imus were deleted about twenty hours ago after going through AFD, but they have since been recreated and deleted four times each. It looks to me as if temporary create-protection is needed, but for how long? Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest simply blocking the creators if they fit the bill for vandal-only or have passed final warnings. SGGH ^ping! 16:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that any create-protection is necessary. The block should suffice. If he starts up again, I would suggest that either the page be create-protected for 6 months or so, or that he be blocked for a longer time. NW (Talk) 17:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Up in the Air (film)

I tried to close this requested move looking at both the discussion and policies. A few editors are trying to force this move, based on the film being the primary topic. To ensure that it was the primary topic, I did quite a few searches on the internet (attempting to leave out Wikipedia entries, of course) and I came to the conclusion that the ratio of pages out there was around 60:40 film:book. I did not see this as a significantly clear lead (maybe I was wrong...), so I declined the move. That caused much complaining, both on the talk page and my talk page, and one of those editors reverted the close without telling me. I explained my point, and then left it for some other admin to try and close. User:Anthony Appleyard then closed it with "no consensus", and also got much complaining, so he reverted the closure himself. Now the article is sitting there waiting for a third admin to run the gauntlet.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I closed it. I saw no compelling argument for the move, and said so. I am not concerned if there is some verbalisation, because I am the one with the big stick. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't worry about the "verbalisation" - but they reverted my close, and I was not going to revert back without a second opinion.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A call to stop unilateral indefinite protections

Hello there. I have written what turned out to be a mini-essay :) and I would welcome your opinion. Thank you. 124.100.40.131 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please centralize your replies there and let me know if there is a more appropriate page/way to seek admins' opinions on the matter. Thanks again. 124.100.40.131 (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Practically all actions on Wikipedia are unilateral. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And practically all of them should be. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course. It can't be any other way, really. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a longer parallel discussion at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD needs closing

Resolved

 – AfD closed. NW (Talk) 18:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kare Made Love KM has already been running for over two weeks. If there is no consensus after all this time, it should be closed as such instead of being repeatedly relisted. —Farix (t | c) 17:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that there were no new commends since Scott MacDonald had relisted it, so without reading the rest of the AfD I relisted it myself. That was probably a bad call on my part; I have since deleted it. NW (Talk) 18:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Forty lashes with a wet noodle for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Starmania article deleted

Hi there! I don't see enough relevance on this article. I also added a deletion tag and I left a comment on it's discussion page. I'd appreciate that this article gets deleted. Mischa the Pilot (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the deletion tag and delete the MfD subpage as both an out-of-process (should have gone to AfD) and disruptive (per WP:IDONTLIKEIT) deletion request. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 02:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

BRFA for adminbot

I have created a BRFA for an adminbot that was requested. The BRFA is here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EyeEightDestroyerBot. It is a one-time run which deleted 25000 specified images in a certain category. Even though this should be a relatively uncontroversial bot, I am posting it here and at WP:VPR to make the community more aware about its existence. (X! · talk)  · @079  ·  00:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting the immediate deletion of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/FlyingToaster

Resolved

 – No. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The creation of this page is simply insulting. A few articles that were not sufficiently paraphrased in sections does not invalidate my work on this project, which was always done to the best of my ability and always in good faith. Frankly, this is ridiculous, and I respectfully ask that it be removed immediately. Concerns with any article I have written or edited may be directed to my talk page and addressed there. I am working on rewriting problem articles, but doing so mainly off of Wikipedia to avoid unnecessary drama. FlyingToaster 21:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

CCI is a great way for us to help you address the copyright issues. It is not intended to be insulting; we are simply helping out. Theleftorium 21:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm heavily involved with CCI, though I've had nothing to do with this one. But it seems that one of the SCV contributors found current problems in seven of your articles: Irish School of Ecumenics, Canal City Hakata ([10]), Ars inveniendi ([11]), Irving Morrow ([12]), Morgan "Bill" Evans ([13], [14]), Uterine orgasm ([15]), Parastichy ([16]). Having only just seen this CCI, I have not evaluated these. In addition, a good many more were located earlier, as discussed at your talk page. The purpose of a CCI is to aid in evaluating for copyright problems when a contributor has been shown to have placed copyrighted content outside of policy in multiple articles. Even if your doing so was inadvertent, I believe this has been true for you. Is there any reason why your edits should not be subjected to review by others to ensure that they are properly cleaned? (I do see, though, that the list of contributions includes reverts. I'll see about replacing it if the page remains.) This CCI is one of two dozen currently open and is by no means suggestive of bad faith. At this point, AGF specifically discusses that policy and copyright here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It seems that it was filed correctly, at the appropriate page, and accepted per guidelines. I do not see there is any reason for removing it. I also do not think that you have the authority to propose a different way of dealing with the situation. You can either proceed in your own methodology of correcting the problems, or you can join the others within an established process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am more than happy for others to review my work if they wish, but I feel an entire project page on the matter is both punitive and unnecessary. Phrases such as If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately are not applied to editors to whom good faith is being assumed. Editors' dedication to article cleanup and copyright law is laudable - I am objecting to this method and not the work. I'm requesting that since very few articles are insufficiently paraphrased, and the substantive body of my work is not a problem, you let me fix what needs to be fixed on my own, as I have been doing offline. FlyingToaster 21:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That's policy; see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. It is part of the instructions placed at the top of every WP:CCI, along with the caveat: "However, to avoid collateral damage, efforts should be made when possible to verify infringement before removal", which is also present in yours. As I said above, WP:AGFC specifically addresses this situation. It says, "When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. Good faith corrective action includes informing editors of problems and helping them improve their practices." This method is the simplest way of listing your article content and noting which ones have concerns and which ones do not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Endorsing what Moonriddengirl says here. We should all be treated the same way. Don't take this to heart, and I urge you to follow LessHeard vanU's advice and join in with the established process. So far as I'm concerned, that's the best thing you could do and would show good faith. Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me also note that these are not indexed, and as soon as it is fully closed it will be courtesy blanked. We have only kept a few with their content still visible because they are needed, as for images that are up for deletion on Commons. I can think of several CCIs where the contributors themselves have been (and in one case still are) very active in working alongside those who have been addressing the concerns. The point is simply to get any problems resolved as quickly as possible. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. FT, it is undeniable that there are problems with some of your contributions and the best thing you can do is help these editors establish which, fix them and then we can all move on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As a way "to avoid unnecessary drama" as FT says, taking something like this to WP:AN seems a bit counterproductive. I agree with the other comments above that deletion is not warranted in this case. But in future, WP:MFD is a more appropriate and drama-free place to take non-article deletion requests. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am incredulous that this editor is still not grasping Wikipedia's most fundamental and important rule. A few days ago, she was here wanting magical tools just handed back on a plate. Can someone please explain to her - slowly; just how serious this is. Otherwise, sooner or later, it will fall to me to explain, and it won't be in words of one syllable. If she's still not grasping it, then she has to be banned.  Giano  22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Giano, your talents are many and I count myself as an admirer of them; "WikiLifeGuide", however is not one of them, and I would very strongly suggest that you do not make the attempt. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I kind of think that was the point. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't find this comment helpful; many editors come here with good intentions, and find our policies and guidelines an extremely steep learning curve, and if they can't cope with that, despite well-intentioned attempts to direct them in the right direction, just give up. We've all made mistakes editing here, and I defy you to find me one editor who hasn't. On the other hand, talk of "banning" is premature; even you seem to have been rehabilitated for the time being. I accept re-adminning of Flying Toaster is unlikely in the circumstances, but I do not consider a page of collections of cpvios, for the purpose of validating our content, can be construed as an attack page. It is more an attempt to correct mistakes made in the past, for the benefit and protection of the encyclopedia, and no attack is intended. Maybe such a page might be better offline, but that makes the job of those trying to fix the problem more difficult. It can be here, for maintenance only, and only for as long as needs be here, and then it should go. It is already {{NOINDEX}}ed to prevent unnecessary external obloquy, and I think we've largely got it about right here. Rodhullandemu 22:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

FGS, if people are so stupid that they cannot understand that we do not copy other people's work and pass it off as our own, then there is no place here for them. In short, it is ilegal and brings the project into disrepute.  Giano  23:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• The vast majority are totally fine and if a few editors have a little look the page will soon have been dealt with and gone. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK. Tell me, from your own past experience, what limits, if any apply to the policies of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? These may not be legal requirements, but they are nevertheless regarded as critical policies. As regards copyright violations, many editors unwittingly introduce them into, for example, lists of television programme episodes, and it would be a full-time job to keep track of them. Fortunately, nobody has yet (as far as I know) successfully sued the WMF for breach of copyright, although I'm pretty confident that there have been a few emails to the Office in that regard. What is important is not that we act upon copyright violations when we detect them, but that we have a coherent system in place to do so. CorenBot is all very well, but it is not a catch-all solution, and does not catch subtle plagiarism. The alternative is that recent-change patrollers are alert to cpvios, as well as vandalism, but my experience is that there is already too much to do on that patrol. Rodhullandemu 23:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• There have been many emails to the office about copyright issues, varying from the obviously valid to the batshit insane to the argument between two people over who owns the copyright on the content they used to share (and resulting in both sites being blacklisted due to their edit-warring over links). I think I'm right in saying that we have never received a valid DMCA takedown notice. This is largely, IMO, because our response to copyright issues is generally robust and small-c conservative, as is right and proper given our commitment to the free-as-in-speech part of free software: we prefer free content, freely given. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hetoum I

75.84.198.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is another sock or meatpuppet of the banned user Hetoum I (talk · contribs). More info about Hetoum is available here: [17]. It seems that he changed his geolocation, but the editing manner is the same. In any case, that IP is used for the same type of edits as reported here: [18], and needs an admin attention. Thanks. Grandmaster 06:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User page text copied

A recent User page, created by User:MrRohanM on 26 January 2010 has the opening text copy pasted from my Userpage, including the Babel tower and the Barnstars! The design format however is not mine original, rather a standard one. Are there any wiki rules that cater to this situation?!! If yes, please guide/intervene. Thanks! --Ekabhishek^talk 08:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The user has been recently blocked for ignoring copyvio notices too. It is definitely a mis-representation of himself, especially indicating years of work on articles and displaying barnstars from established editors! Here is another complaint raised by an editor. prashanthns (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I presented the barnstar to Ekabhishek, not MRohan. AshLin (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Material here is released by you per the GFDL guidelines. I will however leave him a note about this discussion and about the false use of barnstars awarded to others. JodyB _talk 14:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as a followup, I left a note asking him to remove the false Barnstars. I removed the one from User:AshLin referenced above. JodyB _talk 14:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed them all as they were misleading. I've run into users like this before who have copied a user's page, which resulted in 7 users being errniously added to a project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether somebody's User page edits are released or not, the person who copies them to their User page must still follow the attribution rules. Woogee (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the licensing issues raised above, there is the issue of misrepresentation too. prashanthns (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:Copying within Wikipedia. As a side note, since user pages are often edited solely by their owners, the wikilinks for the page and author may be the same. Flatscan (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

New filter may be in order

It may be time for a filter to help alert us to a very persistent character. User:Channel 6 has been nurturing a very single-minded sockpuppet farm almost certainly via proxies. He's been trying to promote a totally non-notable singer named Sarey Savy since at least December 2008. He simply keeps creating variations on the title as each variation is salted. "Sarey" is consistent among all the variations; could we create a filter that would alert us to "Sarey" and/or "Savy" or perhaps "Savvy?" --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, he's also over at Simple English. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at DRV

Resolved

 – Several somebodies did. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone close the two discussions remaining open at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 17 before they disappear? Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions poll by Jimbo Wales

Please visit and comment at User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll. Fram (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has started a poll about whether or not we should simply turn on flagged revisions ASAP using the same settings as the German Wikipedia. This would seriously reduce the time it will take to implement, but it will likely mean we have considerable more work to do than we would have with the settings we actually want. It looks like Jimbo is advocating that we would switch off the German version and switch over to our own version as soon as it's ready. Anyway, enough from me - Go vote! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible problem with template deletion process

Please investigate I decided to take a look at {{First Class Matches}}, {{Infobox Canadian police service}}, and {{Infobox Canadian police service}}—all of which I recently nominated for deletion and all of which were voted for deletion. Even though the discussions were over, {{tfd}} was still on the pages and {{being deleted}} was not. This lead me to Category:Templates for deletion, which includes (amongst others) {{Saudi Arabian political parties}}, which was nominated and kept last November. I don't know how widespread this issue is, but I suggest an admin take a look. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as the issue here, I'm a bit unclear: what's the issue with {{Saudi Arabian political parties}} being nominated and kept last November?

You're right that {{First Class Matches}} seems to have been overlooked, but the TfD templates had been removed from both Infobox Canadian police service and Infobox Police Department. I don't know that {{being deleted}} is necessary, because the closure of the TfD discussion seems to have been to redirect those two. Redirecting is, of course, a form of keeping. Pending some clarification, I'll go ahead and remove the "being deleted" template from those two. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, I've asked an admin who does a lot of work at TfD to help clarify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "voted for deletion" isn't an accurate description of the results for {{Infobox Canadian police service}} and {{Infobox Canadian police service}}, so a {{Being deleted}} template would not be appropriate. {{First Class Matches}} was just closed this morning (UTC), so I'm not sure if it was "overlooked" or if the admin just didn't bother because he expected to have the deletion finished quickly enough for it not to matter. Leaving the TFD notice on {{Saudi Arabian political parties}}, on the other hand, was clearly a mistake. The result tag on the talk page was also forgotten, so I added that. A quick scan of the category also found an incomplete close for Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 20#Template:Bihar State Highways Network, where the Tfd template was left on the page after it was userfied, and a few false inclusions (templates that show up in the category because a nominated template is transcluded into them). But the vast majority of the templates in the category are current nominations, so I don't think there is a widespread problem here. --RL0919 (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, missed the obvious there. The problem with it was that the TfD template had remained. :) Not a problem with the TfD itself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you check the links to {{First Class Matches}}, you will see it's on my todo list. I didn't see a need for the {{being deleted}} since it was going to be handled within 24 hours. This is not always an instantaneous process, especially when there are hundreds of templates being nominated in the span of a couple days. Next time you can always just ask the closing admin about it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Right I didn't think it was a problem until I saw the deletion from November. Obviously, things take time, but things this simple don't take four months. 24 hours on the other hand is completely legitimate. Thanks for the input. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea to check Category:Templates for deletion, as you did, every so often. You will frequently find templates which were tagged, but no discussion was started, or templates which have closed, but never deleted, redirect, or orphaned. It would probably be fairly straightforward to write a script to check for members of this category which were not currently listed on the TFD page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:US_War_on_Terrorism

Resolved

Can someone help with this template please? I tried renaming it to US_War_on_Terror, but I broke the template in the articles where it was used. I tried renaming it back, but that didn't fix it. Thanks in advance. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is what happens...

...when you indeff an editor . Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I told them; a thousand year block would have been more appropriate! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Very interrrestink... but stupid! Guy (Help!) 22:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Best... video... ever... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Obvious troll - they misspelled "indefinitely. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Moderator?" We have moderators? —DoRD (?) (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of times where admins are called mods because of the way we block and delete. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. Just alluding to the fact that those unfamiliar with WP often use an imprecise term. —DoRD (?) (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the term is derived from neutron moderator. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

user:174.3.98.236 & user:174.3.99.176

174.3.99.176 (talk · contribs) / 174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs) is trying to endrun around WP:TFD by removing all instances of {{for2}}, even though consensus at TfD is shown to keep using it (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_18)

This user also seems to have an obsession with disambiguation hatnote templates, replacing one with another, and nominating them for deletion. Several people have complained about this behaviour on the user's talk pages.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename CAT:CSD

Please express your opinions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 28#Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. (discussion closed, timestamp added) Fram (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving old BBC News articles

BBC has announced that several sections of its old websites would be axed and its old content pruned, owing to a funding shakeup to BBC Online. I'm concerned that this is likely to include old versions of BBC News articles dating back to 1999, which an awful lot of articles heavily depend upon for reliable sourcing (some of them the only source, in fact). I think we should start converting them into WebCites before they are removed and then we'll have a huge sourcing problem in our hands. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This problem crops up more and more. What happened to User:WebCiteBOT? And can't AWB be extended to allow rapid WebCiting? Rd232 ^talk 13:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It is useful to Webcite such references even if, at this stage, citations are not edited to link to the archives. Thincat (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

LirazSiri

LirazSiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is co-founder of TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The user's history shows that he has engaged in a prolonged campaign of promotion of his commercial interests, creating the article on his product (twice), and recently edit-warring over his insertion of his product at {{Cloud computing}}, e.g. [19] where he describes removal of his addition of his product as "vandalism". I propose that LirazSiri be restricted as follows:

• user:LirazSiri is banned from TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library and from making references to TurnKey Linux elsewhere in the project, other than to point out simple errors of fact via talk:TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library.

The history of the talk page and its deleted comments [20] shows that the user cannot possibly claim, as he appears to do on the current version, to be unaware of the problems of his conflicted editing. He was warned in February 2009 about COI edits [21] and when Abd warned him in Feb 2010 his response pretends he was not previously aware of this [22] (note that edit also removes warnings about copyright, removal of deletion templates and so on). There is no doubt that this editor is aware of our policies, the history of his talk page indicates numerous previous notified deletions of material due to rights issues.

Alternatively, since this is effectively a WP:SPA I guess a siteban would be possible, but I prefer to think that if we could prevent him from spamming he might still try to contribute some useful content on areas where he has knowledge. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Despite their obvious potential in contributing to Wikipedia in an appropriate manner, their insistence on using WP as a promotional tool is presently a nett deficit to the project. Since there is the potential, I concur that a article ban is the best option. This may be reviewed should their contributions start reflecting policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally, this may be a good idea, if only to avoid future problems. That said, the above description isn't entirely accurate:

• The editor did recreate the page after it was first speedied, but the current version was userfied and developed before being sent, by the editor, to DRV, where it was approved.
• The COI is in regard to an open source project, so it isn't clear that there is a direct commercial interest, and the editor is generally very upfront about the COI.
• As I understand it, the major spamming involved placing a link to the article in the {{Cloud computing}} template, where, when it was first removed, the editor sought consensus on talk.
• The current dispute, and accusations of vandalism, came after that template was modified, without discussion, by Samj with the somewhat inflammatory edit summary of "%!@$#! spammers!". Samj also accused the editor of vandalism for readding the link well before LirazSiri returned the favour, including placing a final warning on LirazSiri's talk. I note that LirazSiri suggested that Samj discuss the template rather than edit waring on at least three occasions ([23][24][25]) prior to either editor escalating to accusations of vandalism.

Short version - it looks like two editors managed to get caught up in a fairly wide ranging and heated edit war. While sanctions may be needed, I'm uncomfortable with coming down on LirazSiri without noting that there was bad behaviour on both sides, and that LirazSiri wasn't necessarily the worst of the two. - Bilby (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• If I recall it was deleted, userfied, moved back to mainspace, deleted again, then userfied again. It was a while back, though. That doesn't change the fact that this is an account whose primary if not sole purpose on Wikipedia is, and always has been, promotion of his own commercial interests. And the template was first modified by LirazSiri [26], who added an "appliances" section as a WP:COATRACK for his product. SamJohnston was merely reacting to this promotional editing and was not the first or only one to do so, see Template:Cloud computing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It's also worth noting that when LirazSiri proposed the Appliances section on Talk (after he'd added it and it had been reverted), he neglected to mention his conflict of interest. Nor was it mentioned when a "see also" section was added to Amazon Machine Image (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with just one entry: [27]. Nor was it mentioned when he added it to Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), [28]. Or Software appliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [29]. Or Virtual appliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [30]. Or Just enough operating system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [31]. Or Turnkey (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [32]. Or List of live CDs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [33]. And who might 79.180.13.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) be, I wonder? Because the only edits from that IP are adding TurnKey linux, for example where it's been removed from articles. In fact, I found it hard to find a single article to which LirazSiri has made non-trivial edits where those edits did not include linking TurnKey Linux, and where it's linked from other articles it usually turns out to be either LirazSiri who added it or an anon whose only edits to articles include adding links to TurnKey. The more I look at this the more blatant it looks, frankly. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• There was certainly a mess when the TurnKey Linux article was created, and a lot of argument, mostly instigated (or at least furthered) by LirazSiri. I guess my point there is only that that he seemed to get a clue, eventually, fixed up the article, and went through DRV. So the current article isn't necessarily suffering from the same problems, and he did improve his approach. I don't dispute that he is an SPA, and nor do I dispute that he has a COI. But I think the characterization of the editor's recent problems fails to take into account what was going on - while you're right that an editor had previously reverted the change from the template, LirazSiri took it to talk, and the result was (between the two editors) seeming acceptance of its inclusion. Then Samj turned up, two months later, removed it with an overly aggressive edit summary without discussion, and the two edit warred - with escalating commentary - over its inclusion, expanding the fight to TurnKey Linux. My hassle is that LirazSiri responded badly, and that he was arguably spamming the article with wikilinks, but it seems worth remembering that this wasn't the case of an editor reacting without cause, but two editors behaving badly, and that it was LirazSiri who seemed to be making moves to resolve the dispute (admittedly while reverting to his preferred version, of course). A topic ban might make sense, especially with the linking you mentioned, but it still seems worth keeping in mind what was pushing the reactions over the last few days. - Bilby (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• If that had been an end to it, yes. But one of those diffs, [34], is from December 2009 and the edit war that started all this is recent. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I had planned to stay out of this but so long as I am being persistently criticised in a public forum using my real name by User:Bilby (who I note is a long-term contributor to the TurnKey article FWIW) I'm going to exercise my right of reply. First of all, and most importantly, my sole motivation is to maintain a very high standard in cloud computing related articles. In contrast, User:LirazSiri is a single purpose account for promoting TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library (and indirectly the associated commercial entity, Sterile Security, not that a subject need be commercial to give rise to WP:COI).

I don't own the Template:Cloud computing article, but I did create it with a specific purpose in mind (now described in the template docs) and I do care about it. What User:LirazSiri did in adding an "Appliances" category to advertise their flagship product is comparable to adding a new layer to the 7-layer OSI model for the same purpose - obviously that would be unacceptable and would be immediately and persistently reverted by other editors (as was the case here - note that I was not the only editor to remove the category and the consensus is that it should not be there). Furthermore, the template is intended to illustrate by example each of the three main cloud computing layers (infrastructure, platform, application) using the best examples available - it is not intended to promote unknown entities. So far as I am concerned this is without doubt spam and given it changes the meaning of the template consider it vandalism too. Note that "[Template vandalism] is especially serious, because it will negatively impact the appearance of multiple pages. Some templates appear on hundreds of pages."

Also note that the template was a relatively minor part of the problem (albeit the one that initially caught my attention). There is also the far more serious matter of 10 problematic images having been uploaded AGAIN, containing TurnKey's logo grafted others' registered trademarks along with the claim that "I (LirazSiri (talk)) created this work entirely by myself". These were then persistently inserted and re-inserted into many non-image categories, with reverts summarised as "hotcat abuse"(?). When I then partially resolved the copyright problems by applying {{Non-free logo}} and {{di-no fair use rationale}} (calling for fair use rationale) this was quickly reverted. I was heavily criticised by both User:LirazSiri and User:Abd for my cleanup efforts, for listing the images for deletion, and even for my choice of tool! When User:LirazSiri removed the deletion templates (more vandalism) he used the edit summary "reverted vindictive edits by SamJohnston" and repeatedly claimed in the debate that this constituted "more cynical wikilawyering and harassment".

Now I may not come across as the friendliest editor (especially to those who seek to abuse Wikipedia for self-promotion) and this one edit summary may have been a bit abrasive, but I feel little remorse for hostility towards such disruptive and tendentious editing, particularly in light of the abuse I have received both on- and off-wiki (here, here, here and of course this). Maybe I do take it "insanely seriously" but we have policies for a reason and they generally work well. User:LirazSiri has shown they have no respect for the rules and that they "will continue to express [their] opinions and advocate for what [they] believe in despite threats to censor [them] for 'making waves'". It seems the only way to avoid continued disruption is with a ban of some sort.

P.S. If you're looking for an explanation as to how routine spam cleanup turned into a full on dispute snaring multiple editors then look no further than User:Abd who has a history of same and an editing restriction "[prohibiting them] from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties" that we are seeking to enforce. -- samj _in^out 19:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It was pointed out to LirazSiri at least a year ago that Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. This has been studiously ignored. Only supportive comments have been accepted and the promotional edits have continued unabated. What we have here is a completely unrepentant promoter of their own commercial ends. We normally block such people, an editing restriction is definitely lenient here. But don't be tempted to start flinging mud at Bilby, he seems to me to be acting in good faith, I don't see any evidence you and he would have trouble agreeing on anything of importance if you set out to try. I know what it feels like to be on the end of one of Abd's crusades, don't let the feeling poison you against others who are trying to discuss the matter in good faith. The problem here is LirazSiri, plus the emboldening effect Abd has had, which has actively impeded LirazSiri's progress from a COI spammer into anything else. Now we're going to have to take action to fix that. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I would Support a topic ban rather than a block (and I should hope banning the TurnKey article will temper User:LirazSiri's interest in others, including the template where I see they have been busy even today criticising my work and pushing the point about linking). Alternatively, or perhaps additionally in light of the disruption caused, I would propose a short block (somewhere between a day and a month) in the hope that they finally understand that they are at fault as nothing else seems to be getting through to them. An indefinite block just gives them reason to criticise the project and to be honest (thanks in no small part to assistance from other editors, including User:Bilby) the quality of the TurnKey article is not *that* bad so they may yet become a productive contributor rather than a "net deficit". -- samj _in^out 19:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In light of User:LirazSiri's attempted outing of User:JzG in response to notification of this incident (grounds in itself for an immediate block per WP:OUTING) and their persistence on Template_talk:Cloud computing, I no longer believe that a topic ban would be adequate. -- samj _in^out 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Update on LirazSiri's status

I was unaware of this discussion until a few moments ago, but participants will likely be interested to know that I have just placed an indefinite block on LirazSiri. S/he just attempted to out another editor, and s/he should remain indefinitely blocked until s/he expresses an understanding of our harrassment policy. (Unfortunately, I was subsequently forced to disable talk page editing by LirazSiri, because s/he continued to attempt to identify this editor.) If any admin sees fit to unblock after that, I would stipulate that it be under the condition that any further attempt to violate any other editor's privacy will result in a permanent block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

LirazSiri immediately took this off-wiki and violated WP:OUTING "for the record" for the third time. He also abused me about it even though I didn't enact the block:

• Warning: never use your real identity on Wikipedia. The rules of the game are rigged to punish you for transparency.[35]
• @samj you are the most cynical and disingenuous professional I have ever come across online. And that's saying something. For shame. [36]
• @samj I'm tempted to write a blog post exposing what really happened. With evidence. When you live in a glass house don't throw stones. [37]
• @samj OTOH, this text MMORPG drama has wasted enough of my time and sociopaths like you self destruct on their own eventually. Good day. [38]
• @samj Drop the Dr. Jekyll routine. You sound reasonable on Twitter but on Wikipedia you are a vicious (yet still clever) Mr. Hyde. [39]

This was in addition to their earlier posts:

• @samj Wow. Just wow. Did you get on the wrong side of bed today? Take a deep breath. [40]
• Why do intelligent people create unnecessary drama online? It is boredom? Hopelessly misplaced ape-like aggression? Here, have a banana [41]
• staticnnonsense @lirazsiri because they're human. drama follows humans like flies, intelligent or not, intentional or not. we just sorta suck like that. [42]
• darkuncle @lirazsiri http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/ explains it pretty well. [43]
• That penny arcade comic is hilarious. And true. Good combination. Thanks @darkuncle! [44]
• This week's lesson: watch where you step on Wikipedia. Some people take it insanely seriously. [45]
• Wikipedia is like this giant text MMORPG nation with a complex legal system and culture only an insider can truly grok [46]

This is exactly what I was trying to avoid above, but now that it's done I think we have little choice but to leave the indefinite block in place until LirazSiri agrees to abide by the rules. -- samj _in^out 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I will note as a follow-up that LirazSiri emailed me requesting an unblock, and forwarding me a copy of an email he wrote to Samj (after he, LirazSiri, was blocked) in which he threatened to extensively discuss details of Samj's identity and occupation. He also intimated that he would consider socking as a response to an extended block. I was not comfortable with unblocking under those circumstances, and said so. I am not prepared to get into extensive on-wiki discussion involving editors' (purported) identities, nor do I feel that I can unblock this editor in good conscience. If there are other administrators familiar with the issues here, I will defer to their judgement on when or how LirazSiri might be unblocked. (I further waive any requirement that I be consulted before further administrative actions. Frankly, I thought this would be a simple indef-until-you-promise-not-to-do-it-again one-off block; I wasn't expecting to get sucked into interpersonal disputes and emails full of private and semiprivate information.) Emails will be made available to BASC on request. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

With respect to LirazSiri, while I felt there was a reason for some of his earlier actions, there's no justification for his later ones. It would take something quite different to continued threats to out a user in order to warrant unblocking. - Bilby (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I strongly suggest a few other admins to have a look at the deleted versions. If AGF is given any weight at all, this wasn't exactly an "attempt to out" as is being interpreted here. LirazSiri's explanation (followed by "sheesh!") is actually quite plausible, bringing both the block and the talk page restriction into question, which in turn might explain (though not excuse) some of the email and twitter reactions. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy's name is hardly a secret, as he had a link to his own wiki with identifying information on his talk page for a long time. I certainly wouldn't have thought of a mention of his surname as being "outing" - simply a statement of fairly common knowledge. DuncanHill (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed about JzG. But isn't the subsequent threat made in email to TenOfAllTrades re SamJohnston what's being discussed here? Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The mail was apparently made after the block and restriction of talk page editing. Again, that would explain, but not necessarily excuse the email/tweet stuff. If TenOfAllTrades' initial reaction was disproportionate (which it certainly appears to have been), I'd like to at least see someone else review the email and see if there is room for resolving the issue in a less heavy-handed manner. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The initial block for "outing" JzG as Guy Chapman was incorrect, as JzG has identified himself as Guy Chapman for copyright purposes relating to Wikipedia images. See [47]. DuncanHill (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it was quite an over-reaction, yes. As did LirazSiri, it seems (admin only link, see bottom paragraph), and it's hard to see how his/her reply to Ten's concerns could be interpreted as warranting the reaction it got. I strongly support lifting the block under the circumstances. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• My name is not really a deep secret (though it's fair to note that I don't currently make the link here and others, such as THF, have arbitration findings underscoring a user's right not to have a link made even if they originally made it themselves). The issue here, though, is that LirazSiri seems to be unable to accept that his conflicted edits are a problem. IMO the major cause of this escalation is that Abd has spent a lot of time bolstering his sense of injustice and entitlement, resulting in the user receiving a very mixed message. Instead of being steered firmly away from promoting his product he's been told, in effect, that he can ignore the advice and warnings he's being given because of the person giving them - of course he's going to want to hear that rather than that he should stop promoting his commercial interests on Wikipedia, that's natural. LirazSiri showed signs of donning the Spider-Man suit but later Tweets seem calmer - I don't know if he's been outing SamJ as well though. I don't have a problem with sticking to the original suggestion of a topic ban. I think he's angry, not evil, and we've failed to fix a bad situation caused by someone giving him the wrong kind of feedback. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed on most points. My sense of the (since interrupted) discussion above is that you were looking for a topic ban to help things along, rather than an indefblock, which strikes me as a reasonable approach. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly that. Obviously we need to ensure that the user receives sound advice in future and not axe-grinding, and this should include guiding him to stick to usernames, not take on-wiki disputes off-wiki and vice-versa, and all the other usual stuff. It's not really his fault that he's become a pawn in a game he didn't even know was being played, it is our fault for not realising that the involvement of grudge-bearers was going to have this effect on what is, after all, a pretty routine matter. It needs an uninvolved admin who is not obviously part of the dispute or "teh cabalz", is all. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm willing if there are no objections. Looks easy enough to unstir the teapot in this case, but closure to the topic-ban discussion would be helpful. I'll check back in a bit and unblock with appropriate warnings if there's no problem with that. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Considering Guy's not too fussed about his identity being known, even if there was intent there was no harm done. The first attempted outing had a similar "I know what you did last summer" ring to it as the email (which threatened to "expose" me for a couple of uncontroversial edits I made when I first created my account 4 years ago as well as crying wolf about WP:COI) and I didn't see the second. As such I would (as the original originating party) again Support a topic ban rather than a block. I would even support lifting the topic ban if the user were to indicate that they understand and agree to abide by the relevant policies, in particular the suggestions in WP:COI. -- samj _in^out 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The paranoia over "outing" gets quite ridiculous around here, extending to the making and enforcement of "shut the barn door after the horse left" policies against revealing information that the subject himself revealed, then tried to take back. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Now unblocked, hopefully the issues can be concluded without further drama. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, let's see if this editor is able to contribute usefully to areas where they don't have a conflict of interest and a poor editing history. This is the kind of problem we get when editors listen to disruptive influences. Verbal chat 17:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Unsurprisingly, it turns out this is not the first time we've discussed User:LirazSiri at WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive513#Handing_off. -- samj _in^out 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here's another 8,000 words from a year ago following the usual pattern of "my subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines, so let's change them": Notability_criteria_for_entries_on_free_software_projects -- samj _in^out 06:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The accused responds

Hi Everyone. This is as closest I've ever been (and ever hope to be!) "on trial". A lot has been written on my behavior and motives and it's strange to read that as a bystander. At least now that I'm unblocked I can respond.

I originally intended to include a description I compiled of SamJ's problematic edit history, cross referenced with his public employment record and peel away the pretense from his "I'm-just-trying-to-protect-Wikipedia" charade. But I won't do that. Not because I think it would be wrong, but mainly because it would be a big waste of my time to engage in a debate about this and that would be akin to the territorial retaliation I've been on the pointy end of this last week. I won't stoop to that. I'll merely conclude that this was an editorial content dispute that got out of hand [48] and there is blame enough to go around. At a couple of points I did get angry and loose my cool in and off wiki, but I got my sense of proportion back pretty quickly afterwards and calmed down [49] [50]. For the record, I've decided to forgive Sam for any real or perceived aggression against a fellow editor and cloud computing enthusiast. To his credit he did seem to tone it down a notch towards the end [51]. Unfortunately, this was just after he had me blocked for "outing" Guy so it's a mixed bag.

I haven't yet decided how involved I want to be with Wikipedia in the future. I've been contributing anonymously to areas of interest since not long after the project's inception (with the first Slashdot waves). I only created an account with my real name to facilitate full transparency regarding edits I had potential COI with. I was tempted to rationalize that there wasn't really a COI because there wasn't a commercial interest involved, but I realized what a slippery slope this was (there's a difference between being rational and rationalizing) and decided to consciously limit myself in this regard. Unfortunately, I feel that's made me particularly vulnerable to ad-hominem attacks which I am compelled to respond to in defense of my reputation. Instead of discussing content on its merits it becomes all too easy to simply dismiss edits as tainted with COI (at best) or even evil spamming. Last year the article on TurnKey was even "speed deleted" as spam instead of going through the normal AfD process for determining notability. It was then moved to my user space for improvement but since I had messed with the wrong admin it was speed deleted even from there. That felt abusive. Sure, the article was eventually restored by unanimous decision at Deletion Review [52] but it was frustrating to have to go through that and get dragged through the mud first.

Wikipedia's anarchic bureaucracy suffers from many perversions. The attempt to codify good behavior in policy has created a complex virtual legal system that can be easily manipulated by savvy individuals to their own ends (e.g., my blocking for an innocuous, lighthearted greeting). To paraphrase Lincoln, we all link to the same wiki policies, but in doing so we do not always mean the same things. In practice, many valuable would-be contributors to the project are being driven away through attrition, leaving the most obsessive, territorial contributors with free reign. Bad things can happen to good editors with the best of intentions and for all the wrong reasons.

Fortunately just when your head is about to explode from the insanity of it all comes along someone like Abd and offers neutral, positive guidance [53] [54]. What troubles me the most about this whole affair is how much mud had been slung in his direction. Some people in the community seem to really have it in for him. That's a shame. Wikipedia embodies so much of the good and bad in human nature and we need more people like him to tip the scale and prevent the project from further disintegrating.

Cheers. LirazSiri (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Liraz, you emailed me and threatened to "expose" me for uncontroversial, factual edits to the Citrix Systems article like this one, for creating the completely neutral System Administrators Guild of Ireland article and then got into a whole lot of hand waving about how I had been "so successful in pushing a POV on cloud that serves [my] employer's interests" and that "this makes [me] one of the most cynical and disingenuous professionals [you] have ever come across online" (conveniently ignoring the fact that I have literally just started working for my employer and that your accusations are conspicuously absent supporting evidence - presumably why you threatened to "out" me off-wiki with "a quantitative visual analysis of [my] edit history in the last 4 years with correlation to your public employment record" rather than using the usual processes). We have a word for that. I explained to you why a WP:COI accusation absent evidence is a type of personal attack (An interest is not a conflict of interest) and yet here you go again, going so far as to call me a single-purpose account in your emailed response.

As for User:Abd, who narrowly escaped sanction for violating his editing restriction and who will not be so lucky next time following clarification, here's a more typical sample of his "neutral, positive guidance". -- samj _in^out 06:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Two things immediately spring to mind from LirazSiri's comment: WP:NOTTHEM and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The "neutral positive guidance" offered by Abd is no different from the counsel you were offered a year ago, had you heeded it then you would not be in trouble now. Instead you chose to follow what you presumably thought was "neutral positive guidance" from Abd back then, which turned out to be a serious mistake because the grudge-bearers managed to persuade you that you could safely ignore our documented aversion to promotional editing. You can't. Or at least not without getting into trouble, as you've found out. I think you are being distinctly disingenuous here, notwithstanding that you have been counselled badly by some people who are primarily grinding axes. I am not persuaded that you have yet shown any understanding of why your promotion of your commercial interests here is unacceptable. You continue to use distraction fallacies, as you did then, in an apparent attempt to excuse continued conflicted editing. I'm sorry, that is simply not good enough. The evidence above is pretty clear: your primary purpose here is and always has been the promotion of your own commercial interests, apparently because nobody but you thinks your product is of such pre-eminent worth as to justify adding it at high-level articles. So you do it. Again and again and again. Even though you've had WP:COI pointed out. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to support a "topic ban from making any edit relating to TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library, except to point out simple errors of fact at Talk:TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library. But as I have not finished looking into this, this will have to be something I come back to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:137.164.225.235

137.164.225.235 (talk · contribs) is trying to make unconstructive edits to an article (Pacific Ring of Fire) such as The Pacific Ring of Poo Tards (or sometimes just the Ring of Poo) instead of The Pacific Ring of Fire (or sometimes just the Ring of Fire).

Nascar1996 21:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC needs closing

Resolved

 – The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can one of those legendary univolved admins determine consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RFC: Every playmate is notable? It's been open for a month now. Pcap ping 22:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how to fix

Resolved

Found this during scan of recent changes but didn't have an undo or rollback option on page, not sure of the proper way to fix this now ? File talk:Keiko-weighing.jpg Mlpearc MESSAGE 23:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. You couldn't revert or undo because it was a newly-created page; there's nothing to revert to. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Understand. so posting it here was the thing to do ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 23:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In the end of the day, either posting here or on the talk page of any admin will be fine. :) SGGH ^ping! 23:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) In future, you can mark it with a speedy deletion tag, (in this case {{db-vandalism}}, but there's a whole list at WP:CSD), and it goes on a list of files for admins to review and delete. No, the report doesn't technically belong here, but no worries, really, it's still (theoretically) not a bureaucracy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 23:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion in need of closure

Resolved

 – Discussion closed, articles redirected. I'm holding off on protection unless someone actually reverts. --RL0919 (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song). Open for six days, no participation since February 26. There is a 100% consensus in this discussion that Politics, Religion and Her (song) be redirected to Politics, Religion and Her and High-Tech Redneck (song) to High-Tech Redneck. I am asking for any uninvolved admin to close the discussion and redirect both articles accordingly. Note that both redirections have been edit-warred over in the past, so I would highly recommend that both redirects be locked to prevent another edit war. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Endorse the decision & agree that protection at this point is not necessary. –xeno^talk 00:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism/Copyvio Allegations

Please continue this elsewhere, if it is really needed at all (appears doubtful to me). Killiondude (talk) 01:47, 4 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.

---

I have discovered that administrator Ironholds (talk · contribs) has engaged in some disturbing patterns of editing behavior. Some of the below examples are more egregious than others, but as a whole it is quite a disturbing trend, detailing a pattern of "borrowing" by Ironholds that is distressing. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Examples of plagiarism/copyvio

Jean-Pierre Warner Article: [55] Source: [56] Article: Warner was born on 24 September 1924 to an English father … and a French mother. Source: Warner was born in 1924 to an English father and a French mother. Article: Ste Croix de Neuilly and then at the École des Roches, before transferring to Harrow in 1938. Source: Ste Croix de Neuilly, and then to a boarding school in Normandy, École des Roches, before being sent to Harrow in 1938. Article: Harrow he went to Trinity College, Cambridge to study history before being commissioned into the Rifle Brigade as a second lieutenant Source: Harrow he went to Trinity College, Cambridge, to read history, but left after four terms to join the Rifle Brigade into which he was commissioned. Article: He later served on Lord Mountbatten's personal staff, becoming an acting major … at the age of 22. Source: At the end of the war he joined Lord Mountbatten’s staff at GHQ Far East. He was an acting major by the age of 22 Article: After demobilisation in 1947 he returned to Trinity College, reading law for a year and graduating with first-class honours. Source: Demobilised in 1947, he returned to Trinity to read law for one year, duly obtaining a first Article: junior counsel to the Registrar of Restrictive Practices, and in 1964 became junior counsel to HM Treasury. Source: junior counsel to the Registrar of Restrictive Practices … In 1964 he was appointed junior counsel to the Treasury in Chancery matters. Article: He was appointed Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in 1998. Source: In 1998 he was awarded Luxembourg’s Grand Cross, Order of Merit. Article: He was awarded honorary degrees from the University of Leicester,[7] University of Exeter and University of Edinburgh. Source: He had honorary LLDs from the Universities of Exeter, Leicester and Edinburgh. John Gurney Article: [57] Source: [58] Article: was called to the Bar by the Inner Temple on 3 May 1793. Source: was called to the bar at the Inner Temple on 3 May 1793. Article: he was knighted and made a Baron of the Exchequer on 13 February 1832 Article: on 13 February 1832 was knighted and made a Baron of the Exchequer Source: On 13 February 1832 he was appointed a baron of the exchequer and knighted. Article: Gurney later defended Robert Thomas Crossfield for complicity in the Popgun Plot Source: defended Robert Thomas Crossfield, who was charged with complicity in the Popgun Plot. Article: then prosecuted Lord Cochrane for spreading rumours of Napoleon's death to make money on the stock exchange. Source: prosecution of Lord Cochrane and Cochrane Johnstone, accused of spreading false rumours of Bonaparte's death to make profit in the stock exchange. Article: as an independent, albeit harsh judge, Source: was an independent and acute, but severe and somewhat harsh judge George Hammond Whalley Article: [59] Source: [60] Article: eldest son of James Whalley, a merchant and banker from Gloucester Source: eldest son of James Whalley, a merchant and banker of Gloucester Article: was educated at University College London, gaining a first class degree in Metaphysics and Rhetoric, and entered Grey's Inn in 1835, being called to the bar in 1839. Source: was educated at University College, London, where he gained first prizes in rhetoric and metaphysics, and entered Gray's Inn in 1835, being called to the bar in 1839. Article: During the Irish Potato Famine in 1837 he established several fisheries on the Irish west coast Source: During the Irish famine of 1847 he established fisheries on the west coast of Ireland Article: In 1866 he claimed to have evidence that Vatican machinations had caused the defeat of British troops in New Zealand, that Cardinal Cullen, the Irish primate, intended to place a Stuart pretender on the throne of England, and that the pope had taken control of the British artillery corps, the police, the telegraph office, and railway companies. Source: In 1866 he claimed to have evidence that Vatican machinations had caused the defeat of British troops in New Zealand, that Cardinal Cullen, the Irish primate, intended to place a Stuart pretender on the throne of England, and that the pope had taken control of the British artillery corps, the police, the telegraph office, and railway companies. John Stonor Article: [61] Source: [62] Article: part of Edward III's policy of replacing high-ranking officials after he began his personal rule, although there is no evidence Stonor was ever involved in politics. Source: part of Edward III's policy of replacing earlier officers once he began his personal rule, though there is no evidence that Stonor was ever involved in politics. Article: the disturbances at Bury St Edmunds and Abingdon Abbey in 1327 and at Oxford in 1335, the misconduct of officials in 1323 and 1331–4 and the trial of rebels in 1323, 1327, and 1331. Source: the disturbances at Bury St Edmunds and Abingdon Abbey in 1327 and at Oxford in 1335; the misconduct of officials in 1323 and 1331–4; and the trial of rebels in 1323, 1327, and 1331. Article: A review of the trial of Otto Grandson for misgovernment of the Channel Islands in 1319 and diplomatic missions to France in 1324 and Spain in 1325. Source: A review of the trial of Otto Grandson for misgovernment of the Channel Islands in 1319 and diplomatic missions to France in 1324 and Spain in 1325 William Tresham Article: [63] Source: [64] Article: he audited the accounts of royal officials in southern Wales. Source: auditor of the accounts of royal officials in south Wales Article: was retained as an Apprentice-at-law from 1444 to 1447 Source: was retained as an apprentice-at-law from 1444 to 1447. Article: calls for reform of the royal household. Source: call for the reform of the royal household Article: continued to receive an annual fee until at least 1447 Source: continued to receive an annual fee from the duke until at least 1447 Article: to investigate concealments of royal revenues Source: to investigate concealments of royal revenues Article: the value of crown lands, again in Northamptonshire. Source: the value of crown lands in that county Article: favoured at court, leading to his appointment to politically sensitive legal cases Source: Favour at court led to Tresham's being employed in politically sensitive legal cases; Ralph Sandwich Article: [65] Source: [66] Article: younger son of Simon of Sandwich and his wife Gillian, and the nephew of Henry of Sandwich Source: younger son of Sir Simon of Sandwich … and his wife Gillian … and nephew of Henry of Sandwich Article: attended the coronation of Edward II in February 1308, and on March 24 delivered the custody of the Tower of London to John Cromwell. Source: attend the coronation of Edward II on 8 February 1308, and on 24 March delivered the custody of the Tower to John Cromwell Article: Sandwich was pardoned in 1266 but maintained a close connection with the Leybourne family, acting as an attorney to Roger's widow in 1272 and then as the executor of her will in 1276. Source: Sandwich was pardoned in November 1266, and thereafter maintained close connections with the Leybourne family. In 1272 he acted as attorney for Roger of Leybourne's widow, the countess of Winchester, and was to serve as her executor four years later. Charles Jocelyn Hambro Article: [67] Source: [68] Article: suffering from cancer of the tongue (although radium therapy and surgery later allowed him to lead a relatively active life). Source: suffering from cancer of the tongue. An operation and radium treatment nevertheless allowed him to lead an extremely active life thereafter. Article: through his contact with the anti-Nazi journalist Ebbe Munck Charles formed links with the Danish resistance Source: through the anti-Nazi journalist Ebbe Munck, initiated contacts with resistance-minded Danes Article: Between December 1940 and November 1941 Charles was also in charge of overseeing the French, Belgian, German and Dutch sections of the SOE, and from November 1941 he was deputy leader of SOE for 5 months. Source: From December 1940 to November 1941 Hambro added to his responsibilities the oversight of SOE's nascent French, Belgian, Dutch, and German sections, and from November 1941 for five months he was deputy head of the whole organization Article: as head of the "British raw materials mission" in Washington; actually a cover for information exchanges between Britain and the United States Source: as head of the British raw materials mission: this was cover for supervising the exchange of information between the United Kingdom and the USA Thomas Reeve Article: [69] Source: [70] Article: the son of Richard Reeve, and was admitted to Trinity College, Oxford in 1688 at the age of only fifteen, and to Inner Temple in 1690. Source: the son of Richard Reeve, … Admitted to Trinity College, Oxford, at the age of fifteen in 1688, and to the Inner Temple in 1690, Article: in 1722 became attorney-general of the Duchy of Lancaster, succeeding Alexander Denton Source: in 1722 succeeded Alexander Denton as attorney-general of the duchy of Lancaster. Article: was apparently courted by Lord Sidney Beauclerk, … in hopes of a legacy Source: was vainly courted by Lord Sydney Beauclerk in the hope of a legacy Roger Hillary Article: [71] Source: [72] Article: Sir Roger Hillary (d. 1356) was a British justice. He was one of five sons of William Hillary and his wife Agnes. The Hillaries were a prosperous landowner family holding properties in Lincolnshire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire, and Leicestershire, and appear to have been related to the Bereford family, whos members included Sir William Bereford, previously the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Source: Hillary, Sir Roger (d. 1356), justice, was one of at least five sons of William Hillary and his wife, Agnes. The Hillarys, a well-propertied family holding lands in Lincolnshire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire, and Leicestershire, appear to have been related to the Bereford family of Coleshill, Warwickshire, whose members included Sir William Bereford, … a chief justice in the court of common pleas … Article: the connection is likely to have been a useful one Source: The connection is likely to have been a useful one Article: in 1335 he was appointed to investigate the activities of administrators in the West Midlands Source: in 1335 he was appointed to investigate the activities of the king's officers in the west midlands Article: inquire … into the fate of the jewels, plate, and money of the second earl of Arundel, executed in 1326 Source: enquiring as to the fate of the jewels and plate of Edmund FitzAlan, 9th Earl of Arundel, who had been executed in 1326, George Treby (judge) Article: [73] Source: [74] Article: was the oldest son of Peter Treby, an attorney at the Court of Common Pleas and his wife Joan, daughter of John Snelling Source: was … the eldest son of Peter Treby … an attorney of common pleas, and his wife, Joan, daughter of John Snelling Article: Exeter College, Oxford in June 1660. He left before completing his degree, and was admitted into Middle Temple on 24 October 1663, being called to the bar on 2 June 1671. He became a bencher of Middle Temple on January 28 1681, a reader in 1686 and the treasurer between 1689 and 1690 Source: Exeter College, Oxford, in June 1660. He left Oxford without a degree, and on 24 October 1663 he was admitted to the Middle Temple, where he was called to the bar on 2 June 1671. He became a bencher of his inn on 28 January 1681 and a reader in 1686, and was treasurer in 1689–90. Article: In 1675 he married Anna Blount, a widow from London, who died some time before September 1677. Source: a London widow, Anna Blount, whom he married on 15 November 1675. … some time before September 1677. Article: in June 1679 that Treby might be elected as the new Speaker of the House of Commons, but nothing became of it apparently because he was so short sighted he could not distinguish between different Members of Parliament. Source: in June 1679 that Treby might be named the new speaker of the Commons. Nothing came of this, ‘because being so short sighted, he cannot see to distinguish members in the house’ Article: Once the Third Exclusion Parliament had been dissolved … Fitzharris was charged with treason. Source: Once the third Exclusion parliament had been dissolved … Fitzharris was charged with treason. Article: He was active in the Green Ribbon Club promoting the idea of a "free state", and suggested that James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth should be king. Source: he was active with the Green Ribbon Club, where he allegedly promoted a ‘free state’ and suggested that James Scott, duke of Monmouth … should be king. Article: King Charles and his lawyers attacked the city's charter with a Quo warranto action. Source: Charles's legal advisers decided to attack London's charter by quo warranto. Article: Mary Brinley, who reportedly brought a £10,000 portion Source: Mary Brinley who reportedly brought a £10,000 portion. Article: In the elections to the 1685 Parliament Treby stood against and lost to Richard Strode, partially as a result of the remodelling of the Plympton corporation charter, which had damaged Treby's political base. Source: In elections to parliament in 1685 Treby again stood at Plympton against Strode, though this time Strode prevailed, in part because Plympton's 1684 charter had remodelled the corporation and thus destroyed Treby's political base.

Discussion

Have you discussed this with Ironholds? If not, why did you not take it to his user talk page or WP:CCI first? AN is not well-suited for this type of discussion. NW (Talk) 00:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• It suited Ironholds just fine to discuss Davies' "issues" here first, so it will do well to discuss his here as well. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not plagiarism, that's, at worst, unimaginative paraphrasing. Paradoctor (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with NW that the user's talk page is the place to start. (If his own past behavior was to take things to AN too quickly, that should not be the standard.) Also, I'd suggest cutting down the examples to just the strongest ones. The list is way long, and several of the early ones looked like acceptable rewording to me. It was only farther down that I saw long verbatim passages that seemed inappropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, RL, I've already reworded the later ones :P. Not only is Unitanode being pointy, but also being inaccurate. Ironholds (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply following Ironholds' own example. If he had taken his concerns to Davies first, I'd have extended him the same courtesy. He didn't, so I'm not. Now, let's deal with the problem here. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Dear pot, I have recently been drawn to curiosities concerning your hue.." Ironholds (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT much? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely ludicrous. I posted evidence of the same type of behavior Ironholds decried from Davies, in the same manner he dealt with it. There's a whole lotta' deflecting goin' on right now. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidently this is from a list that has been circulating via email (oh, the irony!). I am perfectly happy to attempt to rephrase those bits people have a problem with; a quick glance at my talkpage would show that some of these have already been brought to my attention, and accordingly rephrased. Thank you, Unitanode, for demonstrating the kind of maturity and reasonableness you credited me with last time plagiarism came up. Ironholds (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you to explain why you plagiarized and committed copyvios in the first place. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Unitanode; I am not an administrator, and you could try and be a bit less WP:POINTY. Sorry to shit on your parade, but almost all of the examples you've brought up here were posted to my talkpage by Moonriddengirl and have been corrected. I will try and be a bit less of a party pooper next time. Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  I'm asking you for an explanation of why they happened to begin with. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  They were not deliberate, and many were made rather a while ago; where you can show bits that have not already been fixed as soon as they were brought to my attention, I will be happy to correct them. Ironholds (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Remind me again, did you accept, "They were not deliberate" as an explanation from Davies? Or did you continue to badger him, even after he opened a user subpage for discussion? As for recent examples, the very first one on my list (Jean-Pierre Warner) is from one month ago. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  And the second one on my list (John Gurney (judge)) is from two months ago. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Your most recent examples are also those where people have called it "unimaginative paraphrasing". I find it highly ironic that the person who shouted at me most for the Roger Davies thing is using exactly the same attitude here as some kind of petty, rather pathetic revenge. Have you considered using WP:POINT as something other than cut-price toilet roll? Ironholds (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  In regards to Jean-Pierre Warner, particularly, I can't actually see the problem. All are paraphrased, all as different as I can make them from the source without losing information, and I'd love to see how you'd rephrase some of the things, since that's a requirement for plagiarism accusations. Ironholds (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  If you don't like the way Ironholds behaved in some previous incident (which I am not familiar with; not every admin reads every discussion here), behaving in a similar way as a tit-for-tat is entirely WP:POINT-y. If you have a legitimate copying concern (and I make no judgment either way on that), take it to WP:CCI. --RL0919 (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ironholds methods were basically endorsed when he grabbed the pitchfork against Davies. As these methods have been endorsed, I'm simply following them in dealing with similar concerns about his own editing behavior. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  That makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps you should put down the POINTfork before you work it even further up your intestinal tract? Ironholds (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  What part of the fact that I'm simply using the method that you yourself endorsed in your previous complaint "makes absolutely no sense"? Did it make no sense to do it that way then? Or is it just now when that method is used to report your own errors? And don't "refactor" anything. You wrote what you wrote. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  The fact that we both agree said method was incorrect? And that you spent most of said complaint harping on about it and therefore should know better? But since you consider WP:SOCK optional, no wonder WP:POINT is in the same sort of category. Ironholds (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Ironholds, would you consider refactoring that please? I don't see merit to this complaint either, but it's better to set the right example about civility. Durova⁴¹² 01:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Having now looked up the previous discussion, I would hardly say the comments there "basically endorsed" the approach. And with this discussion being what it is, I agree with Pcap's call below to get this closed. --RL0919 (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone just close this? This is obviously not the proper venue for dealing with a non-admin, WP:CCI is. I had closed it already but been reverted [75] and "warned" [76] by you guess who... Pcap ping 01:42, 4 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.

User:The Pythons

I've removed the email addresses for the individuals that were listed on the User:The Pythons page, because the page itself says they're 14. Should those email addresses be oversighted? Woogee (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you deem it necessary, contact an oversighter by email rather than posting here. They can assess it for you. SGGH ^ping! 12:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

user talk:Onevalefan

Resolved

I've receieved a level-2 warning from user:Onevalefan for a content dispute for what I perceive as no good reason, and I can't reply to this person, since they have editprotected their talk page. The page Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Chile earthquake was merged into Humanitarian response to the 2010 Chile earthquake about an hour ago by another IP user. But the target article is now approaching 50kB, so I undid it, Cluebot reverted me, so I informed it the page was split, then undid cluebot, now Onevalefan is giving me a level 2 warning, but I can't talk to him about it.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

His talk page has been editprotected for about a year. I don't see how that's appropriate for someone using Huggle to revert people, with no way for others to contact that person on Wikipedia. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've left a message asking for the user to unprotect his talk. If this takes place, you can discuss the issue with him. I've directed him here also to see if he answers you here. SGGH ^ping! 12:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

I've looked at the page history, and I apologise. You had made the edit, Cluebot reverted it because of a large body of text being deleted (your link), and you then reverted cluebot's edit. I saw your edit of you then reverting Cluebot's auto-edit and deleting the body of text, and with you editing from an IP address, I accidentaly saw it as an act of vandalism.

The level two warning was automatic from (WP:HUGGLE); the program saw that you had an earlier warning and upgraded to the next one.

Once sorry, I'm really sorry for my mistake!

Onevalefan^talk 14:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's why I left an edit summary when I did the edit, since I suspected that either an edit filter or cluebot might revert it. I also reported it to Cluebot's false positive reporter. I had expected that someone would look at the edit summaries and page history before giving me a level-2 warning.

I think you should fix the edit protection of your talk page, since it is quite difficult to talk to you with it being protected.

Ok, well that's settled then.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion backlogs

It would be nice if some more admins can help with the XfD backlogs - currently at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion (which has become a chronic backlog) and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (where there were a lot of nominations last week). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN3

Resolved

 – A bunch of admins jumped in and resolved all but the latest case. -- Atama頭 22:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Many unanswered reports there. Will try to assist later, but out the door. Hopefully a few available admins can look over there and close a few. Thanks. NJA (t/c) 08:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Big backlog from four days old at the 3RR noticeboard

The 3RR noticeboard is failing, (has failed) reports from 4 days old, reports as old as this are stale and need closing, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Image undeletion

Hello, could an administrator please undelete File:CIMG0773.JPG? The photo was incorrectly transferred to Wikimedia Commons, and has to be placed under a fair use rationale. The title is blacklisted, so I couldn't create with {{ImageUndeleteRequest}}. Thanks, Blurpeace 06:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't find a file at that location. Did you get the name wrong? Also, if the name is blacklisted, could you suggest a better, more descriptive name to move it to? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It may help us to find it if we knew which article it had previously appeared in. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This was deleted and renamed on commons, now at File:Seaworld_2006.jpg. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well tracked. :) Isn't that image problematic? I don't do much with visuals, but the prominence of the Sea World sign would seem to make this a derivative work; I think one could make a case that this is a statue or sculpture and hence a no-go under freedom of panorama. Perhaps that's why Blurpeace says it should be hosted locally under fair use claim. Where does Commons stand on decorative signs? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, MRG. The sign appears to be a three-dimensional one, so perhaps Freedom of Panorama could apply. This is really an issue for Commons though. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

MRG, precisely. Expounding on their response: the United States does not have a relevant freedom of panorama exception, therefore the image should be hosted here. The logo is not simple enough to be claimed as public domain. If necessary, I will have the the photo deleted at Wikimedia Commons first and request its undeletion here afterwards. Blurpeace 23:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I was reading the wrong log. Feel free to ignore my incessant babbling. ;) Blurpeace 02:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Premature archiving of this board

How the hell is this okay? No one has even dealt with the PROBLEMS I raised yet? I guess it's okay for Ironholds to hound an arb here (on behalf of a currently banned user), but if I raise some concerns about his editing here, it's prematurely archived. This is fucking pathetic... Scottaka UnitAnode 01:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude, this is not the way to resolve your problems. Venting like crazy (like above) ain't going to get anything done. Have some tea, relax and take a short WikiBreak. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't angry at all until people just ignored the substance, and the started prematurely archiving it, and finally removing my comments. That's what fucking pissed me off. And no amount of tea and cookies is going to get me to shut up about it. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The "PROBLEMS" have been addressed. Has Roger fixed his "PROBLEMS" yet? What, precisely, is the administrative action you're requesting? Lara 02:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Shortly before opening this new thread Unitanode was edit warring at ANI with several administrators, and he received edit warring and civility warnings at user talk from different people (which he rolled back). Unitanode, would you consider withdrawing this thread please? Better to step back before things head in a bad direction. Feel free to remove my response with your post. Durova⁴¹² 02:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you even talking about? Bait much, Durova? Scottaka UnitAnode 02:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I mean, are you blind? The thread that was prematurely archived wasn't at ANI, it was TWO THREADS ABOVE THIS ONE! Good lord... Scottaka UnitAnode 02:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What part of wrong venue can't you comprehend? If there are issues unaddressed, you've been told repeatedly where to list them. Ironholds isn't an administrator, thus, what is your goal here? What administrative action are you requesting? Lara 02:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I had hoped that some uninvolved admins would look through what I'd found, and have some serious discussions with Ironholds about the repercussions of (A) introducing copyvio and (B) proxying for a currently banned user. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl is an admin, yes? Hesperian 02:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

She had brought a few of them to his attention, but has not responded to this thread. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In that the problems you listed have previously been brought to him on his talk page and he has corrected them, I think it's clear to everyone that there's no need for a chat about it. Where is your evidence that he's proxied for a banned user? Lara 02:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Supplying diffs as requested. Edit warring at AN.[77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84] Edit warring warning at user talk,[85] rollback,[86] civility warning,[87] rollback,[88] edit warring warning,[89] rollback,[90] followup on civility with additional edit warring block warning,[91] rollback.[92] This pretty much all occurred within the last half hour. Unitanode, please step back and slow down. Durova⁴¹² 02:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• You really are full of shit. You know damn well that you claimed I was edit-warring at ANI. And how the hell do you claim I was edit-warring at my own fucking talkpage?!? And before someone drops a civility warning on me, telling someone they're "full of shit" is a statement about how ludicrous Ms. Durova's nonsense and baiting are. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems petty to flame out over her accidentally confusing AN and ANI. Seems rather clear that her reference was to your blatant edit warring on this page. Lara 02:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Followed by "What the hell" to Jennavecia at her user talk page[93] and a direct personal attack on me "You really are full of shit".[94] I am heading out to dinner now and am unlikely to read or document further expletives. Good luck, Jennavecia; all attempts at reasonable dialog are failing. Durova⁴¹² 02:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I like how most of the people above are working hard not to fan any flames, and are truly working to calm down an obviously agitated user. Kudos! Tan | 39 02:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the user temporarily for the reasons I've explained at [95]. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And he received the notification and acknowledged by calling me an asshole and then removing the notice. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

How surprising. Why would someone react like that to the collegiate discussion above? Perplexing. Tan | 39 02:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that he's agitated, as you pointed out above. However, that's not license to go around calling people assholes or telling them to fuck off. There is no excuse for it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's all over people. I've redirected his page and deleted his comment as requested.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Would it be unwise of me (if so, feel free to remove this) to suggest extending the block in light of the personal attacks (in edits and edit summaries) made in response to a block for personal attacks and incivility? Or the removal of his rollback rights for using it to roll back a warning about misuse of rollback? Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Unitanode at all but nothing in the world can justify this kind of thing, even taking Tan's point above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• At some point the community decided that users are free to use 'rollback' to remove posts from their own talk page. Not that I agree (it's kindof rude, imo), but it hasn't been sanctionable for at least a year, iirc. And for an even longer period, it has generally been agreed that we don't extend blocks for users sounding off about blocks they've received. –xeno^talk 16:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Approve block. Well done. Golf clap. Woogee (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

He got off easily, other editors in similar circumstances have been blocked for longer. Pcap ping 03:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• At some point, we need to have a dispute resolution seminar for admins (and possibly non-admin ANI regulars too, if there are enough chairs) because we all pretty much suck really hard at it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• How about some dispute describing seminars for the throwing-the-toys-out-of-the-pram brigade? Most of these cases are raised in a way that pretty much guarantees that they will be dismissed as "I lost in a dispute and Wikipedia MUST FIX IT NOW because I bring WP:TRUTH here!" Guy (Help!) 08:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think we can expect more of these cycles at this rate YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps more eyes upon the matter would be good. This started shortly after I asked Ironholds to refactor a barb that had been directed at Unitanode. Normally an evenhanded effort at peacemaking earns goodwill, but in light of this comment it appears to have had an opposite effect on Unitanode somehow. If something similar happens in future perhaps someone else could offer the olive branch? Durova⁴¹² 05:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Hmmm. I see prominent mention of the WikiCup, which is also a factor in some other recent disputes (Ottava Rima springs to mind). It seems to me that the competitive nature of this event might be leading some people to have rather too much invested in getting certain content outcomes. I can't see any other immediate explanation for the amount of heat being generated in some often quite trivial disputes. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  I can't see what he'd gain in relation to the WikiCup, though, since I'm not a member. In any case, those articles have already been refactored; two minutes of actual research (rather than parroting someone else's) would have shown him that this was baseless. Ironholds (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  The way it came up with regard to Ottava Rima was positive. When it looked like Ottava would be getting a lengthy block during the final weeks of the competition I sought permission to proxy his content edits so the block wouldn't hinder his finish. The Cup brought out the best in him: good sportsmanship and prolific content work on highly encyclopedic topics. Durova⁴¹² 02:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• At the very least, is it agreed that going forward, copyright concerns about an editor do not get brought up at AN or ANI first, but go to WP:CP first? In future, I'd suggest it be standard practice to move threads there, instead of quickly archiving them. If admin-related issues remain after WP:CP has had a crack, then someone from there can bring it here for admin intervention. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, WP:CP isn't really set up for that; it's good for single article issues, though it works for a handful of articles that need checking. Tickets at CP aren't even reviewed by an admin for seven days after they arrive. Ideally, I think, copyright and plagiarism concerns should be brought up with the contributor, with individual articles tagged for admin evaluation as necessary. If there is a clear widespread history of copyright problems and reason to believe there are undiscovered issues, WP:CCI is an appropriate forum, but the purpose of that board (like CP) is to clean issues, not necessarily to sanction users. (Not to say I haven't blocked a few I've encountered at both boards.) Personally, I think the best approach is to talk to the contributor first. If you can demonstrate a need, you can list the contributor at WP:CCI. If the contributor has been cautioned before but continued, then an ANI notice is probably appropriate, like this one. Also if the contributor is not around, like this one. (Have to note: I haven't explored either of those threads, just glanced at ANI to see if there were any copyright reports hanging about.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• In anything remotely associated with copyright, I defer to you, MRG. To be honest, I think I got CCI and CP confused, as CCI looks more like what I was thinking. But you're quite right that discussion with the editor should be a first step. I guess what I'm trying to find is a good approach when a thread like this does start at ANI, in place of revert warring over thread archival. If porting it over to CCI isn't appropriate in cases where talking with the individual hasn't happened, then I'm at a loss. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  I wonder if something like this would work? It gets the point across that someone believes the discussion at a particular page is unproductive, but avoids the slap in the face that {{archive top}}/{{archive bottom}} can sometimes cause, and avoids revert warring over a discussion close. If someone continues arguing, and no one responds, the argument will collapse in on itself. If multiple people continue discussing, then probably it shouldn't have been manually archived. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had a lot of practice with current set-ups, but I'm always open to talking about better and best ways to handle copyright work. :D Truth to tell, I've created but not yet deployed a rather amateurish little Lolcat to help drum up interest in copyright cleanup. The situation is better than it used to be, but we remain woefully backlogged. :/

If something like this comes to ANI that isn't clearly a matter for CCI and there's disagreement over whether or not it's resolved, perhaps it could be ported to WT:CP? That page doesn't get a lot of views, but subjects do come up there and are sometimes chewed over to resolution. Or maybe we can use WT:CCI for that. Sometimes ANI probably will be the best forum, when there's clear concerns and a contributor isn't getting the message and there is concern of ongoing violation. But there is a wide fuzzy area between "good paraphrase" and "unusably close derivative" that may take more room and time to resolve than either ANI or AN offer, where we need to reach consensus on where in the fuzzy area writing falls and, if it calls on the "unusably close derivative" part, figure out the best approach for cleaning up existing errors and moving forward without new ones. (This kind of copyvio is often not like copyright fraud, obviously, but simply arises from unfamiliarity with the conventions. It can be time consuming to help contributors learn how to avoid it, but it's certainly possible.) If it weren't a project page, I'd suggest WT:COPYCLEAN might also help, but sometimes even well-intentioned infringers resist addressing the matter. An air of the "official" helps, I think.

I like the idea of a template to note the possibility of a move if archiving doesn't work out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice of RfC at NPOV: Using the National Science Foundation as a reference at NPOV

See: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Using_the_National_Science_Foundation_as_a_reference

Please weigh in THERE on whether a statement by the National Science Foundation is a reliable source to use as an illustration for a portion of an ArbCom statement used in the NPOV policy. This is especially important for members of the Arbitration Committee, since it relates to an ArbCom ruling. Please do not discuss this here.

Before proceeding, please read the short RfC which preceeded this one and layed the groundwork for it. (I wouldn't start an RfC if I didn't feel there was some chance of succeeding ;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Motions regarding Herostratus and Viridae

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions:

1) Herostratus strongly admonished

For failing to adhere to the standard of decorum expected of administrators, and for unblocking himself in direct contravention of blocking policy, Herostratus is strongly admonished.

2) Viridae admonished

For blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge, Viridae is admonished for the poor judgment exercised in this incident.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Ireland article names

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:

1) The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during the Ireland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction and that, as a consequence, remedy 4 ("[...] no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.") is in force until September 18, 2011.

2) While the related matter of how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (such as articles) is not directly covered by the aforementioned remedies, the Committee takes notes of the existence of a de facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of the Ireland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Closure needed for the BLP RfC soonish

Nearly 150 editors have !voted in a proposal to close the second round of the BLP RfC (116 agreeing with the proposed summary, and 32 disagreeing at least in part). While this RfC hasn't been a model of organization (and in fact probably led to Rd232's RfC on RfCs), it should still be possible to see if at least some limited consensus can be extracted.

The current phase of this RfC has been open since 6 Feb, so the standard 1 month timeline would suggest an ending on Mar 6. (Phase I of the BLP RfC opened on 26 Jan and was closed by Risker on 6 Feb.) Given that this is a bit of a mess of an RfC, I thought it might be a good time to see if any admin would be willing to attempt to read a consensus for anything from this RfC. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 23:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

:I second the request.

And there is no need to wait until March 6. There is a clear conensus for User:Balloonman's Part 1 proposal. Everything else is secondary at most.

I think all would agree that the RFC has become very messy. The sooner it is wrapped up, the easier it will be to proceed with implementing the consensus.

There is general agreement to move forward, by people on both sides of the issue (acknowledging some outliers). But it would help much to archive the lot and wipe the slate.

Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, we should be grownups and handle own discussions. Maurreen (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Sheesh, I must be getting tired. My "nevermind" note applies only to my own comments, not to Bfigura's. Have a good weekend, all. Maurreen (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the amount of drama that BLP-related decisions have led to, I still think it would be good for someone uninvolved to close this RfC. Best, -- Bfigura ^(talk) 17:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to counter you, Bfigura, that my own exasperation. Maurreen (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible range block needed

From my talk page:

Dearest Moni (and Moni's talk page stalkers), I'm in need of admin-related advice. Another user and I have been gently battling with a strong-willed anonymous user (who utilizes a number of IP addresses) at various articles, most notably Louis Marshall and History of the New York State College of Forestry, for the past few months. This anonymous user has a problem with adding superfluous, and at times misleading and incorrect, information. Despite messages to their variety of talk pages,[96][97][98] and prompts to discuss their additions on the talk page, there has been NO communication between this user and any other editor. They simply reinstate the disputed info when it's removed.[99][100][101] No edit summaries, no nothing. It's very frustrating; I even unwatched both articles for a while, despite my interest in the subject. I know that WP:AN3 or another dispute resolution venue would normally be the next step, but seeing as how the user is willfully uncommunicative, and continues to switch IP addresses, I fear it might just be a waste of time in this particular circumstance. They aren't vandalizing per se, but their repeated efforts to include shoddy info is bringing the articles down, man, and I don't know what to do. In all of your infinite wisdom—which includes shiny admin skills—is there anything you would suggest we do? María (habla conmigo) 14:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Having read the cautions about rangeblocks, I do not feel comfortable touching them with a 10-foot clown pole. I protected Louis Marshall for two weeks, but it seems other earnest IP edits are being made to History of the New York State College of Forestry article. Advice or action suggested? --Moni3 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a possible rangeblock here. Tim Song (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If it helps (or is it hinders?) matters, now that Louis Marshall's article is semi-protected, the anonymous IP is now posting the recently disputed material that was removed earlier to another article, Bob Marshall (wilderness activist), which is an FA.[102] María (habla conmigo) 15:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it might be possible to block 71.182.96.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which covers all IPs from 71.182.96.0 to 71.182.127.255. Tim Song (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

disatisfied

Resolved

 – Wrong planet Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

i am a disatified customer and am not sure i woul continue or recomend to some one else why you cant transfwer to another phone is beyond me even if phone does come from different system you could at least givwe my money back or a credit as by the time i get rthe money for another phone i will have lost $20.00 dollars because you wont help at least i have a phone if it was any other company they would tranfer or give a credit to the user for when could afford another phone thank you miss [name redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.78.53 (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you meant to post this on Citizendium. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Username issue

Resolved

 – Copyvio deleted Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What could be done about this, there is a sex scandal about this Indian Guru Paramahamsa Nithyananda and we have this User account User:Guru nithyananda user has five edits to the wiki all from last September, all to his own page, creating this fluffy story about his Guru , what has happened is some editors have found it on google and these ip's have added attack type comments and the sex video link to the user page fluff, it was brought to my attention by a comment on the actual article talkpage, I have removed the attack type inserts and the video links and missed the fact that it was a user page and added a speedy tag, this has been removed by an good faith editor, I can see this situation happening again, as the user is not editing since six months can we delete the user page or perhaps as a username violation or shall I just watchlist it for more infractions? Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This user page had twelve hundred views yesterday including all the BLP issues and video link..... Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It was a copyright violation from here. I've deleted it as such. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tony. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Off-site "advance warning" re: disruption at Frederick Crews

I just came across anonymous comments posted to the "On Wikipedia" blog entry on the Mike Handel incident, and thought this should be brought to admins attention. In the comments section of this entry, the following was posted on March 2, regarding Frederick Crews (emphasis added):

Did you know that back in 2008 someone added material intended to destroy the reputation of a prominent American literary critic, that he actually announced what he was doing on the talk page of the article ... and that the material was left in the article until the article's subject sent in an OTRS complaint? See the Frederick Crews talk page. This was real, and it tops what you did any day.

and

Anyhow, I'm the person responsible for adding the material in question. I have absolutely no apology, and I have every intention of causing further disruption at the article in question. It won't be the kind of disruption I've done in the past: it will be something altogether new next time. Consider this an advance warning.

I haven't yet had the time to scour this article for any problems, but I did note that the article currently has fewer than 30 watchers. More eyes on this article might be in order. Thanks. Wine Guy~Talk 19:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the relevant discussion, and this character has been banned. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The "relevant discussion" you point to may be relevant for background, but please note that discussion is about the original incident nearly two years ago. The threats of further disruption took place 3 days ago, and were made by someone who apparently is motivated, and has an axe to grind with either Crews, Wikipedia, or both. To suggest that the ban of User:Skoojal will prevent them from causing further problems is, quite frankly, rather naïve. My point is that more people need to be watching this article; it would be nice if someone from WP dealt with any problems before the article's subject has to complain to OTRS again. Wine Guy~Talk 22:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is indefinitely semi-protected at the moment. And on a lot of watchlists. If someone sneaks a sock past autoconfirmed status, we can't stop them beforehand, but we can afterwards. The threat doesn't seem to justify raising protection to full at this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect's current block of Abd.

I believe that Future Perfect has made a bad block of Abd. My argument can be found here. I believe that FP simply wanting to throw his weight around, IMHO, as there is no clear violation of Abd's sanction as far as I can see. FP is needlessly harassing Abd with this block (like there is ever a need to harass someone). I would appreciate some independent oversight of this block. --GoRight (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I shall notify FP of this report on his talk page in that same section.

FP also seems to be under the impression that he is allowed to bar Abd from filing his own Arbcom requests: "And to forestall another misunderstanding you hinted at: you will not be allowed to file Arbcom requests about that dispute either." This is presumably in reference to this: "... because disruption, including extensive comment about me and my actions across many pages, from editors who should know better, is continuing, I may have no recourse left but to file an RfAr" I find that premise to be completely absurd. Abd's sanction doesn't even hint at such a notion that Abd is barred from filing his own DR requests concerning matters directed at him. --GoRight (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your own history of involvement in other people's disputes is... inglorious. I would strongly advise you not to get involved. There is a process for appealing blocks and bans, Abd can follow that process. I would be greatly surprised if your involvement did anything other than make things worse at this point. Incidentally, FP's actions have real-world parallels, see vexatious litigant. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am only the messenger. I have raised the issue and provided pointers to the relevant information so now uninvolved admins can decide for themselves. As to you final point, if you are suggesting that FP is being vexatious in his actions I certainly won't argue with you. --GoRight (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. You crack me up. What a glorious joke. Really. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, what do you think he meant by "Incidentally, FP's actions have real-world parallels, see vexatious litigant"? It is probably also worth noting that he himself has a rather checkered history with Abd. I, on the other hand, have very little with FP. --GoRight (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not, but you have plenty of history with Abd. He scratches yours, you scratch his. Badger Drink (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

[103] --GoRight (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Not Wikipedia specific but good wiki advice none the less.

• Abd escaped sanction at the ArbCom sanctions board because he said he would step away form the LirazSiri dispute which, after all, existed primarily because of his history of bad advice to LirazSiri. This edit: [104] is just yet another example of Abd interpreting everything as validation of his actions. Abd needs to learn when to STFU and cut his losses. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• (non-admin) This appears to be a good block. FPS clearly stated the interpretation of Abd's sanctions he wold aqpply, Abd agreed, and continued nonetheless. Prefectly straightforward. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • GoRight seems to be forum shopping and dramamongering at the moment. Abd started making personal attacks in the ArbCom request, contrary to his prior good faith promises. The block by FPaS is appropriate. It's also worth bearing in mind that on wikipedia review Abd's recent personal attacks on WMC go far beyond what was criticized by arbitrators in the original Abd-WMC ArbCom case about which he is currently seeking clarification. GoRight was unblocked conditionally a little while back. Is he currently not contravening the conditions of his unblock? Mathsci (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    How am I forum shopping? This is the only forum where I have raised the issue. I did place a notice of this discussion on the Arbcom request for clarification and on FP's talk page if that is what you are referring to, but I did not ask for any discussion in either place. Was that somehow inappropriate? --GoRight (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    If the block was an inadequate interpretation of the Arbcom restriction then I'm sure that the arbs will say so on his replies to the request for clarification. And even then, this belongs to WP:AE because it's related to arbitration enforcement. Oh, wait, an AE request was just closed with no block because Abd had agreed to stop commenting on a certain dispute, and FP blocked Abd because he had kept commenting on that dispute, thus breaking his part of the agreement. Soooo, this was already handled at the proper forum (AE), and arbitrators (the guys who have the last word on the interpretation of arbcom restrictions) will already be able to review it at the request for clarification. That's why this thread is looking like forum shopping: you are raising an issue at an unproper forum when it has been handled or is awaiting handlement at proper forums. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    Actually, WP:AE does not seem the correct forum to me since I am not asking for any enforcement of any Arbcom sanction which is what I thought that forum was for. If the uninvolved admins here believe that WP:AE is the more proper forum then let them indicate as much and I will be more than happy to close this discussion and move it all over there. I only seek some independent review of FP's actions.

    "you are raising an issue at an unproper forum when it has been handled or is awaiting handlement at proper forums" - Where else has a review of this block been requested and by whom? --GoRight (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    "[GoRight] causes significant waste of time and disruption by nit-picking, lawyering, and not getting it on talk pages and in dispute resolution. If you want a meaningful restriction, ban him from climate change talk pages, and from noticeboard discussion and dispute resolution where he is not one of the primary involved parties." Stephan Schulz, posting one month ago on GoRight's talk page in objection to the laxity of the restrictions placed on GoRight by Trusilver. Indeed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oh Please. FPaS helped broker the agreement at AE so that Abd didn't get blocked for the first violation and then Abd throws that back in everyone's face with a follow up violation after agreeing that he wouldn't. A block seems a very reasonable outcome and some advice for GoRight. If users like you spent less time enabling and cheering on Adb when he is behaving disruptively and aggrevating other disputes, perhaps he might have got the message that there are limits and that sometimes we needs to pull back. I'm amazed you haven't been restricted from sticking your nose into other editors' disputes yet, IMO that kind of restriction would solve a lot of the issues with your participation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block; Abd failed to comply with his agreement, and went much further than that by referring to users as criminals. I agree with the views expressed above, by Guy, Beyond My Ken, etc. Spartaz raises an interesting proposal to impose Abd's restriction on GoRight also, and I'd be inclined to support (though I do wonder whether it would be sufficient, given that he is already subject to 3 other community sanctions per WP:RESTRICT - I don't believe we've had an user where 4 community sanctions were imposed). I do see signs of a general problem editor. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "General problem editor" = "one who stands up to the cliqueistas ganging up on him instead of sitting down and shutting up." *Dan T.* (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That's a creative interpretation you've come up with, but one that is severely misguided too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with most comments here, this was a useless block. Also the attacks on GoRight are ridiculous, he has the right to ask for a review of a sanction imposed by an administrator if he so wishes.  Dr. Loosmark  19:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The block is enforcing an arbcom-imposed restriction, the review should have been posted at WP:AE. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• As the target of Abd's personal attacks and filer of the enforcement request I fully endorse the block (as a non-admin) and only wish it was done sooner, and for longer (as a week is clearly not long enough for the intended purpose). I may be Australian, but that does not make me a criminal (at least not by default!). I would further suggest that User:GoRight be subject to similar restrictions as the two of them are like peas in a pod, sapping the project of vulnerable volunteer time (our single most precious resource) with constant wikilawyering, hair splitting and unwanted and unwarranted involvement in others' business. Finally, with any editor who has ever in any way criticised either of them being declared "involved" it seems we run the risk of exhausting our supply of "uninvolved" people - it's not up to the named party to declare who they will and will not be sanctioned by (though perfectly acceptable to point out blatantly obvious, provable conflicts). Conversely, using the same logic one could argue that GoRight is the last person who should be filing on behalf of Abd. -- samj _in^out 21:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I have seen Abd and GoRight don't claim that "every" editor who has ever criticized them is involved, far from it. In any case if Abd really broke an Arbcom's restriction in an obvious way then there is no need that a specific Admin does the block as any neutral Admin should be able to routinely detect such an infraction. Unfortunately many Admins on wikipedia think that if they don't do the block then the Earth will stop to rotate. As if we don't have a little million other Admins, most of them are really uninvolved.  Dr. Loosmark  22:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a million admins. We have a few hundred actives ones. We have only a small handful willing to deal with WP:AE, probably because participation there brings one into constant contact with the most dispiriting drains on volunteer time and goodwill to be found on the project. MastCell ^Talk 03:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A few hundred active ones. I see. Ok, so for how many of those few hundred active ones has Abd claimed that they are involved?  Dr. Loosmark  12:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at GoRight's unblocking conditions a month ago, it seems that there was some talk of a "mentor". Who is this mentor - Abd? Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that had been rejected as a jaw-droppingly bad idea? Guy (Help!) 09:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There was never any talk of a mentor (read the history if you want to verify this). The only place that a mentor was mentioned was in the unblock statement by BWilkins and it appears to be a reference to the fact that Trusilver indicated that he would be watching closely my edits while the sanctions remain in effect. The final wording of the sanctions is available at WP:RESTRICT for everyone's easy reference. I am strictly adhering to all sanctions which have been imposed. --GoRight (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(comment by non-admin) This appears to be perfectly reasonable action by Future Perfect. Note: I myself have interacted in the past with FP and in the past he has blocked me.Varsovian (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I was emailed this link: [105]. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the link. Now you only have to explain us what exactly does that have to do with FP's block of Abd.  Dr. Loosmark  20:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Abd's recent repeated threats to flaunt policy by taking this off-wiki and proxying out-of-band have everything to do with the block, and everything to do with demonstrating Abd's behaviour overall. FP blocked Abd both for violating a sanction by continuing to discuss the LirazSiri situation and for his personal attacks on me, which involved comparing wiki editing with violent crimes and editors with violent criminals. He also pointed out that Abd's editing restriction would prevent him for filing RfAr in relation to the LirazSiri situation, and one would hope that after one RfAr and not one but two virtually identical clarifications of same (~20,000 words total, most of which are nit-picking over a 50 word restriction) he would be enjoined from further flogging that dead horse via RfAr too. -- samj _in^out 07:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that the links proves is that Abd understands the policy correctly. One is allowed to proxy for a banned user if one verifies the material himself and then takes responsibility for the edit(s).  Dr. Loosmark  11:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

and if one has "independent reasons" for making the edits.... --Enric Naval (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhm I don't know if that editor had "independent reasons" (whatever that is) or not and I don't really care. That issue has nothing to do with FPaS' block of Abd.  Dr. Loosmark  13:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why did you bring it up? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not bring it up.  Dr. Loosmark  21:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Need help with edit warring

Need advice on an edit war that crossed my talk page. Between these two editors User talk:Athenean and User talk:Sulmues. I gave Sulmues a level 3 warning for removing other editors talk page text, because I have advised both of better means at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The dispute is over article Talk:Vjosë. I need advise or your intervention thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 05:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you've done everything right here. You have left personal messages (templated warnings SUCK in these sorts of situations), reminded the participants to keep a cool head, and let them know about options for resolving their dispute. I would give it a half a day or so to see if they take your advice, then check back into the situation; if the edit warring has continued, then you can report both of them to WP:ANEW to get it to stop. --Jayron32 05:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your review and advice, I felt right but this is my first involvment in this type of situation, Again thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 05:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed the block at Here , after bieng involved yesturday I think it only fair that the other editor Here receive the same block. Although it seemed to me that the intent of each editor was equal, the aggression was not. "My Input" Thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 18:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Also see Here for futher information Mlpearc MESSAGE 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban for your review

Resolved

 – Page ban endorsed, semi-protection placed, options for further action discussed contingent on future editing. Kudos especially to EdJohnston. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Caleb Murdock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Seth Material (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Background reading:

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/39#Seth Material from December 2008, showing that the same problem existed then, and Caleb Murdock's attitude has not changed over the past year.

I have closed a recent edit-warring case at WP:AN3#User:Caleb Murdock reported by User:2over0 (Result: Topic ban) with a topic ban of Caleb Murdock from the Seth Material. (The Seth Material is a collection of psychic texts by the author Jane Roberts, who lived from 1929 to 1984).This is a case of long-term edit warring by Murdock who is an enthusiast for the Seth Material and has repeatedly taken maintenance tags off the article after they were placed by regular editors. The 3RR was closed with a proviso that the decision would be offered here for review. Attempts to explain Wikipedia policy to this editor were not successful. He thinks it's a two-person edit war between him and User:Verbal, who in his view, inexplicably prefers a shorter version of the article. So far as I can tell, Verbal has been trying to make the article an encyclopedic summary rather that a large dump of primary source material. Caleb Murdoock is a single-purpose account since he has no editing interest besides this article. Murdock will still be able to participate on the article's Talk page. This is a long-running problem, and I'm not optimistic that his attitude will change, but if it does so, I think lifting of the ban could be considered in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good call, IMO - that looks like a classic collision between WP:NPOV and WP:TRUTH. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good, although I question the wisdom of allowing him to comment on the talk page. That is a violation of the topic ban. He's banned from the topic, not just the article. That would also apply to the Jane Roberts article and talk pages, as well as any other pages that mention or deal with it. It would be wise for him to stay away from paranormal topics for awhile and ask for permission from the banning admin to edit anything like that. It's up to that admin to interpret what is included in the topic ban. A topic ban means "the topic", not just articles with that name, no matter where it is mentioned. If he sees anything that mentions those subjects, he should run the other way and resist the temptation to comment. It's time he ended his dubious status as a single-purpose account. He should edit articles on totally different topics and get some experience and learn what is acceptable and what is not. He doesn't understand that yet. He probably won't believe this, but I actually wish him well and hope he will mature into a more well-rounded editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good work, thank you EdJohnston. If he becomes disruptive on other articles or talkpages we can look into extending the ban then. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• You folks just don't understand what's wrong with Wikipedia. By allowing editors who are ignorant of the subject-matter to make extensive edits to an article, you are insuring that the information in any controversial article will be either incorrect or missing altogether. This policy has spawned an army of editors who are more intent on censoring articles that they don't like than building the encyclopedia as a whole. It is this policy that allows so many editing wars to occur. It allows editors with a bias -- such as those who fancy themselves to be skeptics but are actually atheists -- to impose their will on a large number of articles. You assume that all editors who are knowledgeable about and focused on certain topics are necessarily biased, but that is only your assumption. By favoring the censors on Wikipedia instead of the knowledgeable editors, you are insuring -- quite clearly -- that Wikipedia is a less informative encyclopedia than it might be.

I made it abundantly clear that Verbal was refusing to collaborate, and the evidence was right there on the talk page for everyone to see. By punishing me and not Verbal, you are enforcing a clear double standard. The fact that administrators, who should be impartial, would impose a double standard is evidence that they are also biased. On Wikipedia, the wolves are now guarding the hen house. In the area of religion (at the least), Wikipedia has become a haven for narrow-minded cranks who are afraid of any information that contradicts their narrow world view. Verbal did as much edit-warring as I did. My only real crime was that I got too passionate, and that I wouldn't assume good faith (and after three years of dealing with the jerk, that was not about to happen).

WIKIPEDIA HAS BECOME CORRUPT, WITH BIASED AND BUREAUCRATIC EDITORS RUNNING THE SHOW.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's it, talk offensive to me, baby. So you're saying that you should be allowed free-reign because you've got one POV, and others shouldn't because they've got another? And this is different to what you claim the MedCab has done because...? Ironholds (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's MedCom you're referring to; I don't remember a MedCab case with this user. The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the last straw. Ban him. Wikipedia won't miss him. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, Brangifer. I was a computer technician before I became a retailer. I could sign onto this site from 20 different IP addresses if it suited me. The reason I don't is that it isn't worth the aggravation. The rules on Wikipedia are stacked against good editors who care about the subjects they edit. The rules, which embolden non-knowledgeable editors like yourself, encourage warring. I was just trying to defend the integrity of the article. But now that I see that the admins are also biased, why should I want to stay here?

What I'm REALLY being punished for is speaking my mind honestly. I won't hang my head in shame and say, "I'm sorry", so I'm being booted off. Verbal wouldn't collaborate, and he gets away with it. Verbal did almost as many reverts as I did, but I get punished for it and he doesn't. There's no fairness here. There's no impartiality. This is a place for people with enormous egos to act like bullies. Any editor who is honestly trying to develop a good article that is even slightly controversial gets a phalanx of hostile editors descending on the article to rip it to shreds. It took this incident to make me realize what a bad place Wikipedia is. The real shame is that Wikipedia values the disruptive editors over the knowledgeable editors. That is a bizarre situation. Hopefully, the people who run this place will come to their senses.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I thought Caleb might still be able to provide useful sources, but his rants above and general behaviour have pushed me over to supporting an indef block now. As anyone who has looked at my userpage would know, I'm not an atheist, and if you look at the talk page you will see me attempting to engage Caleb in useful discussion. "dealing with the jerk" isn't very collaborative, and the repeated references to editwarring and ip socks just show a lack of understanding about how wikipedia works. Verbal chat 09:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, you were never willing to work with me on any issues. In order to iron out differences on a Talk page, you have to get specific about the language, but you were never willing to do that. You would occasionally make a broad statement about the article, but you wouldn't discuss the actual language. Furthermore, your actions were always provocative. You started the edit war by twice rolling back edits that I had made over a period of time without comment. Good editors don't behave in such a fashion.

So you're not an atheist. Maybe you're a right-wing Christian or something. All I know is that you had it in for the Seth Material article since the first time you saw it. I remember in the early days the way you searched through the policies to find something that would stick, but nothing stuck. You brought up one policy after another -- it was clear that you had an agenda. Something about the article threatens you.

I don't care if you ban me from all of Wikipedia. I no longer see this as a good site. My essential message remains: The input of knowledgeable editors is not valued on this site, and that's an absurd situation given the fact that an encyclopedia is a book of knowledge. Verbal, you REPEATEDLY said that the article needed to be cut down, yet it was always fairly short. The more it is cut down, the less information it contains. On a site like this, articles should grow with more information, not be cut down by antagonists like you. I can only assume that you feel threatened by the information in the article, whatever your personal reasons.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• An indef ban seems to be the only solution. It's classic ownership behavior by an SPA who doesn't understand, and refuses to abide by, our policies. He needs to read WP:LUC. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to support a full ban based on the threat of sockpuppetry. That's like telling everyone in a courtroom that you'll kill them if they dare to convict you for assault... It's somewhat counterproductive. -- Atama頭 20:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• There are some opinions in this thread in support of the topic ban, and other editors who favor an indefinite block. I'm leaving a note for User:2over0 asking his advice on how to close this. Since there are only seven editors who expressed an opinion (including Caleb Murdock), and since a topic ban is a weaker sanction than an indef block, the topic ban could be the way to go. Nobody who is not involved in the article dispute has so far spoken up against sanctions. If an uninvolved admin happens to wander by, he should feel free to close the above discussion and state the result. (Topic ban or not, indef block or not). Otherwise I will close the discussion myself after some more consultations. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Ed. You wrote "Nobody who is not involved in the article dispute has so far spoken up against sanctions." I know that doesn't exactly apply to what I'll say, but I'm just going to let you know that I haven't been involved in any "article dispute" at all, and only made a few edits after this AN/I started. My dispute is with Caleb's attitude and failure to understand Wikipedia. I have been totally uninvolved in article disputes, having been drawn into this because of Caleb's vicious attack on Verbal. It's his ownership attitude and total failure to understand policies that's the problem. He's a classic SPA who has limited knowledge of how Wikipedia works. I stuck to warning and advising him, and have only made a few edits as of late. As such I'm a pretty "uninvolved" editor. Since his comments are a consistent pattern, and not a "heat of the moment" thing (per 2over0's comment below), I support an indef ban now. He is using Wikipedia as a battleground to further his understanding of "the truth". He's not a newbie. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I still think we can get away with just the topic ban - people say things in the heat of the moment, but I favor letting such things slide unless and until they actually start editing disruptively. If CM starts editing productively elsewhere - great; if he moves the pattern to Jane Roberts or other closely related articles - extend the topic ban (the threshold for taking this step should be fairly low); if he starts socking and harassing other editors, RBI. An indef might not be unwarranted, but the cost to the project of waiting to be sure should be fairly low. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• There is now an anonymoust IP editing the article with edits that follow the pattern of Caleb's edits. Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Then, especially in light of his threats, it needs semi-protection for a long time. There is no down side to semi-protecting any article for long periods of time, and for controversial articles that should be the default. Note that whether one agrees with my opinion or not, that doesn't detract from the need for semi-protecting the articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - I have enacted a ban of User:Caleb Murdock from the Seth Material article. For now, he can still edit the talk page, so we can see where Murdock goes from here. There was some support for an indef block, and I'll withhold that for now on a wait-and-see basis. Murdock's evident use an IP sock to edit the article (72.82.20.134) will not win friends and influence people. I've semiprotected the Seth Material article, and will enter this page ban at WP:RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

As there's been no activity on the above page for over a month, I think we have a stable version of the article that can be moved back into article space. The desired title would be Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires, rather than the old Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, as explained here and consensus has been reached in the linked section for such a renaming. Currently, there's a fully protected stub under the name comparison between Roman and Han Empires. The history of that article and its associated talk page is spread across at least two locations (comparison between Roman and Han Empires and Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, and possibly Comparison between Roman and Han Empires/Draft as well but I can't remember), so a history merge would be needed. It looks complicated, but given the complex history surrounding the article I think both article and talk page histories should be preserved if possible. This doesn't fall within the remit of WP:RM (not for merging article histories) so I thought I'd bring it here. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't get a response here, try WP:Cut and paste move repair holding pen‎. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer Flatscan, I've taken the issue there. So much for WP:AN. Nev1 (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like your request was declined and referred to WP:Requested moves. I think you should rewrite it as two separate requests: 1) histmerge and 2) unprotection. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposing a community ban on User:Spotfixer

Spotfixer has had an appallingly large block log, which usually consisted on personal attacks, edit warring and modifying other user's comments without permission. The block was extended to indefinite back in April 2009 for sockpuppetry, but recently, he created another group of sockpuppets, in which all of them were blocked by Hersfold. As he has evaded his block at least twice, does anyone agree with my decision to put him up on WP:LOBU? Minimac (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spotfixer/Archive, no objections. Durova⁴¹² 18:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The only reason not to, I guess, is WP:DENY. If folk are happy that logging the account on that page is beneficial, or at least does no harm, then why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Community ban discussions are only useful for users that are likely to ever be active editors. In other words, users who are not indefinately blocked and if they are indeffed, could be seen to return to the fold. For already indef-blocked users, they may be a useful means of instituting editing restrictions as a condition for unblocking. But for any user that is currently indeffed, and that no reasonable person would ever see into unblocking, such a discussion is unneccessary bureaucratic hoop-jumping-through-ed-ness, and as such, there is no point in having it. If he's indeffed, and he's actively socking to dodge it, he's effectively banned. --Jayron32 01:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Quickie

Resolved

 – Fixed, see diff. below. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone remove the red linked template from the top of User:Jaranda/Wikipedia's_first_IRC_chat please? It's bugging me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Replaced with {{humor}}. [106] Ignore the edit summary fail. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for topic ban of User:Steaphen

Moved here from WP:ANI. Pcap ping 01:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Steaphen arbitration page it was suggested that a topic ban seems to be appropriate for prolonged user misconduct, and that the case could should be taken here.

This complaint is about the conduct of Steaphen's on the Talk:Zeno's paradoxes. His behaviour makes him a disruptive editor Wikipedia:DISRUPTIVE in my opinion.

Steaphen has been a Wikipedia editor since 2006, and has almost exclusively edited on Zeno's paradox, the related talk page, and pages related to mediations attempts [107][108][109][110][111]. During this time Steaphen has pushed the same point, from 2006 [112] until now [113], [114], [115].

He refuses to provide sources or respond to other editors questions [116], [117], [118], is threatening mediation and arbitration [119], [120], [121] uses the talk page as soapbox [122], [123], [124], and mocks, insults, or attacks other editors [125], [126], [127], which in the end is driving away productive editors. The above examples were just a selection of examples taken from the current talk page, and did not consider the archive, except for the first example from 2006. Of the 998 main edits on the talk page accounted here [128], 362 were by Steaphen.

I want to stress that this is not about the editing of one particular statement or phrase, but about the disruptive behavior Steaphen has shown over the years, and continues to show. In the last day Steaphen did use the talk page not only as a soap box [129] but he also discriminated other editors [130] and violated their privacy [131].Ansgarf (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support a lengthy topic ban (say for a year) for User:Steaphen for edits related to Zeno's Paradoxes. I'll basically repeat here my comment from the arbitration page. I have not had any involvement in this dispute (and I don't think I have ever edited any articles or pages related to Zeno's Paradoxes), but after looking at the diffs provided by Ansgarf above and at the article's talk page, it appears to me that Ansgarf's assessment of the situation is basically correct. User:Steaphen has started editing Wikipedia in November 2006 and since then he has managed to remain essentially an SPA user, concentrating on a single article and a very narrow issue related to that article. That, in and of itself, is indicative of a problem. Steaphen's contribution record appears to be largely non-constructive, with a combination of POV pushing and civility problems that are, apparently, continuing. The Zeno's Paradoxes page has been dragged through several mediation cases already and there is an arbcom request pending. I personally think that a broad and lengthy community topic ban on User:Steaphen for any pages related to Zeno's Paradoxes would be desirable and beneficial under the circumstances, which also will spare us a full blown arbitration case. Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This is the 2nd arbitration request in this area. The previous one was declined [132]. Pcap ping 02:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That arbitration case was brought by Steaphen and was presented essentially as a content dispute; of course the case was declined. The current arbcom request is about user conduct issues. Given that there have been three mediation cases already, it seems likely to me that the arbcom case will be accepted, unless the issue becomes moot, that is unless a community topic ban is adopted. Nsk92 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if this is still relevant, given the note below on the ban. But I'll respond anyway with respect to the previous two mediation and arbitration attempts in which I was involved. I might not be objective, but I got the impression that Steaphen might not have been really interested in a consensus. He might have just been playing the rules or trying to intimidate.

For example, Steaphen mentioned in his very first response to me on Wikipedia already the need of "setting up formal mediation/arbitration" [133]. Before I ever replied to him on the matter. This was on 29/10. On 30/10 he said to have a "justification for mediation (more likely arbitration)" [134]. On 31/10 he referred to an "impetus for mediation (-> arbitration)" [135], and later that day to the "necessity of arbitration". On 6/11 he mentioned "the need for arbitration" [136], and that "arbitration is inevitable" [137]. On 8/11 he concluded that "grounds have now been well-established for actioning formal mediation/arbitration" [138], and later he thanked me for "sufficient, ample grounds for actioning formal mediation/arbitration" [139]. The mediation request was initiated within an hour.

From this stage on Steaphen eluded to a coming arbitration. On 9/11 he said that "if necessary arbitration" will sort out the matter [140], on 18/11 that he would call "if necessary, arbitration as well" [141]. On 25/11 he mentioned the necessity for "in all likelihood, arbitration" [142]. There were similar comments made in December and January. Steaphen had a break of a few weeks which started with the statement "Email me when a mediator shows up. Otherwise I'll pop back in a few weeks or months to initiate arbitration." [143] on 18/12, and he effectively ended his break on 22/01 with a reference to the "mediation (come arbitration)" [144]. To cut things short, he initiated arbitration on 11/02 and the case was declined and closed on 13/02. Later the month he started mentioning arbitration again [145].

To be fair I should mention that I met Steaphen once in person before I joined Wikipedia - and only then - at an event I organised. He himself used our brief encounter once as argument on the talk page, so it in not a secret. He probably has for that reason my university email address, which I use for announcements. We did however not discuss Zeno paradoxes, but the paradox of the absolute infinite, decidability and his theory of one-and-all, which he has mentioned in the past on Wikipedia as well. We continued this discussion briefly on his blog.

I also want to point out that Steaphen did already use the threat of arbitration before I met him or joined Wikipedia against other editors. For example on 17 August he suggested to Jim and Blippy to "bump this straight to formal mediation, followed by, if necessary, arbitration."[146].

As said, I am not sure if this is all still relevant, but this way it is at least on record.Ansgarf (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked indef over that "bringing your school into disrepute" edit above (#71 at the moment), since Ansgarf does not seem to have clearly indicated an affiliation. Feel free to reduce that without consulting me first, but I would object strongly to voiding it without a clear indication from Steaphen that he understands why it was problematic and agrees not to repeat it. Note, however, that he claims to be severing all ties with Wikipedia in his most-recent userpage edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the edit leading to this block was this one. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I have been briefly involved with Steaphen's edits, discussions and the above issues, and I can understand the feelings that have led up to this particular set of accusations. However, I do not concur with such a block. But then, I'm not all that crazy about censorship of any kind. No matter what Steaphen has done, we've all seen lots worse. To gang up on him, block him, and induce him to desert Wikipedia is no more, no less than a travesty of justice. I've had an account with WP for just over a year now, and I truthfully can say that the vast majority of administrative decisions have been fair, just and untyrannical. But this idea is completely unconscionable to me. Just my take, but that's how it looks to me.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  12:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, but what in the world are you talking about? Steaphen was blocked for a violation of WP:OUTING, after a warning[147] to which he chose not to respond. Nobody "induced him to desert Wikipedia". An arbitration request has been filed in relation to a long-running dispute that he has been involved in. Steaphen himself had initiated an arbitration request on this dispute (which was declined) earlier this month and he has been involved in several mediation cases, so he knows quite well how the dispute resolution process works. The current arbitration request has not even been accepted or declined yet at the time when Steaphen declared his intention to leave the project[148]. Note that the latter declaration also happened before the block. He had and still has plenty of other options. He could have presented additional evidence and further arguments at the arbitration request case. He could have responded to the warning about WP:OUTING violation and explained his edit that led to the warning. Before the block he could have commented in this thread (note that this thread initially suggested a topic ban; a discussion has started and no decision either way has been reached). After the block occurred, he could have requested an unblock. Instead he threw a temper tantrum and left. If he was a newbie who did not know the procedures, that would have been one thing. But he is an experienced editor who knows quite well how various dispute-related processes work on Wikipedia. He had other options here which he decided not to exercise. That's his choice. On a last note, I have no sympathy for cries of censorship in the face of a long record of persistent POV pushing. I had suggested a topic ban for Steaphen, not an indef block. As far as I am concerned, that is still a preferred option, if Stephen choses to respond to the block and address the WP:OUTING concerns that led to the block. Nsk92 (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's cool Nsk92, and as I said, I understand your words and feelings on this matter. We'll just have to "agree to disagree", for unlike you (apparently) I see this as censorship and a form of majority-rule heavy-handedness. Steaphen is argumentative and seems to feel very strongly about his philosophical beliefs. He also appears to be misguided as to what should and shouldn't be discussed on Talk pages, as well as WP's stance on "truth" vs. "verifiability". And lastly, as intelligent as he seems, he is persistent (or stubborn depending on one's viewpoint) when he thinks he's right thusly making him largely uneducable. He lacks wisdom as well as sensitivity. Such editors always seem to piss people off, sometimes to great extent as in this case. Each and every descriptor I've used could have also applied to at least one founding father of the United States, Thomas Paine, one of the most outspoken men to ever live. Would we ban Paine? Probably. We would ban him, too, because like Steaphen, Paine would wound the hell out of our sensibilities. Unfortunately, the situation aligns administration with the wrong side, doesn't it? We are not tyrants, nor are we babes whose sensibilities send us into such gray areas as this. Steaphen should not be blocked from editing in any way. Like I said, this is just my take. No one is required to agree with me, and I certainly do not say these things because I have any love for most of Steaphen's arguments, nor to misalign myself with WP administration. I just think that sometimes these situations are more a case of people putting up with so much that they refuse to put up with any more. These are the people who might want to rethink their tolerance levels.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to censor Steaphen on content. I think that I was very patient, if not too patient, to reply to his various objections. But I learned a lot about Quantum Mechanics in the process.

When Steaphen initiated arbitration against me I checked what common outcomes of arbitration are. When I later filed for arbitration I expected that Steaphen would be put on notice for calling people stupid, a shame for the scientific profession, idiots, witch burners, etcetera, and for claiming that the onus was not on him to prove anything, and for telling them repeatedly that their opinion should be banned from Wikipedia, their contributions removed, and if they wouldn't stop he would have them banned. I also expected that other editors (like me) would get reprimanded for feeding his disruptive behavior rather than ignore it.

I was surprised that after I filed the arbitration request, Steaphen didn't try to justify his behaviour, but instead, for example, told Paul August in his reply on the arbitration page that he wasn't sorry if his behaviour drove editors like him away, thus confirming my complaint. I expected him to know that in arbitration for disruptive behaviour attack is not the best defence. Also, after arbitration was filed, Steaphen made a veiled threat to talk to my assumed employer [149], and then went ahead and insinuated that Paradoctor is some kind of fascist [150]. He knew that there was a complaint about his disruptive behaviour, and he still went ahead; this was his doing, his choice. I didn't ask for him to be banned for any of those, but I am not surprised that he was. Ansgarf (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

@Nsk92: "Steaphen was blocked for a violation of WP:OUTING, after a warning[41] to which he chose not to respond." That looks like its confounding two different problems. The warning was about incivility towards me rather than outing Ansgarf. I can't really tell whether Steaphen had a chance to address my request before all hell broke loose. I would have preferred a considerably slower escalation, but I still have to say that Steaphen was cruising for a block. I also have to admit that I made a breath of relief when I saw it, followed by a small pang of guilt. When he appeals the block, I'll be available to try my hand at mentoring him. He is an opinionated thick-headed bastard, but so am I. ;) IMHO, despite his long presence and number of edits, he is still a newbie. I've been here almost as long as he, editing all over the place, racked up several times his edit count, and I am still learning important new things about this madhouse every other day. Paradoctor (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

With respect to my outing. I notified Steaphen on 1 March, 13:24 that I had filed arbitration for disruptive behaviour [151]. He outed me on 1 March, 23:46, [152]. I added this edit to the arbitration request as proof of ongoing incivility on 2 March 1:31 [153]. Steaphen did respond to the arbitration a few times after, including 3 main edits [154][155][156] over a period of 24 hours, without addressing it.

With respect to incivility towards Paradoctor at 2 March, 11:12 [157]. He was warned by Paradotor on 2 March 13:30 [158]. Steaphen's next edit after that warning, on 3 March, 2:08, was to remove his user page [159], so he probably had made up his mind to leave, and chose not to respond anymore. Ansgarf (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think Steaphen has put forth several valid points. Unfortunately, he hasn't been particularly suave in trying to express them over the last four years. However, regardless of his views and lack of poise there are certain kinds of behaviour which are completely unacceptable, one of which is WP:OUTING. If Steaphen contests the block I would imagine a time-limited topic ban (say one year?) and/or mentorship would be a much preferable course of action, but if he doesn't show an intention of returning with a sense of humility and cooperativeness I see no reason to unblock him. Gabbe (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether requiring "humility" is a good idea. IMHO, it's not part of Steaphen's temperament. How exactly would a display of humility have to look? Besides, mentorship is about teaching wikiquette, so it's kind of self-defeating to require the desired behavior in order to allow him to be taught about it. ;)

A point to be made in his favor is that, to my knowledge, his behavior was never effectively challenged before, so he didn't have much of an opportunity to learn from his mistakes. Paradoctor (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if we are experience a case of Stockholm syndrome :). If you look at WP:DISRUPTIVE on unacceptable behaviour, there is only one thing that does not apply to a fair extend to Steaphen; and that is that he didn't use sock or meatpuppets. Steaphen has been repeatedly pointed to various WP guidelines by other editors, such as WP:COI, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:A, WP:UNDUE, WP:PROVEIT, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:TALK, WP:NPA, WP:SOAP, WP:CIVIL, WP:RS, WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:TALKNO before the first official complaint against him was filed. It is not that he simply didn't know who to behave. It is, however, also not the case that Steaphen is completely immune to input by others; a few month ago he had the habit of pointing to his own website, which resulted in a few WP:COI warnings, and he almost completely stopped pointing to his own website and business. So regardless of what the outcome of the WP:OUTING case is - it is indef because the length is still undecided - if Steaphen returns he should, in addition to any topic ban, be put on notice that ignoring basic rules of wikiquette, repeatedly, for a prolonged time, might cause him to be banned.Ansgarf (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Stockholm syndrome": ^_^ Yeah, that and my Nazi ancestors, too. ;) I just meant to say that escalating things sooner might have prevented a fair amount of wastage. Indefblocks are a pretty severe measure against a user who does not seem to intend to harm the project. Oh well, the sky is blue once again, let's see where the road will take us. :) Paradoctor (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (in case he is unblocked). I have looked at the disputes about content, and Steaphen has been consistently pushing his own POV above what the sources actually say.

Comments like "I will contact your employer and tell him what you do in wikipedia" can only be interpreted as an attempt to out the editor, put a chilling effect on him, and force the resolution of a dispute on your favor. This is winning a dispute via means that have nothing to do with building a good encyclopedia, and it should be considered a blockable offence. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:WildBot blocked

Resolved

 – Bot fixed, bot unblocked, bot doing bot things. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just an FYI for all... I just blocked WildBot (talk · contribs) for 24 hours as it was mistagging main space articles with CSD G7 and was not heeding [160] its on-wiki shutoff page. [161][162][163] I left a note on Josh Parris' ‎talk page. Hopefully he will notice before the 24 hours is up, can fix the problem, and an admin can unblock the bot. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Gogo Dodo. thanks for dealing with the bot. Looks like Josh just forgot to change the page to edit to the talk page (easy to fix) so it shouldn't take him long to fix it. Hopefully he'll be able to fix the shut down as well. I'll keep an eye on the bot's talk page. By the way, in future you can report bot problems to BON, most of us BAG members are administrators, so we can normally handle things like this (although there's less of us, so we are slightly slower to respond). Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is an approved bot, why is it running without the bot flag? —Farix (t | c) 12:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Gadget proposals

Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals has been pretty much abandoned by admins. I posted a proposal a month ago, and it wasn't answered until I notified at WP:VPR. I'm asking for some admins to watch the page and also see the unresolved proposals there. Thanks. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 13:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Living person task force IRC meeting

Hi everyone,

The Living Persons task force is having a meeting on IRC in about 4 hours, in the channel #wikimedia-strategy ^connect on the server freenode. If you need help accessing this channel, please see Wikipedia:IRC#Accessing IRC. The time of the meeting is 4:00 UTC on Monday, 8 March. The meeting will be publicly logged (see past chats) and will generally follow the structure laid out at the agendas page. strategy:Task force/Living people has more information if you interested.

I hope to see you there.

Yours sincerely, NW (Talk) 23:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old is stuck

Resolved

Thanks to whomever; it's now populated. Jack Merridew 05:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old

Currently appears empty, but it shouldn't be (and yes, I tried purging and the null edit on the template trick mentioned there). I know that there are images ripe for rev-deletion; these, a b c d e, for example, and there must be a bunch more. Anyone know what's going on? Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what happened, but this happened at the beginning of the year as well; I ended up going through Category:Rescaled fairuse images and deleting a large number of images that should have been in the 7-days-old category but weren't. Nyttend (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we take ANI to ANI?

It's not hard to see that ANI is basically a drama festival consuming about 99% of total text. This isn't new per say, but it's been exceptional the past week or so. Anything remotely controversial or involving editors of notability for one reason or another will always get derailed and ever seeing "consensus" on something is laughable. Outside (admin) view is made nearly impossible without someone that has a spare hour to read everything up to current. Basically, ANI could use a ANI-type intervention. It's unfortunate (but understandable) that the general sanctions page is just a collection of ongoing things, so could a new incident board be possible? "Drama Forum" sounds nice, but how about "Sanctions Discussion"? Set things up such that any uninvolved admin (anyone feeling bold?) determines it refined or evolved into discussion elsewhere. Matters of misconduct on policy would stay at ANI (loosely defined as "block-possible" troubles?), but most anything else can split away I'd think. Matters of enforcing page/topic bans shouldn't be too hard to handle locally, yes?

Any other type of proposal or dispute has somewhere better to go (and should be pushed to), but sanctions? No. RfC/Us just aren't in style, I guess. Given I haven't been here terribly long I don't know the answer to this... is this level of fervent demands for topic bans or misc other sanctions been this continuous before? ...And if they were, did all such postings balloon as much? This is why a generic sanction "request" or enforcement area I'd figure would be welcomed. In theory it could save ArbCom some work since people could feel they have some other option than to leap there. *Shrugs* I hope this has made a bit of sense, at least. Obviously this just bare bones thinking. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Community sanction noticeboard, or Votes for banning as it was known, was tried before and rightly deleted. Worth a read.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI is triage, with all the messy bloodiness and quick fixes that that implies. All the other boards are where things are made better (or at least expires with as much due care as is possible). Since most hospital soap opera's are based around the Accident & Emergency and Operating Theatres, rather than the convalescent wards, it is obvious that ANI is a drama magnet - really, if an issue could be fixed in a civilised and responsible manner then it will never come near ANI. Remarkably, either because of or despite the screaming and bewailing that is endemic there, most matters do get resolved in some manner (if not the first or second time, usually by the fourth... maybe fifth or sixth) - even if it is a referral to a more appropriate venue. Once in a while, of course, the patient dies - but that doesn't mean the operation itself was not a success. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/02/14/heart-transplant-on-valentines-day-romantic-ultimately-fatal-007/ Guy (Help!) 19:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"ANI is triage": So what does that make ArbCom? Our hospice wing? Paradoctor (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A triage unit that's continuously being smacked with every type of case imaginable is close to the hospital definition of disaster mode/state of emergency. Natural disaster, apocalypse, The Rapture, etc. When you run things up that way, the quality of all the 'staff' goes down and it drains the hell out of people. I know people adding sections get the template menu of where they should be posting and neglect it, but that's no excuse for all admins to shove off the advice. My non-admin boldness has given me a decent amount of heat trying to suggest moves in the past, so the majority of anything I post at ANI is to try to keep people on-topic and not even made it look like I have a theoretical theory on any opinion. I just... really hate seeing what should be a professional detox clinic degrade into a third-world triage unit. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, M*A*S*H was pretty good. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"the quality of all the 'staff' goes down": Down where? I mean, the "staff" is basically a bunch of homeless drifters with nothing better to do. ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If ANI was cleansed of all the less savoury aspects and operated in the ideal model as suggested in the header and WP help page descriptions, then the drama/handwaving/bewailing/tantrums would find another home - or worse still, homes - and would still require attention and resolution. ANI is patrolled by admins (and other editors) who are generally inured to the corrosive atmosphere, at least for a while - burnout happens, and actually are sometimes able to effect good results; much like the hospital analogy, it is sometimes a place where some people prefer to do their bit because of the instant gratification potential... and folk like me who are drama whores, who need the rush to fill our jaded lives. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I forget who it was once described wikien-l as like a sewer: a necessary conduit to remove the effluent, which therefore necessarily smells of the effluent it carries. Blocking it would have a predictable and detrimental effect since it would not actually reduce or control the production of effluent. The same applies to ANI, I reckon. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so I'll add to the prior analogy and list an alternate to the editor cool enough to use kawaii-style emoticons on Wikipedia-- If ANI is triage, then ArbCom (in the US at least) would be FEMA. That itself is a scary thought. That's not a jab at ArbCom, just kind of a talking point to show how silly this all can get... your street has a pothole and you jump to the top (FEMARbCom) for a fix. I know drama is a permanent feature. The internet, in fact, runs on drama and has resulted in exponentially faster connection speeds as social networking and open-source continue to grow. But would it not be better if it went away from ANI? ...off Wikipedia? There's no shortage of forums or chats or blogs where the stabbings are frequent. Ironically, a lot out there is directly related to things on Wikipedia, from what I've ever read at WR. They even use diffs. It's just, "often uncivil"?. Such places (sadly) need to exist. Outlets are good! How on earth are we supposed to ever see the drama knob turned down when we state in writing that we don't do anything relating to cool-offs? A drama quota! If exceeded, WP at random picks users of 1yr+ and bans them, then blocks an equal number of new editors for no reason... demoralizing all. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved Closer needed for the BLP RfC

Resolved

Hi again. The BLP RfC is in need of an uninvolved closer. A close was made earlier, but reverted procedurally by Coffee due to concerns about the closer not being uninvolved. So if there is a living, breathing admin who hasn't commented in the BLP RfC, your help would be greatly appreciated.

For reference, this RfC follows on the heels of Phase I of the BLP RfC, which was closed by User:Risker. It hasn't really been the model of how to run an RfC (and probably inspired the current RfC on RfC's), but extracting some form of consensus should (at least in my opinion) be possible. Thanks in advance, -- Bfigura ^(talk) 02:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've handled this request. Hopefully we won't have to fight too much about how the RfC should be closed and can progress to acting upon what it revealed as constructively as we can.--Father Goose (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Messed up move

I meant to move Hastings College, Sussex to Sussex Coast College Hastings. Instead I moved the talk page. Could you help me undo this and perform the actual move? The college has a new name, as its website will confirm (linked in the article). Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My watchlist

My watchlist is pretty boring. What are some interesting things I can add to it? Interesting things, mind you, not dramatic things. harej 02:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure this should be here, but I recently added some of the reference desks to mine which are very interesting--Jac16888^Talk 02:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Intentionally blank page Paradoctor (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Find the unprotected articles that use images from MediaWiki:Bad image list. Alternatively, I imagine watchlisting DYKs could be interesting. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

When I felt that way, I picked several random high traffic articles in areas that I was interested in but haven't edited much. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I expect Intentionally blank page gets a lot of ironic vandalism, you might think. SGGH ^ping! 22:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Grundle2600, topic ban inquiry

• Grundle2600 (talk · contribs)
• Per WP:RESTRICT entry; "...is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians."

A two-part question; does the "US politics or politicians" restriction apply to articles involving the First Lady, Michelle Obama, and does this restriction extend to XfD disussions? Grundle2600 has, IMO unwisely, opened an old can of worms by bringing WP:DRV#Michelle Obama's arms to DRV. This article, deleted almost a year ago, was one of the larger nails in the coffin that led to Grundle's original Obama-related topic ban, since extended as noted above. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Part 1 of your question seems easy: an article involving the First Lady is clearly related to "US politics or politicians". Part 2 is a bit murkier, since WP:DRV isn't inherently a page about such topics. Since just making the request isn't disruptive and he hasn't edited on the DRV request since making it almost two days ago, I'd be inclined to leave it be. --RL0919 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a mostly friendly relationship with Grundle, and have scolded him about this on his talk page. No harm, no foul, de minimus non curat wikipediex. PhGustaf (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This user has initiated a deletion review of an article that is IMO within the topic ban, on an article that he created, and the subsequent mess that ensued from said creation led to the topic ban before us now. Let's not be so quick to write this off as an innocent act, just because Grundle is nicer than others, i.e. ChildofMidnight, about the POV-pushing. Tarc (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I see Tarc is still making scurrilous attacks. It's unfortunate that Arbcom didn't do more to squash his belligerent and destructive behavior when they had the chance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I filed a report here asking for clarification of the topic ban, and that clarification has been received. I'd be more than curious to hear just what policy or rule you feel that I have broken by doing this. But really, it is a bit surreal that even though you are on the cusp of a 1-year ban from the project for among other things making personal attacks (see accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence at WP:NPA), you are here now doing it again. You have a lot of chutzpah though, I'll grant you that. Tarc (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone who engages in aggressive bullying tactics and incivilities to go after those they disagree with should be cautious about using Yiddish words unless you're deliberately trying to be ironic. There was no reason for you to smear me in this discussion that doesn't relate to me in any way, and even if you have support from some of the sleazy politicians that hold administrative positions here you still have to face yourself in the mirror. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oy veh PhGustaf (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's oy vey, and for you and Tarc I think the terms schlemiel and schlimazel might be more appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It disambiguates. Going from from one alphabet to another can be hard. PhGustaf (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Schlemiel and schlimazel? Isn't that just something from the Laverne & Shirley theme song? :) Tarc (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The schlemeil is the one who spills the soup; the schlemazl is the one whose lap the soup winds up upon. I'm not good enough at metaphor to make this relevant to the discussion. PhGustaf (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, PhGustaf -- what's the purpose of imposing a community editing ban if it's not going to be enforced? RESTRICT states "any pages", not "any articles", so this is definitely covered. The most recent block was 48 hours, so I'd say this calls for an escalation to 1 week. I'm not imposing it myself because I have some history with Grundle: I'd prefer someone less involved to impose the actual block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't disagree strongly with either Tarc or SoV. But see how he responds to my rather strong[164] scolding first. Annoying though he be, he hasn't posted many unkind words. PhGustaf (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for 1 week, for a clear and recurrent violation of his topic ban. The inability to stop beating this particular dead horse and the failure to get the point are aggravating factors. I will leave the DRV to run its course. MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm waiting with bated breath to see who will unblock him and start the drama fest. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll make the popcorn. Woogee (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bagna cauda might be better in this sophisticated company. PhGustaf (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we watch Daffy Duck cartoons to go with the Bagna Cauda?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much wiggle room for an overturn here, esp as the blockee has not even requested one. have faith, the process around here does work sometimes. :) Tarc (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator inactivity

I've just posted this proposal up; comments (there, not here) would be appreciated. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight

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

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

• User:ChildofMidnight is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only. In all cases he is forbidden from discussing the behavior of other editors, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page. ChildofMidnight may apply to the Committee for exemptions to this restriction for the purposes of good faith dispute resolution on a case-by-case basis. This remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Get ready for a minor backlog

Hey guys,

A while ago I was disgusted at the size of Category:Non-free_Wikipedia_file_size_reduction_request. So, I built a bot to go through and rescale some elligable files. It is just about to run, so just a heads up that we may need some sysops at Category:Rescaled_fairuse_images in a bit. Thanks! Tim1357 (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"RfC" needs closing

This "RfC" has been open for more than one year and it's used by FOSS advocates to argue that WP:N is not an established guideline for FOSS whenever an article they really like is up for deletion. As far as I can tell this "RfC" was never advertised as such anywhere except on one village pump entry. Anyway, it's been open for a year, so it needs a determination of consensus and closing. In the mean time there have been a couple of (policy-compliant) attempts to write guidelines for software notability, one of which has outright failed, and the other still ongoing. Pcap ping 03:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I tagged it as {{rejected}} since it clearly doesn't have consensus and, in as much as it appears to repudiate core policies on sourcing, probably never will. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Double AfD creation

Resolved

Sorry I accidentally created both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lombard Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lombard Wikipedia (2nd nomination) in short order. I initially applied {{db-reason}} to the latter, but then reverted not knowing what was the best option. Sorry for the headache. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No prob. I deleted the duplicate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, the correct tag is {{db-author}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Block Review of User:DIREKTOR

DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked, by me, under the terms of WP:ARBMAC. I invite a review of this block. He took it upon himself to begin redirecting old articles about the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the article on Serbia and Montenegro. He suggested a merge on January 4 but received no comments. On January 6 he began the mergers. His efforts were almost immediately met with resistance and several reverts were made in January and February. He declined to enter into discussion. I became aware of the problem and warned him and another user who is indef blocked, on March 1, 2010. Today he has made a similar revert at Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. DIREKTOR believes he is in the right but is not willing to discuss this on talk pages or to initiate the dispute resolution process. I blocked for 1 week up from a recent 48 hour block for edit waring. Your thoughts are appreciated. JodyB _talk 15:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good block. One week after a 48-hour block for edit warring is a fair period. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Good block. This is obvious POV pushing. We don't generally redirect or otherwise obliterate articles about former countries, e.g. GDR etc. Pcap ping 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Good block. I've supported DIREKTOR in a lot of disputes because he's under attack, unfairly, by a lot of editors with particular nationalist POVs. A lot. It's almost constant. But he's not perfect, I've given him warnings myself about some of his behavior (like labeling something as vandalism when it isn't). I have faith that a short block will turn him around, he's usually a good contributor. -- Atama頭 18:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• I can only see one recent revert here against an IP whose first two edits don't indicate a new user. Those reverts in February were against Иван Богданов (talk · contribs), who was indef-blocked for "personal attacks, harrassment, impersonation of other users".[165] If Direktor proposed a redirect and began to do so after receiving no comments, it's perfectly within the bounds of WP:BRD. You said he's "not willing to discuss this on talk pages", yet he's clearly done so at Talk:Serbia_and_Montenegro#Federal_Republic_Of_Yugoslavia. Based on this evidence, I'm not convinced this block is based on solid grounding. Spellcast (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The talk page section of the artile you mentioned showed an initial discussion which certainly produced no consensus for his moves [166]. But notice further down the page when someone suggests an RFC and DIREKTOR asks What's the point? [167]. It should have been clear to DIREKTOR that he was working without the support of the community.

It is correct that one of the editors was subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry and editing abuse. However other editors in good standing were also reverted. Furthermore, in an attempt to prevent this block I warned DIREKTOR on his talkpage [168] to take this to the talk page and further discuss these sorts of changes. Please bear in mind that these Balkans related articles which he is redirecting were in their original form for sometime before DIREKTOR begin his push to change them. There have been many reverts of this sort across many different articles. JodyB _talk 19:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

From 24 February to today, the only people to participate in the discussion were those that supported a redirect. Without any feedback for about 10 days from users who initially opposed it, it's perfectly reasonable to redirect and if reverted, continue discussion per WP:BRD, which is what Direktor was doing. (Also, the user who suggested an RFC supported Direktor's edits by saying that having 2 very similar articles is "impractical"). So basically, today's block comes down to this one revert against a suspicious IP that made no attempt at discussion, which is not good grounds for a block. If reverts were being done today against users who are actively engaged in the discussion, I'd definitely support a block, but that's not the case here. Apart from the user who was indef-blocked for harassment, where are these "many reverts" across "many articles"? Spellcast (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been a redirect since 2 March with no reverts or replies at the centralised discussion at Talk:Serbia_and_Montenegro#Federal_Republic_Of_Yugoslavia. Yet when he redirects Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia today for the sake of consistency, there's suddenly a block. There weren't even any reverts on that article since last month (and the other user has since been indef-blocked). I'm really not seeing the logic here. Spellcast (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• In the history of Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), DIREKTOR can be seen participating in an edit war about the redirect from 13 January 2010 to today, without engaging in any discussion on the article talk page, and without even making reference to any discussion taking place elsewhere. This is a violation of our normal editorial process as described in WP:ARBMAC#Editorial process, which mandates building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The block, therefore, is a reasonable exercise of administrator discretion under WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, which allows discretionary sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the normal editorial process. Accordingly, I see no reason to lift the block.  Sandstein  21:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was centralised at Talk:Serbia_and_Montenegro, where he was discussing before and after the RFC suggestion. For about 10 days, those who initially opposed his edits didn't respond to the new arguments, so it was reasonable for Direktor to redirect to see if consensus had changed. Now if, at this point, he reverted without discussion, a block would be justified, but that's not what happened. Spellcast (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Per Atama, I have also taken DIREKTOR's side when he has been targeted by other editors as regards nationalist sentiment but believe he acted outside of proper process here. Although he may have initiated a discussion regarding the moves, the lack of opposition then does not mean he has consensus sufficient to disregard subsequent raised concerns; WP:BRD applies in this case. I would be minded to lift the sanctions earlier if DIREKTOR agrees that the moves now require a new consensus (which, per the comments here, is unlikely under existing practice relating to former nations). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to address a couple of issues raised here. First my reading of WP:BRD is that DIREKTOR would be bold, which he was, someone would revert, which they did, and then he would go to the talk page to discuss, which he did not. On the talk page of Serbia and Montenegro a discussion began involving eight editors and one ip (includes User:Иван Богданов who was indefed for socking). Although it was clear there was no consensus, DIREKTOR continued to revert and declare blatant violations of policies.. This is not what WP:BRD invisions.

This issue is not limited to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There were other related articles that DIREKTOR redirected to what he deemed was a more suitable article.[169] [170]. I don't think DIREKTOR will agree to anything that restricts his editing but I can be convinced. I would remind all that this is not just any article. It is part of a group of Balkans related articles which have been the target of much drama. Also, this is not just any editor. DIREKTOR is experienced and knows well what is expected of him. He has been blocked 5 times including twice this year. he certainly can be an effective editor but he has to work with others. A reduction in time is not out of the question if he agrees with a new consensus attempt. JodyB _talk 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The first edit was last month, which no-one even reverted since then. If today's block was based on that, it's obviously late and punitive. Exactly what edit was he blocked for today? Was it this? If so, then it's ridiculous because 1/ no-one else has edited that article since last month and 2/ the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia article has been redirected since 2 March without any challenge, so it's common sense to also redirect a subpage of that article as well, which no-one even reverted today. Spellcast (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is the slow-motion edit war. Articles that fall under WP:ARBMAC sanctions are given tighter control than other articles. If such a slow edit war were happening at, say, TCBY then I'd call the block unwarranted. -- Atama頭 22:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The block was the result of slow running edit war across Balkans articles which are specifically dealt with under WP:ARBMAC. I was not required to issue the warning that I did but after being warned and reminded he continued. JodyB _talk 22:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes and I challenged your warning on your talkpage as misrepresenting the issue. I did this because I thought your interpretation of slow edit war was wrong and I stated to you that I considered your warining would be used as an excuse to block DIREKTOR the next time he reverted a possible IP sock. Your issue of the warning sometime after the event and with the indef block already in place on one of the two users being warned struck me as being very poor (not the words I used on your talkpage). Polargeo (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No-one responded to Direktor or his other supporter(s) for 10 days on the talk page, so it's reasonable for him to make his edits to see if there was a new implicit consensus. That is not edit-warring. The FRY article has been an unchallenged redirect since 2 March. When he redirects subpages of that article today for consistency (and out of common sense), why is there suddenly a block? If anyone reverted him today and he reverted back without discussion over a long period, there would be a slow edit war and a block would be justified, but that's not what happened. Spellcast (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Bad Block. A week! When the majority of DIREKTOR's actions which this block is for involve reverting a now indef blocked user who amongst other things was running a malicious sock User:DIREKTOR SPLIT against him. This block shows no common sense or flexibility in the rigid imposition of sanctions and penalises a genuinely constructive user who is very willing to use talkpages (as shown in this case) even when he is being maliciously socked against by extreme problem users. There is far more history than has been considered about in this merge, when the split was first made it was actually opposed and reverted (not by DIREKTOR) but it was made again in the meantime, hence DIREKTOR's merge proposal. There are very good Serb nationalist reasons for requiring the separate articles including possibly absolving Milosevic from responsibility for genocide but I won't go into that here. Polargeo (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I consider that in making this one week block JodyB has also come close to abusing or has even abused his admin position. Before the block I had raised serious concerns about his potential non-neutrality in the situation on his talkpage [171],[172]. I consider that making this block appears to be equivanlent to saying I don't care what you think I'm an admin and I can do what I like because I'm enforcing sanctions and you just have to lump it because other admins will back me up. Polargeo (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo is just wrong here. Prior to these events I was not in any way involved with any person in this dispute nor was I involved in editing any of these articles. To suggest I was non-neutral because he doesn't agree with my action is way over the top, inaccurate and just plain false. As I told Polargeo then, I stand by my decision. Does that make me non-neutral? JodyB _talk 10:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I considered you non-neutral because I thought your warning looked highly vindictive to me. You gave a warning to two users who had a short edit war. Their edit war was not "slow" in any way. You imposed the warning sometime after the edit war was over and some time after one of the two users had been indef blocked anyway. DIREKETOR had been using the talkpages and the other user had miliciously socked against DIREKTOR. Why did you feel right to impose an official warning after the events were clearly over then a 1 week block for a single reversion of an IP (as I had predicted that you would). The whole thing appears highly vindictive, unnecessary for the running of wikipedia in any way and a misuse of admin powers weakly justified by your own warning. I had already said before the block just based on your previous actions that I thought that they were wrong. One thing that is not needed in sensitive areas of wikipedia is admins who have no idea what they are doing stomping around and imposing blocks based on misconceptions. Polargeo (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• This block looks justified to me. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question: Can anyone explain the logic in blocking someone who redirects a subpage whose main article has been an unchallenged redirect for nearly a week? There was no "slow" edit war because the other participant was indef-blocked last month and no-one responded to Direktor's comments on the talk page for 10 days, so he was entitled to make his edit. Spellcast (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

On January 6, 2010, DIREKTOR made his first redirect of the article. This was after a merge suggestion 2 days before with no response either way. On January 21 at Talk:Serbia and Montenegro User:Craigzomack asked for two separate article instead of the one. On January 29 DIREKTOR was reverted by User:Cjdh and then DIREKTOR revert him with the edit summary "Rv vandalism..." An ip reverted on February 16 and that was reverted User:Mladifilozof. User:PANONIAN reverted on February 17, DIREKTOR on February 17 and then the sock and DIREKTOR went back and forth from February 17 until February 26 when the sock was blocked. During that period there was frequent discussion on the talk page and there was clearly no consensus for the reverts/redirects that DIREKTOR was making. Now we can quibble over whether this was a fast or slow edit war or whether this should be simply called tendentious editing. But given the discussion it should have been clear that there was still work to be done. Further, given that this is an area which has been so conflicted in recent years one would think that any editor would tread carefully especially after being reminded of the ARBMAC case. I am truly sorry that DIREKTOR is blocked because I think, as I said to him, that he is a passionate editor with a knowledge of this area. However as he acknowledged, he has a difficult time with his temper and is angered by other editors sometimes. That is not unique to DIREKTOR. The problem here is that he simply overstepped. I have no problem lessening the block duration if he will give assurances to be more aware of the need for consensus - I have said that before and stand by it. JodyB _talk 20:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't need an outright statement of support from the other side. You're presumed to have consensus if no-one responds for days on the talk page or article. Just because there was initial opposition to Direktor in January and early February, it doesn't mean it remained the same throughout the rest of the month and March. The discussion shows no opposing users responded to him from 25 February to the end of the discussion on 2 March. Although a suspicious IP restored the article on 1 March, he reverted once the next day with an explanation on the talk page, which is perfectly fine per the WP:BRD cycle. (If he kept reverting without discussing, a block would be warranted, but he didn't do that). Since then, no-one still challenged his edit, so a few days later he redirected a subpage for consistency, and was blocked for that. It's just common sense: If a main article has been a redirect for almost a week (with no-one challenging it), it makes sense to also redirect a subpage (which again, no-one challenged). The block was good-faith yet misguided because I think you perceived this to be a continuation of a mass edit war without discussion, but the talk page shows that he (and another user who in the end supported him) were the only ones engaged in consensus-building for quite some time. Spellcast (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer 1: I was at Direktor's side at Talk:Serbia and Montenegro concerning the merge/split proposal.

Disclaimer 2: I do think that Direktor tends to be stubborn and, having defended the Balkan articles from nationalist POVs, tends to automatically assume himself right and jump to edit wars.

Having said that, it's a terrible block. The centralized discussion was held at Talk:Serbia and Montenegro#Federal_Republic_Of_Yugoslavia and its outcome, at least temporarily, was to merge all the articles related with Serbia and Montenegro and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the main opponent, Ivan Bogdanov, being indef-blocked. Direktor merged all the articles Military of Serbia and Montenegro, Prime Minister of Serbia and Montenegro and all of that went unchallenged. Several days after the discussion ended, Jody appeared out of nowhere and dealt several WP:ARBMAC warnings around. I found it odd but ok, no big deal. Now, Direktor gets blocked out of the blue sky out for purported "edit war". No one had edited Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for seven (7) days, and Direktor's edit was for consistency with other articles.

If you're unable to follow what is going on on related pages, please do not involve yourself in administrative actions. I'm not a "strangle the administrator" guy, but your engagement was as graceful as a bull in a china shop. No such user (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocks are meant to be preventative and this isn't preventing anything except productive edits. Jody, when you were asked to explain the logic in blocking someone who redirects a subpage whose main page has been an unchallenged redirect for almost a week (and where no-one opposed or responded on the talk page since late February), bringing up the older discussions and reverts in January/early February is invalid. What matters is the latest consensus on the talk page. If your explanation doesn't substantiate your block, it should be lifted, but since that's unlikely to happen, an ArbCom review would be the useful next step. WP:ARBMAC says it "will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations". On that note, I'll end this thread which seems to be close to archiving. Spellcast (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Help tagging a page

Resolved

 – Created. Bencherlite^Talk 20:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please assist I would like to add {{Song}} to Talk:Zawa...Zawa...Za..Zawa......Zawa, but I am not authorized to do as much. Please add this tag and make that talk page editable. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mythdon's block is up

Resolved

 – UP blanked, TP unprotected. –xeno^talk 17:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mythdon (talk · contribs)
He should be notified, and the ban notice removed from his page Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Tan | 39 17:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no actual need to notify a user that their block has expired; if you want the page unprotected to remove the notice, that's a separate matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mythdon user page

• User:Mythdon

Please unprotect my userpage as the protection is no longer needed. Thank you. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done, although generally such requests should go to WP:RFPP--Jac16888^Talk 02:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-certified RfCs that need closing

The following three user conduct RfCs were open for 48 hours without being seconded. May I request that they be deleted per policy?

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Avraham
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Debresser
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK3

Thank you, -- Avi (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. First time handling these, so feel free to revert if I made a mistake. MLauba (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving of 'Request topic ban of User:Steaphen'

It seems like Request for topic ban of User:Steaphen got automatically archived. There was general agreement that some sort of topic ban would be appropriate, and the discussion faded out. But the case was never officially closed or resolved.

Is this standard procedure, to leave it unresolved once it get archived, even if there is agreement, or does it mean we need to wait for User:Steaphen to return, and resuscitate the discussion on what to do then? Ansgarf (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If a matter is unresolved when it is archived - and it is archived because there is no comment for 48 hours - then unresolved is what it is; consensus has not been achieved. The fact that Steaphen account is inactive, as noted, means there is no pressing need for a resolution. As you say, should the account reactivate and the issues resume, then bring up the matter again, link to the previous discussion, and note they appear to have resumed once attention had drifted away. A resolution is then more likely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There was consensus, but since Steaphen left there was no urgency, and the debate fizzled out. But if this means we'll have to do go over this again when he returns, then that is what we'll have to do. Thanks. Ansgarf (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If a new problem arises with the editor, anyone can link to the archived discussion to show what the community's feelings on the matter are, without necessarily having to start a new discussion from scratch. Archived doesn't mean deleted, and doesn't necessarily mean forgotten. -- Atama頭 18:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Could someone please close the re-opened move discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Requested move? The arguments have been made and the discussion is now revolving around the closure rather than the article title. If the page is moved then the suggestions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Elizabeth II will be defunct. If the page is not moved, then we can move ahead with the next phase of discussion. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock-en-l

A few volunteers who are willing and able to answer requests on the unblock-en-l mailing list are needed:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l

In addition to asking to subscribing please send a Wikipedia e-mail to User:Unblock-en-l. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Bauder (talk • contribs) 15:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday at RfAr

Let's close this down now, shall we? Point made, from both directions; no need for further praise or ripe tomatoes. Bencherlite^Talk 20:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Since it strongly appears the Arbcom refuses to shine any sunlight on this, I will not be returning to Wikipedia. It's clear that any other process is likely to be met with the same abuse of oversight that hit the recent ANI thread, and made discussion impossible. If anyone wants to attempt to sort out the situation, my e-mail is available on my user page. I may be unable to resist, and peek at the Arbcom page tomorrow, but I have been away from Wikipedia for five months, returned this week to give Wikipedia a final chance to deal with the situation, and, having it been made clear that Durova - who represents the Wikipedia Foundation to several museums, including the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam and the New York Public Library - will be held to no conduct requirements. I will not be returning to editing, no images will be uploaded, and, brief flirtations with temptation aside, will not be monitoring any Wikipedia pages. Goodbye. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 19:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Hopefully you will return one day. Best of luck. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Arbitration is the wrong forum. I think you need mediation. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Good. Your persistent arrogant edit-warring on WP:PLOT and other issues showed that you'd succesfully converted yourself from a productive editor into a disruptive time sink for everyone else. And I'm absolutely no friend of Durova. Don't let the door hit yourself on the way out. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Here here.  f o x  (formerly garden) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Oh. Well, you'll be missed I'm sure. Hopefully we can find someone else to take you place. Honestly, this pathetic whining "look at me I'm leaving please leave notes of love and addoration" crap is bad enough on talk pages, let alone ANI. What admin action do you want here Shoemaker? Someone resolve this and archive it. Dear me.Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for discussion

Comments, criticism, or even a simple "yea, saw this" would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Categorization.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Help with a redirect

All I want to do is request moving a page (namely, I think "The Holy Bible" should redirect to the Christian Scriptures, not a rock album, which should be renamed "The Holy Bible (album)". I have been through several different pages, both help-type and adminiatrator pages, and can't figure out where I should go. Thank you. Squad51 (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that it should redirect to Bible. Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd need to visit WP:Requested Moves to invite discussion of The Holy Bible moving to The Holy Bible (album), with the redirect that such a move would create being pointed instead to Bible. Your proposal would move a page and break all links to it by retargeting the redirect (so all incoming links would need to be fixed, no laughing matter). This would be for the sake of making life slightly easier for people who type "The Holy Bible" into the search bar rather than "Bible" so that they don't have to click on "Bible" at the very top of the article about the album. I anticipate opposition to your suggestion. Note that Holy Bible (i.e. without the "The") already redirects to "Bible". Bencherlite^Talk 21:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Redirecting straight to Bible would actually be a bad idea because you'd have to have a hatnote at the top of Bible advising where the album article is situated (this might not be such of a problem for a minor rock album, but this one regularly appears near the top of "The Best n Albums of all time" type listings - it's a major work). I'd say either leave it where it is (there's already a hatnote pointing to Bible) or convert to a dab page, though someone would still have to fix a hell of a lot of links. Black Kite 21:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the move, but I notice that quite a few of the links to the album page already go to The Holy Bible (album), which is currently a redirect, so there wouldn't be quite so many to fix as it might seem at first. --RL0919 (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this a cut and paste move? Look at the history for The Holy Bible [173], and specifically, this edit: [174]. Further, look at the talk page: Talk:The_Holy_Bible. Moreover, on The Holy Bible (album), this edit was made by an IP. Something seems off on this whole situation. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the histories, you're right, this was a cut-and-paste move, apparently performed on 18 Feb 2010 by 144.138.242.93 (talk). The same IP also copied the talk page contents. I checked some of the direct links to The Holy Bible and they were for the book, not the album. Fortunately there have been no lasting edits to either page since the cut-and-paste, so I have just undone the cut-and-paste move. If someone wants The Holy Bible (album) moved to The Holy Bible, they can initiate that request at WP:Requested moves. --RL0919 (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

little heart?

Is there a pecific reason the little "W" on my browser tab is now replaced by a heart icon? Was wondering if anyone knew if this was vandalism or or are we promoting something? Wasn't sure where to post this, so leaving it here. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, this is awkward. Mr. Rowe, it's just...it's just that, well, w- we uh....we love you. <3 <3 <3 Sorry you had to find out this way, bu- but you're intimidatingly pretty to approach directly you see xxxx 86.41.87.146 (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, weeellll, bats eyes bashfully.. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That little W is a favicon. Favicons are sometimes cached in your browser, which means that if the icon is changed on the site it may not change for you. It also means that the favicon in the cache for that site might get replaced with the favicon for another site through some glitch, that has happened to me before. If you happen to be using Firefox, some advice on fixing the icons can be found here. -- Atama頭 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This sign means you are now one of the Cabal's favourites.You will get special treatment in cases and your views will override those of more senior administrators.You can go flaming and editwarring with gleeful abandon and never risk being blocked. In certain cases,your views can override consensus on entire topics.You get special privileges and rights here and bonus gifts,such as the link to the hidden page with the Cabal rules on and indeed you get to visit Jimmy Wales' special secret place. Aren't you lucky? ;) Lemon martini (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Page creation

Hello! Would an admin mind creating User:Ecw.technoid.dweeb/𪷎𪷉𪷄𪸘𪸘𪵞 for me per the discussion here? Thanks! Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 19:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What's that after the /? My computer shows a bunch of numbers and letters in boxes. I can't create it, but creating a title with incomprehensible number-letter-in-box things is somewhat alarming. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it's some characters not supported by your (or my) chosen font. I wonder what it says... - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've created it. The title looks like | || || || || || | Each character is basically two pipes separated by a miniature space. Judging by the very unusual text on the page, I'm guessing that Ecw.technoid.dweeb is using it as some sort of sandbox. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help_desk#User:Ecw.technoid.dweeb.2F.F0.AA.B7.8E.F0.AA.B7.89.F0.AA.B7.84.F0.AA.B8.98.F0.AA.B8.98.F0.AA.B5.9E, as I said above. I discussed the title further there. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 14:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:BlackJack

BlackJack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked following this sockpuppet investigation.

To summarise things for you, the problems fall into two parts.

Part One - BlackJack claims he was followed to Wikipedia by a real-life rival. This is unproven, but what is fairly obvious from a walk through the edit histories is that he was subject to a certain amount of harrassment. To avoid the harrassment, he started using some alternate, undisclosed accounts. The sockpuppet investigation ended with a block of him for the technical offence of having participated in AfDs using alternate accounts. I'd note that there is no evidence that he votestacked any AfD by using more than one account.

Part Two - having been blocked, BlackJack foolishly edited with some more socks (now blocked). I sent him an email and he apologised and said he'd stop.

This is a very useful editor, whose incredible output of edits has massively increased the coverage onwiki of historic cricket, particularly the first 200 years or so of the sport's history. We're the poorer without him and I think he's been rather harshly treated - we should support people who are harrassed, not block them for technical breaches of WP:SOCK (ironically, a report probably placed by his harrasser).

Interested, as ever, in the community's views on a proposed removal of block for BlackJack. --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How does it hurt to have a single undisclosed account editing AFDs when the point is to avoid harrassment? I think we should go with WP:IAR here, since the main reason for prohibiting socks from editing projectspace is to avoid votestacking. I solidly agree with you that this block shouldn't have been levied. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Support unblocking ASAP. I am also going to boldly remove the tag on their userpage, as it is false: it says that the user has abusively used multiple accounts when it is quite clear that the accounts were not being used abusively. The user should notify ArbCom about any alternate accounts they use in the future as a precaution so their harasser cannot get them blocked for sockpuppetry. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 15:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Support, I guess, but only if the user requests as such through normal processes on his/her talk page. Any further argument/support/discussion can happen there. Tan | 39 15:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Support an unblock per Tan. Our system is often inadequate in dealing with harassment, but there's not much we can do other than use the mechanisms that we do have. In any case, I hope that issue has been dealt with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll drop him a line. Thanks all. --Dweller (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Tentative support. I'd like to see an unblock request on his page listing his socks, explaining that he understands where he ran afoul of policy and committing to not doing it again and to take a bit more care with edit summaries (infantile stupidity?) while reverting blatant vandalism. The WP:Standard offer might be appropriate here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure a six month block is needed or helpful to Wikipedia. It's been nearly a couple of months so far, and all we've damaged is ourselves. The point has been made and prolonging the block seems punitive and compounding the error we made with the original block, which was, I think, insensitive. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I Support his unblocking. Although I have no connection to this case, looking through his contribs I think that he is a valuable asset to Wikipedia. I think that we all know how easy it is to break a policy in good faith, which is what this looks like, so I support his unblocking. He should be made clear that sockpuppets are not acceptable, though, and that he will be blocked if he continues to use them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I Support as to Ajraddatz, I have no connection either but after reviewing his contrib's there is no doubt to his value to this project. Having said that, this user must refer to proper (with the lack of a better term) channels to (again better term) defend his "one" account Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Support as an unblock would doubtless lead to a net gain for the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I blocked the most recent sockpuppet. In truth, that sock was at the time being used to expose sockpuppets of a different editor, see here, and BlackJack was only guilty of block evasion, not disruption. (I also blocked the sockpuppet of Richard Daft that BlackJack was exposing.) I support an immediate unblock on the condition that the editor never uses another sockpuppet again, or at the very least makes a clear connection to any alternate accounts per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Since I see no actual disruption caused by the editor or their sockpuppets, and they have apologized, I see no reason to keep the editor blocked. -- Atama頭 19:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Never vote-stacked?? What was this then Dweller? BlackJack using two of his socks to get an article deleted after the first nomination, also started by himself, proved unsuccessful. I suggest that before this compulsive sockpuppeteer is unblocked an admin takes a look at what BlackJack really used these accounts for, such as 'flushing out' another user who he had a disagreement with.[175] This was no minor infringement of policy as Dweller would try to have you believe. An admin should also look for this supposed harassment, which appears a totally unfounded excuse which BJ has trotted out repeatedly as a defence for his actions. --88.111.48.107 (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

First, hello Richard! I was wondering when you'd show up. Second, yes that's votestacking as both User:The bowling of a ghost and User:JamesJJames are sockpuppets of BlackJack, which should be taken into consideration. I'd say that BlackJack should be restricted from using alternate accounts altogether in light of that, but I still think an unblock is allowable. I'd also like to see evidence of harassment, if it's being alleged. Though the lack of such evidence would still not remove your block, Richard. -- Atama頭 20:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

First I'm not Richard, if you had check the most recent BlackJack SPI you'd see there was a request for my IP to be checked against BrownEdge/FirstComrade (Richard Daft socks) and the CU showed up nothing. I won't hold out for an apology. --88.111.48.107 (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.39.197 (talk)

Could we get the above sock blocked for longer than 48? Clearly using multiple IP (jumping perhaps) to get around the many blocks in place. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that CU confirmed that I was correct (or that it is at least "likely"), and the IP is Richard. See here. The "CU showed up nothing" argument won't fly anymore. In the SPI that the IP referred to, the IP was never checked against Richard Daft, but rather one of Richard's sockpuppets. Which means that Richard had a different IP when using the socks, which is technically possible. (Those socks were blocked on behavioral evidence, not technical.) As to extending the block for longer, as you pointed out Richard uses multiple IPs so what would that accomplish in the long run? I expect him to move on to something else in the next 48 hours as this dies down, so the length seems appropriate. -- Atama頭 17:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Except the IP isn't Richard, the checkuser merely said it was likely based on the evidence presented, if he had run a CheckUser, like Luk did, then he would have seen I have nothing to do with the Richard Daft account and it's socks. A simple SPI would clear this all up, but so far no one is prepared to open it. I'm not going to go away while people continue to make false allegations, so take it to SPI or stop making allegations, it's your choice. --88.111.60.218 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The handling of page protection involving banned users with IP sockpuppets

There seems to be a problem with how admins deal with protecting pages where time-wasting banned users are using anon accounts to influence pages.

I first thought about this last month when Greco-Persian Wars was fully protected. A time consuming rfc was initiated with several editors wasting a lot of effort before things were escalated to WP:ANI and it was accepted that User:Orijentolog was using IPs to curcumvent his block.

I have encountered a similar problem today at Jewish Internet Defense Force. Here it is User:Einsteindonut who is using IPs to circumvent a block. Not for the first time, the admins have responded to my request for semi-protection with a full-protection and encouragement to use the talk page and dispute resolution processes to deal with what is really a time-wasting perma-blocked user.

I have initiated an SPI for the various anons used by Einstendonut. However, there seems to be a systemic problem whereby the admins who patrol the requests for page protection refuse to look at evidence that there are bad faith time-waisting users circumventing their edit blocks.

It is this repeated pattern of admins misreading the situation as one of edit-warring between good faith editors rather than one of block-evaders being reverted that I am bringing to your attention, rather than an attempt to rehear the most recent page protection request. What do you think can be done to help sysops get things right in future?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a definite problem; what is the point of blocking users, if they can block-evade at will simply by changing IP addresses? There is usually no point in trying to discuss content with them; and besides which, if they are blocked, then they have lost the "right" to have input anyway. It just results in a waste of time for other editors.

I suppose the main problem is that it takes time to process check-user requests, to establish whether sock-puppetry is definitely going on. I guess that administrators are generally not willing to semi-protect pages unless they have proof of abuse. Plus, as you say, some will misread the situation as simple edit-warring.

However, there are now some admins out there with experience of this problem (certainly those from the Greco-Persian Wars incident). I wonder if it is a good idea to establish an informal group/panel of admins who understand this problem (from experience), and who could be approached in cases like this. They would be willing to semi-protect, if provided with sufficient evidence of suspicious editing by IP addresses, without waiting for absolute proof (which they would request at the same time). I suppose the main problem (apart from maybe violating some wikiprinciples that I've forgotten about) would be that the average editor wouldn't know where to go to find these admins.  M.F.B.T.  ^{Yes, Minister?} 21:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If a blocked editor is using IPs to POV-push on his favorite article, the situation is usually obvious and does not require a checkuser. (The evidence is really behavioral). In such a case it should be easy enough to report at WP:AN3, WP:SPI or WP:ANI. At any of these boards, the admin who closes the case will often be willing to issue any semiprotection that is needed. I think that WP:RFPP is not the best place to take such complaints, because it does require a bit of investigation. RFPP is quick, but it is usually for things that can be handled immediately by one admin with no need for discussion or a lot of study. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well in today's case I have initiated [[176]] after the problems at RFPP and when the first admin said in reply to a personal post that (s)he would change the block if I produced evidence of an unambiguous SPI finding. An admin has supported my application to SPI though he regards himself as involved and therefore unable to take action himself. I was reluctant to use ANI in this case because of all the messages asking if I was sure I was at the right page. I'm getting the impression that SPI is longer-winded than ANI though Einsteindonut has kindly produced yet another IP sock pretending to be a new user and not the same as the other ids that behave in the same way. Are yoyu saying it is fair to go for ANI even if I am ignoring some of the directions? I suppose that it's a case of IAR. As for AN3, the socks haven't actually violated 3RR today. I went for RFPP at the point that I would have made my fourth revert even though the first three were all labelled as reverts of blocked users. I thought things might get misinterpreted at AN3, instead they were at RFPP.

Next tiem I'll go straight for ANI or get the sysop bit myself.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• A new editor tried to add edits which were grammatically incorrect and in which he did not form consensus in the talk area before making them. They were reverted. Mr. Cohen is trying, and has tried, to change the article to put the JIDF (with whom he has personal qualms) in the worst possible light and lock it in that way. All of this protection nonsense and his widespread allegations of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry is just an extension of that.--98.143.144.83 (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The above post is, of course, made by a sockpuppet operated by Einsteindonut and/or a meatpuppet from the JIDF boards.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Threats from Papua New Guinea

There is a rather silly argument going on at Michael Somare about repeatedly using his full grandiose title, "Grand Chief His Excellency The Right Honourable The Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare", throughout the article. This has resulted in threats that expatriates in PNG involved in wikipedia will be deported. I have protected the article. I mention it here only because I am going to mostly off wiki until late Sunday Australian time. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the argument may be being trumped up, at least in part, by political opponents of Grand Chief His Excellency the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, Sir Michael Somare to make him or his supporters look absurd. In any event, no dispute about the protection. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks like clear-cut trolling to me Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that someone in Brisbane using retail internet has anything to do with diplomatic ties between Australia and Papua New Guinea.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically, you've violated policy by using your admin rights to gain the advantage in a dispute, but I think we can IAR that in this case :-) I've added a further comment on it and warned the IP that I'm immune to any threats, since I've never been to the country. On the protection time — is it necessary to semiprotect indefinitely? I've never heard of Grand Chief His Excellency The Right Honourable The Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare before, let alone seen his article, so I don't know if it's vandalised enough to justify indefinite semiprotection. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In cases like these I see indefinite protection as protection until the argument dissipates, not protection for eternity. I am sure it will be unprotected in due course. Woody (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nyttend is correct that I violated policy by using my admin rights to gain the advantage in a dispute, but as he said I was IARing here. I will remove it on Monday, but I am about to go to another conference session for 16 hours and tommorrow is similar. A problem was that other edits were being reverted by this IP. It is all rather silly. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI backlog

SPI/checkuser is quite backlogged. We need clerks, checkusers and regular admins who are good at analysing behavioral evidence to hop over and pitch in! <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for lifting ban

Categories Last year, User:Hiding gave me a sanction on adding and removing categories from a page under a "topic ban." In December, he told me that we would discuss lifting said ban in the new year. Since then, he has retired. I would like to get an admin to discuss this matter with me. Please post on my talk at your earliest convenience to settle this matter. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No ban on adding/removing categories is listed at WP:RESTRICT, where the following is listed

• Koavf subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages.
• Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.
• Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morrocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages and other related discussions.

Are you now appealing any or all of those? Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh No, just this. It might be nice to update the moribund status of Western Sahara articles (I was the primary contributor on the topic), but I don't want to get into that now. I just want to be able to add categories, as it's frankly very frustrating to refrain from all of the things I want to do (e.g. add Category:George Orwell to 11020 Orwell; that's been a bookmark in my browser for months.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, that topic ban was imposed by a single admin, and not as the result of a community discussion. I'm minded to rescind that, but would like to hear from other admins first. The restrictions logged at WP:RESTRICT would naturally remain in place until such time as an appeal is heard and granted. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Looking at this link (which was linked to above), it clearly states that the ban was put in place due to this discussion, where you see that the community had a consensus to sanction Koavf on this very same noticeboard. Anyone considering a lifting or modification of the ban should read that entire discussion thread to get an idea of why the bans were put into place. (And yes, I had to look closely to find the link too, so I don't blame you for missing it.) -- Atama頭 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe this discussion is the more immediately relevant one for what Koavf is requesting now. I understand his request to be for a review of just the topic ban on adding/removing categories, which arose from the earlier sanctions but wasn't specifically discussed as part them. (I say this not as support or opposition for any change, but just to clarify what we are talking about.) --RL0919 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin, can you clarify something. The categories you were moving - were they in areas otherwise covered by the original topic ban? Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The categories he was moving had nothing to do with Morocco or Western Sahara. The original speedy nominations (which were objected) are here, and an example of Koavf's edits can be seen here. I think Hiding's topic ban was based on the "any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive" clause. Jafeluv (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jafeluv. In that case, I'm minded to allow the appeal re categories only, if there is consensus that this is acceptable. The restriction listed at WP:RESTRICT will remain in place. I suggest that any movement of categories should be discussed first, and then carried out after discussion, not the other way round. Addition or removal of categories in good faith should not be seen as disruptive editing. Mjroots (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussing lifting the ban is one thing (and it's perfectly fine); misreading it to mean that we just lift the ban without any further thought is another. It's all very fine to say "the banning admin promised to discuss lifting the ban later", but I fail to see evidence that suggests anything has been learnt or something will change. In the absence of such evidence, I reject this appeal. Just because an action is taken in good faith doesn't mean that it's not disruptive; that is precisely why I crafted the primary restriction carefully in the first place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What sort of evidence would you like to see? I think it would be hard for him to prove he can change categories appropriately when he is under a ban from changing categories at all. The closest I could find is that he has nominated a number of categories for merging or renaming at WP:CFD in the four months since the ban. From the ones I reviewed, a majority were approved and none appeared to be disruptive. So from that I would be inclined to lift the category change ban, but I would be open to any other evidence about his recent behavior that would suggest otherwise. --RL0919 (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Presumably if Koafv has been careful to obey this restriction, even with categories that are altogether unrelated to contentious subjects, it shouldn't be a problem. For example, adding the Orwell category to the asteroid article is definitely not disruptive by itself (I did that after reading this thread, and I can't imagine someone becoming angry with me for doing that), and there's no way that such an action is a violation of community-imposed sanctions. As long as Koafv is careful to avoid category-related actions prohibited by the discussion, I don't see why he needs to be prohibited from working with categories altogether. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RL0919 and Nyttend. Justin will be aware that what admins giveth, admins may taketh away. The example above of work at CFD shows that he has abided by the ban while it is in force, as does this request. I say cut a little slack and show a bit of trust here. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

@ RL0919; Well even what you've and Nyttend said does form evidence as Mjroots has rightly pointed out. The form of evidence I was particularly looking for was his acknowledgement/understanding of the issues that brought about the restriction, and assurances. I'm more open to cutting a bit of slack, but that evidence really would help, in my opinion anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable thing to ask for. Justin, assuming you are monitoring this discussion, could you comment on your understanding of why the category-change ban was placed, and how you might do things differently now? --RL0919 (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have had this as a bookmark and checked in occasionally (I was out all day today medical testing, though.) Basically, the thing I was going to bring up was my respect of the CfD process and the fact that I am not otherwise seen as a particularly problematic or disruptive user. I have been brought up on AN/I for naught (I can provide diffs if necessary) and I'm enough of a veteran user that it's clear that my account is not for the purpose of disruption. I don't really know what else to add, honestly. You can respond here or on my talk if you need me (thanks to RL0919 for the heads-up.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin has been blocked 22 times, and although his edit warring is no longer his major problem, he has continued to do it, and doesn't seem to care when his interpretations clash with consensus. He was not brought up at AN/I "for naught", as he claims. There is a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue with Koavf, and at least it was finally dealt with by User:Hiding. I feel that he'll interpret the lifting of any sanctions as carte blanche to run amok through Wikipedia as he did before. Radiopathy •talk• 04:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

and "Retired" doesn't mean that people forget, or that they're not out there watching. Radiopathy •talk• 04:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy I'm not going to get into a protracted discussion about this, as it's essentially irrelevant, but Radiopathy has a personal problem with me. Again, if anyone wants to investigate this matter, feel free or if requested, I will provide diffs. This is not the first time he has intervened to try to get me blocked/banned (none of them successful), and I fear this will not be the last. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It is rather curious that you ask for the sanction to be lifted after both Hiding and I retired. Why now? Did you think your "adversaries" were out of the way and that no one would oppose your request? I don't have a "personal" issue with you at all. Radiopathy •talk• 06:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Curious? I have posted on Hiding's talk about a dozen times on this matter and the last time I went to it, he had retired. What else was I supposed to do? How is this curious? If Hiding was my "adversary" it's news to me. I definitely do not agree with his decision, but he was well-intentioned and I had a generally civil interaction with him. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's not get too embroiled in the past. The issue we should be dealing with here is the request in respect of categories. Justin should understand that he will be, to some extent, under scrutiny by some other editors. The blocks mentioned were all under the previous name, and the last was a year and a half ago. This suggests that the restrictions imposed on him are effective, allowing him to edit productively elsewhere and keeping him away from the areas where his editing was not productive. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I too would like this to stay on topic - I've been looking intently for a sign that Koavf acknowledges or understands why the category-change ban was placed, and explain how he might act differently in the circumstances, but there's no direct response on the topic. The only thing I can see is he says he "respects CFD" which neither tells me anything, nor convinces me. The same goes for his pointing out of the obvious that he isn't a disruption-only account (which would explain why we as a community put him under these particular primary and secondary sanctions, as opposed to a site ban or long block from Wikipedia). Can we please have a direct answer to the actual question (which was restated by RL0919 above)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ban I know why the ban was placed—it's all in the discussion that's been linked but it's essentially a controversial (non-consensus) renaming of several categories that were at speedy CfD. They met a criteria that had been proposed but challenged and the speedy CfD process does not allow renaming if there has been some dispute. I suppose my rationale in bringing up regular CfD (and likely RL0919's above) is that I have shown a clear willingness to seek consensus rather than resort to a unilateral change; which is basically the inverse of the problem at the ban. Otherwise, you have my word to go on, which is simply that I won't make controversial/non-consensus changes of categories nominated for CfD, but that's a bit weaker than the substantial evidence that I just showed and is really implicit in the request to have a ban lifted. If someone wants to scrutinize my editing, that is fine and well with me; I'm pretty responsive on my talk and I've been willing to amend my behavior based on someone else's input (e.g. page moves or posting to talk regarding content disputes.) I can provide diffs if anyone wants; the most recent is this, but there hasn't been any response yet. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Implicitness can sometimes bite those who are ready to relax restrictions, so I preferred the more direct response. ;) I am satisfied with your response to my concern(s)/question(s), and accept your appeal to have the ban lifted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on Justin's response and what I know of his behavior in this area since the ban, I also support lifting the topic ban on adding/removing categories. (No change to the other sanctions, which he is not currently appealing.) --RL0919 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there is consensus to allow the appeal, so consider the appeal granted. Mjroots2 (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Thanks all (almost all); I appreciate it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention backlog

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is pretty backed up. Woogee (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Zoinks! Someone has been busy... —DoRD (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Move assistance

Resolved

Can and admin move Academic All-American to Academic All-America.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I tagged Academic All-America with {{db-move}}. It was pointed at All-America, which is probably why the ESPN program article was created at Academic All-American (whoever started the article about the ESPN progeram really should have simply overwrote the redirect, but C'est la Vie). For future reference though, see WP:RM, as there is a Uncontroversial moves section on there for just this sort of thing. Oh, I hatnote'd the ESPN program article as well, by the way.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at TFD

Could someone close or relist this one from February 20? I can take care of any closing issues (e.g., orphan, modification, redirection, ...), once it has been closed. If that one is already closed, it would be great if someone could look at March 3, which is about 3 days overdue. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick question regarding "Attribution issues"

Resolved

Quick question (hopefully) here, since I am getting stuck in a mess about attribution issues and want to ensure I am grasping the idea correctly here:

If someone userfys an article via a copy and paste, and that article is later deleted, along with a redirect to it which had merged information in it, is there an attribution problem here? The page in question is User:TheChrisD/Ctrl+Alt+Del. The original article Ctrl+Alt+Del was effectively closed as "Delete and redirect", except the delete part was not performed. I ran into the entire scenario after deleting a redirect under G8, as the animated series was now pointing to the keyboard combination after the AfD close, thus I deleted the old revisions of Ctrl+Alt+Del and restored the redirect to allow the redirect to be deleted without GFDL issues, as it had no relevant target.

Thus I now have the scenario of that userfied copy representing over 2,400 revisions from two different pages, and am unsure what should be done here. Do the two pages need to be restored and moved somewhere to be GFDL compliant?

Sorry if this is a confusing messy message, but I am in a bit of a confused mess myself now over all this. Thanks for any help in advance, --Taelus (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Relevant links:

• Ctrl+Alt+Del: The Animated Series, the problematic redirect which was the merge source.
• Ctrl+Alt+Del, the article and merge target which was redirected to the keyboard combination Control Alt Delete.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del, relevant AfD which I interpreted as "Delete and redirect" in a slightly different shape.
• User_talk:Patar_knight#Note_about_Ctrl.2BAlt.2BDel, note I left and reply from closing admin of AfD.
• User_talk:Taelus#Ctrl.2BAlt.2BDel_revisions_deletion, user raising query about the deletion on my talk page.

--Taelus (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• The history needs to visible if the content is, yeah. Delete the userfied version, undelete the deleted mainspace version, move the mainspace version to the userspace location, then undelete the deleted revisions that were in the userspace (if necessary). Probably, you then want to delete the automagically made redirect from the mainspace to the userspace. WilyD 18:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thought so, should I histmerge both the "Animated Series" and main article into one place in their userspace then? That way all the revisions are there in one place. --Taelus (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll go ahead and perform the undeletes/moves/re-deletes/other mess then, so that all the history is visible. :) Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• The histmerge was required to fix the unattributed user copy. However, I think it would have been better to userfy the two articles separately. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages to be created

Please assist Talk:...& Nobody Else, Talk:....The Answer to Both Your Questions, and Talk:Adults!!!: Smart!!! Shithammered!!! And Excited by Nothing!!!!!!! need to have {{Album}} added. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

While you're about it how about remedying the lack of sources in the parent article, which has been tagged as unsourced since 2008. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting addition to bad images list

• file:Caucasian man masturbating.jpg with a possible exception for masturbation (used in other wikipedias but not here) (P.S. Sorry if this is not the right place, I'm lost here!) --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 14:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Deletion would be more appropriate, it's not like we actually need yet another picture of someone wanking. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Of course, since it's on Commons, WP doesn't have the ability to actually delete it- a deletion discussion would have to be held over there. More on topic, the usual place for such requests is MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• I think the term of art there is "yapp" - yet another penis picture. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Come on Guy don't be bashful, you know you really want to upload a picture of your cock to Commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.195.47 (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Help wanted: Copyright work

I cobbled together this sad specimen of the Lolcat breed solely to demonstrate the dire need.

Copyright work on Wikipedia is perpetually backlogged, and more people are desperately needed to help. I know the image side needs help, too, especially as we’ve lost some good, active image admins over the past year. But I’m here to appeal for assistance with text.

Some of the work is rote (as at WP:CP and WP:SCV, comparing an article to a tagged source to make sure it does not copy or closely paraphrase). Some of it is more investigative (as at WP:CCI, doing source checks and google searches of articles created by known infringers). Occasionally, it is confrontational, as some contributors object to the policies regarding importing content and/or your application of it.

I’ve been doing this work pretty much full time for over a year and a half, and I would like to transition my attention more to WP:CCIs, where we have literally thousands of articles waiting for review. I can’t, though, without more help at WP:CP and WP:SCV. We’ve managed to avoid significant backlog at CP for a long time, and I wouldn’t want to see that change. Backlog at SCV is not critical, but it is typically chronic. Of course, even if you would rather work CCIs yourself, there’s plenty to go around. We have something in the neighborhood of 30 open investigations.

I bring this here because admin tools are a big plus, as deletion (selective or entire) is a frequent requirement of the job and blocking is required for persistent violators. However, non-admins also have plenty to do here. On the job training would be cheerfully provided.

I'm hoping to make some real headway in the CCI backlog and also to stave off my own burnout. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As an offhand comment, while I can appreciate your willingness for taking on this task, and the fact that it can be a very important issue to address at times, I have to say that if the rote work is preventing yourself and others from going on "seek and destroy" missions then that's actually good thing. If you'd really like help here though, I'm sure that there are numerous volunteers available at places such as WP:NPP and WP:RCP. There's plenty of testosterone available, if you're willing to look for it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I find that a very curious comment. Did I once speedy delete something of yours that I don't remember? Or do you just generally assume that the people who do copyright work are rampant deletionists? In any event, I appreciate the alternative forum suggestion, but I'm really hoping to find some volunteers here. As I said, admin tools are a big plus in this work. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, as far as I know we've never interacted. The above was, as I indicated, merely an offhand comment. I'd like to clarify that I wasn't accusing, or even discussing, yourself or anyone else of deleting anything (although I'm certain that is an end result in (many?) instances). I was commenting more about the willingness of "editors" to act as "policemen", and the collateral issues that causes (at least occasionally).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, thanks for explaining. It sounded rather as though you were saying that I personally (and my cohort) needed to be kept busy so I don't tear the place up. :) Copyright work is not always about deleting articles, although that does happen quite a lot. It's also about identifying reverse infringement, trying to help good faith contributors work within our Terms of Use and, on occasion, even rewriting articles that were built from material we can't legally use. Abuse of power can certainly happen in most (maybe all) administrative areas, but the administrative work still needs to be done, and in the copyright area we have tons of it to do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:FuturamaRocks caught in an autoblock?

FuturamaRocks (talk · contribs) has posted a request for unblock on their Talk page, apparently they're caught in an autoblock. Woogee (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Tip of the day help

Tip of the day says I need Admin help: I would like to display totd beneath my common sence moto and between my thumb and my clock. Thanks for your help Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Motion regarding Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday

This request has been closed and the final motion is available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday.

The Arbitration Committee notes and deplores the acrimonious nature of the dispute between Shoemaker's Holiday and Durova, and the way it has been needlessly prolonged and intensified on- and off-wiki by both parties, and resolves that:

a) While noting the provisions in paragraph (b):

i) Shoemaker's Holiday shall neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Durova on any page in the English Wikipedia.

ii) Durova shall neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Shoemaker's Holiday on any page in the English Wikipedia.

iii) Both parties are expressly prohibited from responding in kind to perceived violations of sections (i) and (ii) above and should instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email.

b) Both parties may, within reason, comment within the same pages (for example, in the Wikipedia:Featured Pictures topic area and similar) providing their comments do not relate directly or indirectly to the other party. They may also, within reason, revert blatant third-party vandalism to each others' or shared works.

c) Should either Shoemaker's Holiday or Durova violate the letter or spirit of these restrictions, they may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for short periods of up to one week; after the third such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year. All blocks shall be logged below. Appeals of any blocks may be made to the Arbitration Committee.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Starkey (artist)

Could somebody please delete Starkey (artist)? It's been sitting there with a db tag on it for two days. Woogee (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Copylinks needing removal from Scientology talk page history

On the talk page for The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, I placed links to illegally-hosted Scientology publications without realizing they were illegal. I've since removed them, but they remain in the page history. There's about 4 revisions between when I posted them and when I removed them. here is a diff between the first revision containing the links and the first one in which they are removed. Should you delete the intermediate revisions? MutantPlatypus (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fine that the links were removed, per WP:COPYLINKS, but not really necessary to delete the revisions. Will of course defer to others on action on this. -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is indeed necessary to delete revisions, I'd like to know why. I've reverted copyright violations a number of times (I did so today in fact) and if we have to delete copyvios from page histories that is something that should be publicized a bit more than it is (and should definitely be mentioned in WP:LINKVIO). -- Atama頭 18:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The only reason copyright violations are sometimes removed from article histories is to prevent them being restored to the article in the future. It's not normal procedure and happens even less for talk pages; I can't imagine it being necessary to remove linkvios from a talk page history. – Toon

Nod, there is also no disruption or edit-warring going on with this particular page, so it is unlikely the links in question will be restored. -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My guess, then, is that MutantPlatypus made a mistake and wants to make it right, and is trying to go the extra mile in doing so. That's commendable, but I'd venture to say that removing them is good enough. -- Atama頭 19:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I have no opinion on what needs to be done, but the article of the very talk page I did this on taught me about the litigious tendencies of Scientology, so I just wanted to make sure it was brought to administrative attention. (I didn't realize Cirt was an admin and that it had already been evaluated by an admin) -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't act in admin capacities in this subject matter, however. Therefore, I am glad that other admins have weighed in here, and respect that they have come to the same conclusion. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting an edit to a fully protected template.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I found a difference between these two maintenance templates:

As you can see, the difference is that the "related reading" bit of the {{morefootnotes}} template isn't seen. Could someone who is an admin add that in please? Minimac (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, you should go tot he talk page of the template you want edited and add {{editprotected}}, followed by your request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I was about to do that, but it's a template and not an article, so I don't know what to do to be specific. Actually, I have an idea, but I'll do it later, because I'm a little busy today. Minimac (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename of Wikipedia:User page

The user pages guideline has been moved from Wikipedia:User page to Wikipedia:User pages to clarify whether it covers the single user page only (as its old title suggested), the user page and subpages, or user space (as the contents said). All shortcuts still work as before.

Some cleanup, and poor wording refactor also took place - nothing substantive changed. Should help admins working with user page queries, and users who want to better understand community norms.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Good to know page moves are still possible. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban between SkagitRiverQueen and Wildhartlivie

Since it does not appear that SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) and Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) are able to communicate without things spinning out of control, as shown most recently here, I'd like to propose an interaction ban, where neither of them is allowed to comment to or about the other, short of an RFC/U or Arbitration case. Further thoughts? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support I also agree with this as long as RFC/U or arbcom is still allowed to be pursued. The problems have been going on way too long. While we are at it, I would also like to request that this be removed. Thanks for making this suggestion to get it official. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, definitely warranted and perhaps overdue. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:17, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - I'm essentially fine with an interaction ban because I'm tired of everything I do and everything I say being construed by Wildhartlivie as being about her and against her and some kind of planned plot to make her Wikipedia-life miserable (even when I've never said a word about her). I'm tired of the backstabbing that goes on between her and her closest Wikipedia-buddies. That being said, I would like to see a "clause" in the ban to include a few editors who I have seen make snide, behind the back remarks about me to WHL in order to make a point and show some kind of childish anti-SkagitRiverQueen comraderie. These editors would include User:Doc9871, User:Crohnie, User:Vidor, User:Equazcion, and User:Pinkadelica. I'm not asking for a formal interaction ban, just something that keeps them from egging things on and adding fuel to anyone's fire. IOW, once this is done, I would like to see it over with. I don't want to see clever, coded, or middle-school-type comments on article talk pages or WHL's talk page or in edit summaries that have anything to do with past history between WHL and I. IMO, comments from these people in the past have only made matters worse (for both WHL and I) and have been unhelpful and unproductive in general. I'm not asking for an interaction ban (formal or informal) between them and I, but I am asking that once this is done, that they let everything between WHL and I go and move on. If they want to kibbutz and backbite through email, fine. But if they plan on carrying this on publically in the manner they have in the past, I say no - put a stop to it now. One last thing...I am not okay with this ban if it means I will have to stop editing articles that WHL does. She edits too many of the same articles I care about and, with her editing thousands of articles (and likely having many of the same ones on her watchlist that I do), she and I are bound to bump into each other at some point. Asking me to stop editing the articles WHL does would be unfair - the deck would be already stacked in her favor. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am not interested in interacting with SRQ or talking about her except in the context of her edits to articles, which, in the case of the Bundy article I interacted with her on, were generally her holding on to a solitary point of view long after a consensus developed against her edits. Vidor (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Question How far does an "interaction" ban go? If the two editors revise each others' edits, does that count as "interaction", or does it depend on whether it's normal editing or edit-warring? CoM and I were interaction-banned, but the article question never needed resolution, since we had very little crossover on articles. But how would it work if both are editing the same articles frequently? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I was quite happy during the period of time that Lar imposed an informal interaction ban, except, perhaps for the multiple times SkagitRiverQueen violated that ban and nothing was done about it. Just for the record, I have approached or emailed 6 different administrators and some posts to WP:AN/I, who either ignored my requests or said they would help amd did nothing, save SarekOfVulcan, who proposed this ban. In that regard, this is the first constructive thing that any administrators have done since Lar imposed the informal ban, to help the situation, although no one would take any action when it was violated. Having said that, I want to stress that I do not support a ban on filing a WP:RfC/U, WP:AN/I, WP:AN, or ArbCom case regarding SRQ. That is basically jerking my dispute resolution remedies away from me. I also do not support any sort of ban extending to other editors. SRQ was blocked recently for personal attacks or harassment against Crohnie, who is one of her cherrypicked list of editors she wants to drag into this. There is no support for extending this to User:Doc9871, User:Crohnie, User:Vidor, User:Equazcion, and User:Pinkadelica. Including Doc9871 and Equazcion who challenge her behaviors toward other editors, not just me, would effectively remove vocal editors who do not condone her behavior. I have no clue why she would single out Vidor who stays out of it, and including Crohnie, whom she harasses about her friendship with me, and Pinkadelica is totally unsupported. That list is effectively her clearing a path in front of her and is unfounded and unsupported. She basically picked a list of names, all apparently who have been critical of her conduct and this is an attempt to get rid of her opponents, none of which have ever been chastized or blocked for thier conduct toward her. I suggest if she has individual complaints about those editors, that she address each specifically, and not try to drag them into this. As for her statement that she not be banned from articles where she has an "interest", I have a list of 26 articles, to which she followed after her initial dispute with me in December, none of which she had ever shown even a modicum of interest prior to that. The most recent article was last night, where she reverted an edit on her first visit to the article Herculaneum], an article where I first edited on May 29, 2008, and her first was March 13, 2010, my last edit there was March 12, 2010. This history of stalking my edits is completely unacceptable and totally improper. That would include her futile attempt to "insert" herself into a discussion with another editor on an article (Kate Winslet) that I had just taken through WP:GA nomination, and which Lar questioned her motives. It isn't acceptable to stalk another editor to not one or two, but at least 26 different articles upon several of which she stirred the waters and escalated a dispute. How easy is it to follow someone else's edits and appear to edit and dispute? That is clearly what she has done and to reserve her right to edit those articles and talk pages where she has instigated issues is blatantly self-serving and contentious. Each new article where she pops up would become another article upon which I cannot protest her taking over and "helping" the page. Please take a look at her contributions history to see the pattern of disputes in which she is involved. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I've seen this clogging up several dispute resolution boards and talk pages for the last few months. Enough is enough. Either stop mentioning each other, or get banned. --Rschen7754 20:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support: This is becoming very disruptive. I'm glad an admin has finally initiated a response to this escalating disaster. Long overdue and much needed. —Mike Allen 20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Both sides have agreed, this seems like a good way to end some of the drama. I would not extend the ban to any of the other editors SRQ has named unless either they're willing, or she's willing to file RfCs and provide diffs. Dayewalker (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support As is evidenced within this very section, this is needed so the accusations and counter accusations can be put to rest. I would address both SRQ and W now; very few people now care who is right and who is wrong - if you will not comply with this proposal then both will be banned, and editors can get on with other issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• A damn fine idea which will save a lot of people a lot of time and effort.   pablo_hablo. 23:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: An irrelevant exchange was moved to the talk page. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:36, 15 Mar 2010 (UTC)

And it needs to be returned immediately - because others are continuing it here with my prior comments now located somewhere else. Not fair. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Either that or move the continuation there too, which I've done. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:12, 15 Mar 2010 (UTC)

(OD) As above, I think this ban is a good idea, and the above discussion illustrates that. Can an admin go ahead and wrap this one up, since both parties have agreed in principle to it? Dayewalker (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Preferably, an admin-not-being-me, since I proposed it in the first place. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(OD) As a general notice to everyone involved, Equazcion has moved all of the infighting and personal discussion to the talk page. Any further comments about anything other than the topic ban should be taken there. Trust me when I say this, no one is listening to any of you right now. This isn't the time or place for a discussion and details about who did what to whom. Please take it to the talk page, or better yet, just table the matter until the ban is in place and it may not even be relevant any more. Dayewalker (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely relevant to a ban as to whether I am able to file a report here, at WP:RfC/U or an ArbCom case and whether SRQ can continue to stalk my editing and stir up trouble to which I am not allowed to respond. Will someone please address these concerns and not remove my questions, please. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A message was left on Sarek's page, to request that he clarify the terms of the proposed ban. Let's see what he has to say on that. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:19, 15 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Given some of the recent comments here, I've gone ahead and logged the interaction ban at WP:RESTRICT. It's essentially the TheSerialComma/Koalorka ban with added language reserving the right to file and participate in RFC/U and arbitration discussions. The noticeboards are specifically prohibited.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Some business that was cp'd over to WT:AN where it really didn't get on very well with the other, more quieter, threads there. –xenotalk 03:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.